The apparent diseases of demoniacs, then, are obviously nothing more than certain effects produced upon the organism by the agency of the indwelling demon, in opposition to any derangement of the system arising from physical causes. And this explains a circumstance otherwise unaccountable, that fever, leprosy, palsy, and a number of other diseases, clearly arising from a disordered state of the functions or other natural causes, are never met with in demoniacs. There is clearly no connection between the entrance of a demon into the body and an impure state of a fluid. And whilst the Scripture affords decisive evidence, as we have already seen, that the devil possesses the power of inflicting diseases, it is, we conceive, of the utmost importance that such agency should be kept perfectly distinct from demoniacal possession. Unless this be done, we shall involve the subject in the greatest confusion.

6

The fact of actual bodily possession by demons (termed daovíζεσθαι, ἔχειν δαιμόνιον) is so distinctly and repeatedly asserted by our Lord and the Evangelists, that it is extraordinary how biblical commentators can attempt to explain it away. There can be no doubt, however, that an unwillingness to admit supernatural agency is the real cause why the notion that the demoniacs of the Gospel were merely persons afflicted with certain diseases, prevails so extensively amongst learned men, both in Germany and in this country. The mode in which the opponents of the doctrine of real possession seek to evade all that is conclusive in the language of Christ and the Evangelists is by resolving it into a mere usus loquendi, or adaptation to the popular mode of speaking. There can be no doubt,' say they, that it was the general belief of the Jewish nation, except the Sadducees, that demons did possess human beings at that time; but the fact and real state of the case was, that the whole phenomena were caused by diseases, and that Jesus and his Apostles were under the necessity of expressing themselves in popular language, and of seeming to admit, or at least not of denying, its correctness.' Such is the argument employed by a writer in the Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature, who adopts that side of the question. It is not, however, stating the case fairly, we think, to say that Jesus and his Apostles seemed to admit, or at least did not deny,' that demons possessed men in those days. These expressions are altogether inconsistent with the acknowledged fact, that the circumstance of an evil spirit having entered into a human being is stated or implied in the New Testament in almost every conceivable form of expression. Demons are described as entering into men, tormenting and injuring them in various ways; and of coming out of them at the command of

Article Demoniacs.'

Christ and his Apostles. They are represented by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as speaking and performing various acts through the instrumentality of those whom they possessed. Christ too often addresses them, converses with them, and forbids them to make him known (Mark i. 34, marg.). Besides which, it is important to notice that our Lord, in his private conversations with his disciples, not only omits to make any remark calculated to undermine the notion of demoniacal possession, but, on the contrary, speaks repeatedly on a supposition of its truth. In giving commission to the Twelve, for example, our Lord is said to have bestowed on them power against unclean spirits to cast them out (Matt. x. 1). When the Seventy returned to Him and said, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name;' His answer was, 'I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven' (Luke x. 18). Lastly, when the disciples, unable to dispossess the young man, described by his father as a lunatic, inquired of our Lord the reason in private, He told them it was because of their unbelief,' . . . and added, this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting' (Matt. xvii. 20). Surely all this is widely different from 'seeming to admit, or at least not denying, the correctness' of the popular notion.

6

Another important fact in connection with this subject is, that the writers of the New Testament, in many passages, distinguish between diseased persons and demoniacs. Mark informs us, for example, that at even when the sun did set they brought Him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils' (ch. 1. 32). Luke, too, speaks of a great multitude who came to hear Him, and to be healed of their diseases,' and then adds, and they that were vexed with unclean spirits' (ch. vi. 18). And our Lord in the commission which He gave to the Apostles after His resurrection says, 'These signs shall follow them that believe; in My name shall they cast out devils, they shall speak with new tongues, they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them: they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover' (Mark xvi. 17, 18). These and similar passages in the Gospels appear certainly to favour the notion that demoniacs were altogether distinct from diseased persons. But what establishes the fact beyond all doubt, we conceive, is the different mode of treatment employed in the two cases. The sick were healed by the imposition of hands and anointing of oil. The possessed were simply exorcised in the name of Jesus. Hence it is stated of the Seventy, They cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick' (Mark vi. 13). So in the passage just quoted, In My name shall they cast out devils,

6

they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover

(Mark

(Mark xvi. 17). And it will be remembered that James directs the same treatment to be employed in case of sickness' Is any sick among you, let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord' (James v. 14). It is quite evident, then, that diseased persons were treated in a manner altogether different from demoniacs, and this too by the special command of Christ himself. How can this be accounted for? The only possible explanation which is satisfactory, appears to us to be, that the one were diseased, the other were not. The one were afflicted with natural disorders of the body, the other were vexed with unclean spirits. A broad and palpable distinction, such as this, would evidently afford ground for a different treatment of the two classes. And, therefore, when our Lord instructed his disciples to lay hands on the sick, and they should recover;' He also gave them power over unclean spirits,' and without this gift demoniacs would still have been placed beyond their reach.

