the idea of any change having taken place in the man's mind: Seeing-he ran-and worshipped-and cried—and said.'

The Evangelist Matthew, in his narrative of the transaction, inserts an expression which the other two have omitted: Art thou come hither to torment us before the time?' (gò nago). Still further difficulty is encountered in explaining this. How is it possible to understand this, on the supposition that it is a mere madman? Those commentators who will acknowledge no spiritual agency here, are quite unable to give any explanation of the matter. Some of the ablest works on the side of the Rationalists carefully avoid all reference to the difficulty. In fact, it must be confessed altogether impossible to attach any meaning to the expression before the time,' if we regard the Gadarene demoniac as simply a human being suffering from insanity.

6

On the other hand, if we admit, according to the literal statement of the inspired writer, that this was the language of one of the possessing demons whose name was Legion, all is plain and in harmony with the whole tenour of Scripture. It is the acknowledgment on the part of those apostate spirits of the most terrible fact in their history, that there is a time coming when their protracted rebellion shall be crushed, and they shall receive at length the doom which their unparalleled crimes have incurred. The Apostle Peter says that the angels who kept not their first estate are reserved in chains. ... unto the judgment of the great day' (2 Pet. ii. 4). Our Lord too speaks of the fire prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matt. xxv.); and the apostle, in one of those visions of futurity which were presented to his view in the isle of Patmos, beheld the devil cast into the lake of fire, to be tormented for ever and ever' (Rev. xx. 10). How natural, then, that beings from whose minds the fearful anticipation of such a punishment is never long absent, should, when suddenly confronted with their judge, thus expostulate with him for interfering with them before the appointed time! In perfect accordance with this exposition is the subsequent statement of the Evangelist Luke: ' And they besought him that he would not command them to go out unto the deep' (viii. 31). The word rendered deep by our translators in this passage is aßuosos, which does not take this meaning. It occurs only in Rom. x. 7, and in the Revelation (ix. 1, 2, 11; xi. 7; xvii. 8; xx. 1, 3), and invariably denotes the bottomless pit-the place of torment-hell. The request was therefore equivalent to that in the previous verse, 'I beseech thee torment me not.' The phraseology in Mark's narrative is different : And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country.' The word rendered country is xaga, region; which is probably used in reference to a fact which appears to be

implied

implied in other parts of Scripture, that both good and evil angels have certain regions assigned to them (see Dan. x. 13, 20). If this be the fact, it is most probable that being driven away from the region assigned to an evil spirit would be identical with being sent into the bottomless pit. In this case the apparently diverse statements between the Evangelists would perfectly harmonise.

The principal difficulty connected with the history of the Gadarene demoniac remains to be noticed, the passage of the demons into the herd of swine, and the consequent results. The following is the narrative of Mark, with whom Matthew and Luke substantially agree: Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding. And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them. And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out and entered into the swine. And the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea (they were about two thousand) and were choked in the sea' (ch. v. 11-13). In this remarkable narrative, it is manifest at the first glance that every attempt to explain the particulars by referring to the usus loquendi must altogether fail. It was no part of the popular belief that demons ever possessed brutes. Besides, the effect produced upon the swine proves incontestably that the expelled demons had a real existence, and were not the mere chimeras of the imagination which some would have them to be. Endless have been the attempts of biblical scholars to explain the occurrence without having recourse to supernatural agency. All of them, however, agree in this, that they are utterly irreconcilable with the plain language of the narrative. With some the destruction of the swine was a mere accident, for which no cause can be assigned. With others, it was the demoniacs themselves who rushed upon the swine and frightened them into the sea. In short, the passage has been tortured in every possible way in order to make it square with the prejudices of those who are resolved to acknowledge no spiritual agency in such matters. The plain, self-evident declaration of the three Evangelists, however, can never be made to assume any other sense than the one generally assigned to it,—the transition of the legion of demons into the swine, and the destruction of the animals by their agency in the sea :- And the unclean spirits went out and entered into the swine; and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and were choked in the

sea.

On the other hand, if we understand the narrative literally, the circumstances referred to admit of an easy explanation. To those

e

Paulus, Fritzsche in Matt., § 330.

who

who believe, according to the Scripture, that Satan deceived our first parents by entering into the body of a serpent, it will seem no difficult matter for a legion of demons-whatever may be the precise number denoted by that term-to enter into two thousand swine. Dr. Strauss, in his celebrated Life of Jesus, asks, 'What did the demons gain by entering into the animals, if they immediately destroyed the bodies of which they had taken possession; and thus robbed themselves of the temporary abode which they had so earnestly entreated?' This objection, however, proceeds upon an erroneous idea of the motives of the demons in entering the swine. The fact is, they only desired to do this as a means to an end. In obtaining permission to enter the swine was involved what they so earnestly desired-not to be sent into the bottomless pit. And in immediately destroying their temporary habitation, they accomplished two objects: first, they set themselves free to enter whatever human beings it might be in their power to possess ; and also restrained the power of our Lord in his ministry of good, by prejudicing the minds of the people against him. The latter object we know was accomplished: for the whole multitude of the Gadarenes besought him to depart from them; for they were taken with great fear.'

