Collected Essays, Volume V | Page 4

interests of
ordinary veracity dictate this course, in relation to a matter of so little
consequence as this, what must be our obligations in respect of the
treatment of a question which is fundamental alike for science and for
ethics? For not only does our general theory of the universe and of the
nature of the order which pervades it, hang upon the answer; but the
rules of practical life must be deeply affected by it.
The belief in a demonic world is inculcated throughout the Gospels and
the rest of the books of the New Testament; it pervades the whole
patristic literature; it colours the theory and the practice of every
Christian church down to modern times. Indeed, I doubt if, even now,
there is any church which, officially, departs from such a fundamental
doctrine of primitive Christianity as the existence, in addition to the
Cosmos with which natural knowledge is conversant, of a world of
spirits; that is to say, of intelligent agents, not subject to the physical or
mental limitations of humanity, but nevertheless competent to interfere,
to an undefined extent, with the ordinary course of both physical and
mental phenomena.
More especially is this conception fundamental for the authors of the
Gospels. Without the belief that the present world, and particularly that
part of it which is constituted by human society, has been given over,
since the Fall, to the influence of wicked and malignant spiritual beings,
governed and directed by a supreme devil--the moral antithesis and
enemy of the supreme God--their theory of salvation by the Messiah
falls to pieces. "To this end was the Son of God manifested, that he
might destroy the works of the devil."[3]
The half-hearted religiosity of latter-day Christianity may choose to
ignore the fact; but it remains none the less true, that he who refuses to
accept the demonology of the Gospels rejects the revelation of a
spiritual world, made in them, as much as if he denied the existence of
such a person as Jesus of Nazareth; and deserves, as much as any one
can do, to be ear-marked "infidel" by our gentle shepherds.
* * * * *

Now that which I thought it desirable to make perfectly clear, on my
own account, and for the sake of those who find their capacity of belief
in the Gospel theory of the universe failing them, is the fact, that, in my
judgment, the demonology of primitive Christianity is totally devoid of
foundation; and that no man, who is guided by the rules of
investigation which are found to lead to the discovery of truth in other
matters, not merely of science, but in the everyday affairs of life, will
arrive at any other conclusion. To those who profess to be otherwise
guided, I have nothing to say; but to beg them to go their own way and
leave me to mine.
I think it may be as well to repeat what I have said, over and over again,
elsewhere, that a priori notions, about the possibility, or the
impossibility, of the existence of a world of spirits, such as that
presupposed by genuine Christianity, have no influence on my mind.
The question for me is purely one of evidence: is the evidence adequate
to bear out the theory, or is it not? In my judgment it is not only
inadequate, but quite absurdly insufficient. And on that ground, I
should feel compelled to reject the theory; even if there were no
positive grounds for adopting a totally different conception of the
Cosmos.
For most people, the question of the evidence of the existence of a
demonic world, in the long run, resolves itself into that of the
trustworthiness of the Gospels; first, as to the objective truth of that
which they narrate on this topic; second, as to the accuracy of the
interpretation which their authors put upon these objective facts. For
example, with respect to the Gadarene miracle, it is one question
whether, at a certain time and place, a raving madman became sane,
and a herd of swine rushed into the lake of Tiberias; and quite another,
whether the cause of these occurrences was the transmigration of
certain devils from the man into the pigs. And again, it is one question
whether Jesus made a long oration on a certain occasion, mentioned in
the first Gospel; altogether another, whether more or fewer of the
propositions contained in the "Sermon on the Mount" were uttered on
that occasion. One may give an affirmative answer to one of each of
these pairs of questions and a negative to the other: one may affirm all,
or deny all.
In considering the historical value of any four documents, proof when

they were written and who wrote them is, no doubt, highly important.