6

We proceed to state that the superhuman knowledge displayed. by the demoniacs of the New Testament affords conclusive evidence of the reality of demoniacal possessions. In many of the cases recorded by the Evangelists, these wretched subjects of infernal malice bear the most striking and powerful testimony to the person and work of Jesus. The demoniac in the synagogue at Capernaum is represented as exclaiming, 'I know thee who thou art: the Holy One of God' (Mark i. 24). Similarly, the Gadarene demoniac is said to have addressed Jesus: What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most High? In reply to the argument afforded by these and similar passages, the writer of the article in Kitto's Cyclopædia says, 'It cannot be proved that all the demoniacs knew Jesus to be the Messiah.' But what is

the real state of the case? If we pass by those instances in which the evil spirit is expressly said to be dumb, we shall find that every circumstantial narrative of the healing of a demoniac mentions the testimony borne by the demon to the person of the Son of God, except the single one of the Syrophenician's daughter, which, being performed at a distance, quite precluded such a manifestation. With this solitary exception, there is not one instance of an interview between our Lord and a demoniac, being circumstantially related, in which this recognition of his character does not form a prominent feature. Besides which, in some of the summary notices of our Lord's ministry, which contain a reference to the cure of possessed persons, the same fact is stated. For example, Mark, after stating that Christ had healed many persons of their diseases, adds, ' and unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God. And he straitly

charged

charged them that they should not make him known' (ch. iii. 12). In another place the same Evangelist records that our Lord' cast out many devils, and suffered not the devils to speak because they knew him' (ch. i. 34). The presumption therefore clearly is, that this marvellous recognition of the Messiah by demoniacs always occurred, since the only cases where it is not mentioned are certain general notices, which could not be expected to include every particular. In the Acts of the Apostles, too, in the few instances of demoniacal possession which are circumstantially related, we find the same marvellous discernment of character. When Paul and Silas were at Philippi, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination (of Apollo-пvεvμα Пiewvos) met them and followed them, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the Most High God, who shew unto us the way of salvation; and this she did many days' (ch. xvi. 16, 17). During the same apostle's stay at Corinth he cast out evil spirits from possessed persons; and then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded' (Acts xix. 13-16).

6

With these facts before us, it is impossible to suppose that the demoniacs of the New Testament were mere lunatics and madmen, because the notion that such persons possessed clearer views of the character of Christ than the rest of mankind is altogether too extravagant to be entertained. It is quite certain that the Jews were very far from believing that he was the Messiah-much less that he was the Son of God. When our Lord inquired of his disciples, at an advanced period of his ministry, Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am?' they informed him, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some Elias; and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets.' And as to the disciples themselves, although Jesus was considered as the Christ from the very first (John i. 42), yet it was only after continued intercourse with him and by the revelation of the Father that they regarded him as the Son of God. Hence when Peter, in the place just referred to, said to Jesus, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' the answer of our Lord was, 'Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona : for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven' (v. 16, 17). How then can we possibly account for the fact that the demoniacs possessed this knowledge

6

of

of Christ from the very commencement of his ministry (Mark i. 24 and 34), on the supposition that they were simply diseased persons, and especially maniacs? That evil spirits should recognise the person of him who was to pass sentence upon them at the last day, is only what we might expect; but that persons whose intellects were affected, or whose bodies were convulsed, should stand out from the rest of the Jews on account of the remarkable knowledge which they possessed respecting the person and work of Christ is altogether inconceivable. Nor is the case materially altered even if we grant that not all the demoniacs knew Christ to be the Messiah; for the difficulty connected with the fact that so large a number of insane and otherwise diseased persons as still remain, agreed in bearing such a testimony to the Saviour when he was unknown to the rest of the Jews, is clearly insurmountable.

6

We alluded in a foregoing page to the testimony of the Gadarene demoniac to the divinity of Christ; but the narrative of the healing of this unhappy individual is so beset with difficulties, as viewed by Rationalists, as to demand a separate consideration. According to the narrative given by Luke, this individual, who always night and day was in the tombs,' when he saw Jesus 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' (Luke viii. 28). Now, on the supposition that this is the language of a mere maniac, it is altogether inconceivable what could be the meaning of his entreaty that Christ would not torment him. According to the explanation given by Rationalists, the language refers to the cruel treatment of the insane in those times, in which he had no doubt shared, in the attempts of men to tame them. But such an opinion is altogether inconsistent with the statement made by these same writers, that the demoniac came to Jesus because he had heard of his fame, and wished to be healed. It is quite impossible that the same individual should seek relief from Christ, and at the same time deprecate any interference with his case, and passionately supplicate for mercy. Some of the German writers have employed the following ingenious supposition, by way of explaining the difficulty:-They suggest that the demoniac set off to meet Christ in a lucid moment, but being heated by running, or excited by the words of Jesus, fell into a paroxysm, in which, assuming the character of a demon, he entreated that the expulsion should be deferred. But, as Strauss has well observed, the closely consecutive narrative of the Evangelist is obviously inconsistent with

d Naturliche Geschichte, ii. 147; Paulus, Ex eg. Hand., i. 473; apud Strauss.

the