An attempt has been made to undermine the whole doctrine of demoniacal possession, by denying that the term demon (Sapovov, Saíuwv) refers in the Scripture to the fallen angels. According to Farmer, the word is never applied to Satan and his host, but to the souls or spirits of dead men, who were the principal objects of worship by the heathen. The Seventy use the word in the same sense as did the Jews universally in the time of Christ. Hence, to suppose that Christ and his Apostles would use the term in any other sense, would be to cast on them a foul reproach, and charge them with guilt of the deepest dye. And, therefore, inasmuch as these souls of dead men could not be present in the world, they could not possess any person, and the whole doctrine of possession falls to the ground. This opinion has been followed by most of the German commentators, and also by the writer of the article DEMON in the Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature. The latter says, 'It is frequently supposed that the demons of the New Testament are fallen angels; on the contrary, it is maintained by Farmer that the word is never applied to the devil and his angels, and that there is no sufficient reason for restricting the term to spirits of a higher order than mankind. It is but fair and natural to suppose that the writers of the New Testament use the word demons in the same sense in which it was used by their contemporaries, which,

Farmer on Demoniacs, p. 43.

as

as it appears from Josephus and other authorities, was that of the spirits of the wicked; and that if these writers had meant anything else, they would have given notice of so wide a deviation from popular usage. The writings of the Fathers show that they sometimes understood demons to be fallen angels; at other times they use the word in the same sense as the ancient philosophers. Justin Martyr affirms "those persons who are seized and thrown down by the souls of the deceased are such as all men agree in calling demoniacs or mad."'g

In noticing this objection, which, it is evident, strikes at the very root of the doctrine of real possession, we shall first attempt to show that the term demons (or devils, as rendered in our Version) does denote the devil and his angels; and then examine into the meaning of the word as used by contemporary writers and Fathers of the church. As to the first point, that our Lord and the Jews in general, except the Sadducees, understood by the term demons those wicked spirits who kept not their first estate,' is capable of the clearest proof from a conversation between our Lord and the Scribes on the occasion of the healing of a demoniac. It is thus recorded by Mark-- And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, "He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils ;" and he calleth them unto him and said unto them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end." Now, it is admitted, we believe, by all, that in this passage Satan ( Zaravas) and the devil are the same; and Satan is spoken of as identical with Beelzebub, the prince of the demons. Hence, in the opinion of the Jews, as well as our Lord himself, the devil was the prince of those demons who possessed men, and who are, accordingly, in other passages represented as his angels (see Matt. xxv. 41, and Rev. xii. 7).

We cannot but regard this as a complete demonstration of the fact, that the term demons in the Scriptures refers to the fallen angels. A trivial objection has indeed been made to the argument. It has been said that if it proves anything it also proves that the word Satan is equivalent to daónov. But it should be δαιμόνιον. remembered that there is an absolute necessity for assigning a figurative import to the word in this case. In the very nature of things, it is quite impossible for any being literally to contend against himself. The only way in which the language Satan rise up against Satan can be understood is, by regarding the term

8 Apoll. i. ii. p. 65. Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature, art. 'Demon.'

Satan

Satan in the latter instance as figurative, and significant of the power, government, or cause of the great adversary of man.

The assertion that the word demon was used by contemporary writers to denote the spirits of dead men is wholly unsupported by proof. The only writer whose authority can be adduced in support of this statement is Josephus, who certainly does say that 'demons are no other than the souls of wicked men, that enter into men and destroy them.' But it is well known that Josephus received his education in the schools of the Grecian philosophers, hence it is impossible to know whether, in this statement, he is expressing the opinion of demoniacal possession which prevailed amongst the Greeks, or that which was current in Palestine.

The writings of the Fathers are also referred to as affording evidence that the words Saμóvior and Saíuwv were used in the sense of the souls of the deceased. This proof too is equally destitute of real ground. The only Father whose authority can be produced on this side the question is Justin Martyr. This writer, in one passage of his Apology, has used the term in the alleged sense. It is as follows:-Those persons who are seized and thrown down by the souls of the deceased are such as all men agree in calling demoniacs or mad.' But this opinion can scarcely be said to be Justin's own, for he is here labouring to convince the heathens of the immortality of the soul from their own acknowledged sentiments. Besides which, he uses the word repeatedly elsewhere in the Scriptural sense, to denote the fallen angels. In his dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, for instance, when attempting to prove the existence of apostate angels, he quotes the ninety-sixth Psalm, ὅτι οἱ θεοὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν δαιμόνιά εἰσιν —the gods of the heathen are demons. And in his Cohort. ad Græcos, speaking of the devil who deceived our first parents, he calls him 8 martρwños Saíuwv-the man-hating demon. We certainly cannot look upon Justin Martyr, then, as a witness that Sauóviov, Saiμwv, denoted the souls of the deceased, especially as his pupil Tatian expressly asserts the contrary. In his Orat. cont. Græc., he says, Δαίμονες δὲ οἱ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἐπιτάττοντες οὐκ εἰσίν αἱ τῶν ἀνθρώπων Yuxai The demons who govern men are not the souls of men.' In a previous passage, too, he asserts of demons that they were ἐκβλητοι τῆς ἐν οὐρανῷ διαίτης γεγενημένοι-cast out from the heavenly conversation. Theophilus of Antioch, too, calls him who tempted Eve the evil-working demon (Saíuav), who is also called Satan.' And Tertullian, in the same century, speaks of demons as the authors of the fall of man." Very many other proofs to the

m See his Apol. adv. Gent., at the beginning of ch. xxiii.

Ad Autolyc., ii. 104.

same