be produced by the presence of an evil spirit. Who would attempt to say that some evil being may not have much to do in the case of madmen?"- Com. on Matt. 4: 24. Rev. H. J. Ripley, in his Notes on the Gospels, endorses this idea. Now we are frank to confess that we cannot thus array the Bible against medical science; and we find it much easier to suppose that Christ adopted the common language of his age in regard to demons, without intending to endorse it, than to suppose that medical science is entirely wrong in the idea that disease has a natural Medical men of this age are not alone in their theory in regard to diseases. Many of the learned in the age of Christ had the same theory. Aristotle said that those supposed to have demons were merely under the influence of melancholy. Hippocrates wrote a work to prove that epilepsy was the effect of natural causes. Plotinus says only the vulgar held that diseases were

cause.

caused by demons.

Origen says this was the opinion of physicians in his times. Pasidonius, the most eminent physician of his times, affirms that insanity was owing, not to demons, but to a redundancy of peccant humors. The opinions of such men are worthy of consideration, for they judged from a knowledge of men and disease, and were not swayed by vulgar superstitions.

But grant that we are wrong on this point, and that diseases were produced by demons, does it follow, as is commonly supposed, that those demons were fallen angels? The argument is, because Christ spoke of them in the common language of his times, he meant to endorse the common opinion on this subject. The question, therefore, arises, what was the common opinion? An answer to this question will be fatal to the popular theory respecting fallen angels.

Dr. Barnes, though usually very accurate in his historical statements, in his argument to prove that persons were actually possessed of evil spirits assumes that they were once angels in heaven. After having presented several considerations to show that real spirits possessed men, and were cast out of them, that what was said concerning the spirits could not have been said of diseases or merely diseased persons, he adds, “Nor is there any absurdity in the opinion that those persons were really under the influence of devils. First. It is no more absurd to suppose that

an angel, or many angels, should have fallen and become wicked, than that so many men should. Second. It is no more absurd that Satan should have possession of the human faculties. or inflict diseases, than that men should do it; a thing which is done every day," &c. - See Com. on Matt. 4: 24. Here we see his assumption. First he attempts to prove that men actually had in them evil spirits, and then takes it for granted that those spirits were once angels in heaven.

Now if demons were fallen angels the fact was unknown to the Jewish people. Their idea of them was entirely different. We have the best authority for saying that the common opinion among them was, that demons were the spirits of the dead. Josephus, in his writings, makes frequent reference to them; and in his Jewish War, book vII., chap. vi., sect. 3, speaking of a very remarkable root he says, "Yet after all this pains in getting, it is only valuable on account of one virtue it hath, that if it be only brought to the sick persons, it quickly drives away those called demons, which are no other than the spirits of the wicked, that enter into men that are alive and kill them, unless they can obtain some help against them." Here was the Jewish opinion. Demons were the spirits of the wicked, and not fallen angels. Admit, then, that in the time of Christ such spirits did actually possess men, and it affords not a particle of proof that angels fell from heaven. Dr. Barnes, therefore, gains nothing to sustain his theory respecting fallen angels, and is reduced to the necessity of admitting that demons were only the spirits of dead men.

In conclusion, let me say, in thus adapting himself to the language of his times, Jesus shows that it was better to allow a mere superstition, which affected none of the vital questions concerning God, or the plan of salvation, or the principles of duty, to be removed by time and the general influence of his religion, than for him to turn aside from his great work to refute it. He came to establish his divine system of truth, and to this work he consecrated his whole time, leaving minor errors, and especially those pertaining to science, to be corrected by others. On theology and on religious and moral duty, instead of passing over errors, he was entirely different, and sought to displace error by truth.

O. A. S.