promote the same general object, but in a capacity more humble and confined, he employs virtuous men. Men of a different character exist under his government, and are by no means inactive. Even them too, he often employs, in fulfilling the purposes of his infinite wisdom; not by impelling them to sin,— not by infusing into them evil desires; but by overruling, to the best purposes, those actions, which, without such impulse or infusion, they choose to perform.

Now, if there be vicious beings of a rank superior to men, it is strikingly analogous, that they too should be suffered to exhibit their characters, i. e. to perform vicious actions, and that these actions should be so restrained and overruled, as to advance those designs, which it was their tendency to impede, or render abortive.

But III. The doctrine of demoniacal possessions is said to be inconsistent with the proof of divine revelation which arises from miracles. For if evil spirits can produce such effects, as this opinion ascribes to them, how can we be certain, that any system of religion is of divine origin, merely because it is accompanied by miracles.-To this I reply,

1. That from the perfections of God, and from facts recorded in Scripture, we may be confident, that no invisible agent will ever be permitted to exhibit such works in favor of falsehood, as are not accompanied with greater works in favor of the truth. We can by no means imagine, that God would remove restraints from invisible agents, with intention that men should be deceived. If, therefore, visible effects are permitted, contrary to the established course of events, with design to confirm a lie, we may be confident, that greater effects will be produced, by which such proof will be counteracted. Accordingly we find, that when the magicians entered into contest with Moses, and either performed real miracles by infernal influence, or practised legerdemain with great dexterity, he, by the finger of God, was enabled to cover with shame, those, who instituted the competition.

2. There is another criterion of very great value; I mean

the moral tendency of those doctrines, in favor of which the miracles are wrought. No external evidence would be sufficient to convince us of the divine origin of a system, enjoining, or decidedly allowing immorality.

But the objection we are now considering, whether brought against revelation, or against that particular tenet, which implies the influence of demons, is, I apprehend, of very little practical importance. For, there is not probably a person on earth, tolerably enlightened, who would reject Christianity, if once convinced, that those miracles recorded in the Gospel were in fact wrought. Persons may pretend to disbelieve, and some do disbelieve, that the miracles attributed to Christ, were ever wrought; but for many centuries, no infidel, after acknowledging these, has rejected the Gospel. Such an absurdity, after all the proof which has been given of the benign influence which Christianity has on the human character, will, it is probable, never again be witnessed.

But suppose you were to meet a person, of so extraordinary a cast of mind, as to allow the truth of evangelical history, so far as it relates to the expulsion of demons by our Saviour, and yet professing himself wholly uncertain, as to the moral character of Christ, and whether his miraculous powers were derived from above or beneath. Concerning the moral character of possessing demons, he could have no doubt. Their malignity was rendered sufficiently plain, by the sufferings which they occasioned, and by the torments which they acknowledged were in reserve for them. The interest of Christ, it is evident, was opposite to theirs. To those whom they afflicted, he restored sanity both of body and mind. Our Saviour himself showed the absurdity, as well as impiety of the opinion, that he cast out demons by infernal influence. "If Satan cast out Sa

tan, he is divided against himself: how then shall his kingdom stand?" With such an objector as we have supposed, you have nothing further do do, than to ask, Whether it be a matter of uncertainty, that the opposite of darkness is light; and the opposite of malignity, is benevolence? Whether a person in

league with the powers of darkness, would have done more towards enlightening this world, not only than any individual, whether prince or philosopher, but incomparably more than all inspired men of every age? Whether a person whose character was that of deceit, consummate falsehood and impiety, as the character of Jesus must have been, if he wrought miracles by infernal power, would have set himself, summis viribus, against every vice, every prejudice, and corrupt propensity: and while he exhibited in his own life, unparalleled and untarnished purity, would have communicated to the world a system of religion, which was never embraced by a nation, a community, or an individual, without producing an extraordinary measure of happiness and virtue; a religion whose votaries are the excellent of the earth, just in proportion as they honor its author nd conform to his precepts.

But you will never, I am confident, have occasion to resort to this reasoning. You will never meet a person, who, after being convinced that Christ wrought the miracles, which are attributed to him, will deny the truth and divinity of the Gospel. Whenever he acknowledges, that Jesus did eject demons, no doubts will be pretended, whether it were done by Beelzebub, or by the finger of God.

Now if a vast majority of Christians, far from being stumbled at the doctrine of demoniacal possessions, believe Christianity the more firmly on account of that power which Christ displayed in counteracting them; and if infidels do never reason in the manner which the objector supposes, and if they did, could be answered with perfect facility, how little ground does this objection afford for discarding the opinion usually received.

LECTURE LII.

ON DEMONIACS.

It is my present object to consider some of those passages in the New Testament, which relate to demoniacal possessions; that we may better judge, whether they can be reconciled with the opinion, that nothing more is meant, than bodily distempers.

In giving an account of our Saviour's preparing his twelve apostles for their ministry, Mark uses the following language: And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, and to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out demons. Here, you perceive, that the ejection of demons is clearly distinguished from the cure of diseases. Now, if demonized persons were merely under the influence of natural disorders, why should the sacred historian make this distinction? On this supposition, it is very evident, that the latter clause conveys no new idea at all; it only reiterates part of what has just been asserted. Say, if you please, that demonized persons had a particular kind of disorder. Be it so. The language will, however, be precisely similar to this: He sent them forth to cure sickness, and to cure fevers. What conceivable need is there for adding the latter clause ?

In the Gospel of St. Luke, we find observed the same distinction between those who were demonized and those who were sick; for he speaks of "certain women, who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities;" and when the twelve disciples were actually sent forth, their commission was couched in similar language: Then called he his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure dis

eases. Further, Jesus said in relation to Herod: Go and tell that fox, Behold I cast out demons, and do cures.

Now, let it be considered, that whatever may be the truth, as to demoniacal possessions, the Jews, in our Saviour's time, did believe in them. And is it not extremely evident, that the language which our Saviour used, was calculated to confirm them in their opinion? The sentiment if true, is an error of no inconsiderable magnitude. According to the ideas of our opponents, it is an error of great magnitude. It has filled the world, they tell us, with various kinds of superstition. It is inconsistent with scriptural ideas of divine supremacy, and even with that proof of revelation, which arises from miracles. But if this be true, our Saviour must have known it, as well as the gentlemen who make these remarks. Is it not then surprising, that he said nothing to correct the error? But he did more than barely to leave them in quiet possession of the opinion; he did much, it would seem, to establish it. This will further appear from other passages. The following account is given us by St. Luke: When he came forth to land, there met him out of the city a man which had demons a long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs, when he saw Jesus, he cried out and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not. For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For often times it had caught him; and he was kept bound with chains and in fetters; and he brake the bands, and was driven of the demon into the wilderness. And Jesus asked of the demon, What is thy name? And he said, Legion, because many demons had entered into him. And they besought him, that he would not command them to go out into the deep. And there was an herd of many swine, feeding on the mountain, And they besought him, that he would suffer them to enter into them; and he suffered them. Then went the demons out of the man and entered into the swine. And the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked.