Demoniacs

Demoniacs, demonized persons, in the New Testament, are those who were supposed to have a demon or demons occupying them, suspending the faculties of their minds, and governing the members of their bodies, so that what was said and done by the demoniacs was ascribed to the indwelling demon.

The correctness of the opinion respecting those who are called demoniacs in the New Testament which prevailed among the Jews and other nations in the time of our Lord and his Apostles, has been called in question. On the one hand it is urged that the details of the evangelical history afford decisive evidence of the truth and reality of demoniacal possessions in the sense already explained, at least during the commencement of Christianity; on the other hand it is contended that the accounts in question may all be understood as the phenomena of certain diseases, particularly hypochondria, insanity, and epilepsy; that the sacred writers used the popular language in reference to the subject, but that they themselves understood no more than that the persons were the subjects of ordinary diseases. Here issue is joined—and it is to the evidence in this cause that our attention will now be directed.

Those who contend that the demoniacs were really possessed by an evil spirit, urge the following considerations:—

1. The demoniacs express themselves in a way unusual for hypochondriacal, insane, or epileptic persons (Mat 8:29; Mar 1:24); they possessed supernatural strength (Mar 5:4); they adjure Jesus not to torment them; they answer the questions proposed to them in a rational manner; they are distinctly said to have ’come out of’ men and to have ’entered into swine,’ and that consequently the whole herd, amounting to about two thousand, ran violently down a precipice into the sea (Mat 8:32; Mar 5:13). The supposition which has been maintained by Lardner among others, that the swine were driven into the sea by the demoniacs, is irreconcilable with the language of the narrative, being also highly improbable in itself: madmen do not act in concert, and rarely pursue the same train of maniacal reasoning.

2. No mental diseases are predicated of the dumb (Mat 9:32), or of the blind and dumb (Mat 12:22). Do such diseases ever produce blindness?

3. It is admitted that the symptoms of the youth described Mat 17:15; Mar 9:17; Luk 9:39, coincide precisely with those of epilepsy, but they are attributed to the agency of the demon in that very account.

4. The damsel at Philippi is said to have been possessed with a spirit of divination, which was the means of obtaining much gain to her masters, and to have understood the divine commission of Paul and his companions (Act 16:17). Is this to be ascribed merely to an aberration of mind?

5. The demoniacs themselves confess that they were possessed with demons (Mar 5:9): the same is asserted of them by their relatives (Mat 15:22). The Apostles and Evangelists assert that persons possessed with demons were brought unto Jesus (Mat 4:24; Mar 1:32), or met him (Luk 8:27). Jesus commands them not to make him known as the Messiah (Mar 1:34, margin); rebuked them (Mat 17:18). The Evangelists declare that the demons departed from their victims at his command (Mat 17:18; Mar 9:25-26; Luk 4:35; Luk 11:14); and Jesus himself asserts it (Luk 13:32).

6. The writers of the New Testament make distinctions between the diseased and the demoniacs (Mar 1:32; Luk 6:17-18); and Jesus himself does so (Mat 10:8, etc.)

7. The demoniacs knew Jesus to be the son of God (Mat 8:29; Mar 1:24; Mar 5:7), and the Christ (Luk 4:41).

8. Jesus addresses the demons (Mat 8:32; Mar 5:8; Mar 9:25; Luk 4:35): so does Paul (Act 16:18). Jesus bids them be silent (Mar 1:25); to depart, and enter no more into the person (Mar 9:25).

9. In Luke 10 the seventy are related to have returned to Jesus, saying, ’Lord, even the demons are subject to us through thy name;’ and Jesus replies, Luk 10:18, ’I beheld Satan, as lightning, fall from heaven.’

10. When Jesus was accused by the Pharisees of casting out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of the demons, he argued that there could be no discord among demoniacal beings (Mat 12:25, etc.).

11. Jesus makes certain gratuitous observations respecting demons (see Mat 12:43-44); which seem like facts in their natural history. In regard to the demon cast out of the youth, which the disciples could not cast out, he says, ’this kind (i.e. demons) goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.’ Can these words be understood otherwise than as revealing a real and particular fact respecting the nature of demons (Mat 17:21)?

12. The woman which had a spirit of infirmity, and was bowed together (Luk 13:11), is, by our Lord himself, said to have been bound by Satan (Luk 13:16). In the same way St. Peter speaks of all the persons who were healed by Jesus, as being ’oppressed of the devil’ (Act 10:38).

13. It is further pleaded, that it sinks the importance and dignity of our Savior’s miracles, to suppose that when He is said to have cast out devils, all that is meant is, that He healed diseases.

To these arguments the opponents of the theory of real demoniacal possessions reply, generally, that there can be no doubt that it was the general belief of the Jewish nation, with the exception of the Sadducees, and of most other nations, that the spirits of dead men, especially of those who had lived evil lives, and died by violent deaths, were permitted to enter the bodies of men, and to produce the effects ascribed to them in the popular creed; but the fact and real state of the case was, that those who were considered to be possessed were afflicted with some peculiar diseases of mind or body, which, their true causes not being generally understood, were, as is usual in such cases, ascribed to supernatural powers; and that Jesus and his apostles, wishing of course to be understood by their contemporaries, and owing to other reasons which can be pointed out, were under the necessity of expressing themselves in popular language, and of seeming to admit, or at least of not denying, its correctness. They further plead that the fact, admitted on all hands, that the demon so actuated the possessed, as that whatever they did, was not to be distinguished from his agency, reduces the question, so far as phenomena are concerned, to one simple inquiry, namely, whether these phenomena are such as can be accounted for without resorting to supernatural agency. They assert that the symptoms predicated of demoniacs correspond with the ordinary symptoms of disease, and especially of hypochondria, insanity, and epilepsy; that the sacred writers themselves give intimations, as plain as could be expected under their circumstances, that they employed popular language; that consequently they are not to be considered as teaching doctrines or asserting facts when they use such language; and that the doctrine of the agency of departed spirits on the bodies of men is inconsistent with certain peculiar and express doctrines of Christ and his apostles.

With regard to the symptoms related of the demoniacs, it is urged that such persons as were called demoniacs in other countries, and who seem to have labored under precisely the same symptoms, are recorded to have been cured by the use of medicines. Josephus and the Jewish physicians speak of medicines composed of stones, roots, and herbs, being useful to demoniacs. The cure of diseases by such methods is intelligible; but is it rational to believe that the spirits of dead men were dislodged from human bodies by medical prescriptions?

1. With regard to the two demoniacs at Gadara (or one, according to Mark and Luke), it is concluded that they were madmen, who fancied that there were within them innumerable spirits of dead men. Accordingly they dwelt among the tombs, about which the souls of the dead were believed to hover, went naked, were ungovernable, cried aloud, attacked passengers, beat themselves, and had in their frenzy broken every chain by which they had been bound. Strength almost superhuman is a common attendant on insanity. Their question, ’Art thou come to torment us?’ refers to the cruel treatment of the insane in those times, and which they had no doubt shared, in the endeavors of men to ’tame’ them. Both Mark and Luke the physician describe the demoniac as in ’his right mind,’ when healed, which implies previous insanity (see also Mat 12:22; Mat 15:28; Mat 17:18; Luk 7:21; Luk 8:2; Luk 9:42). It is true that these demoniacs address Jesus as the Son of God, but they might have heard in their lucid intervals that Jesus, whose fame was already diffused throughout Syria, was regarded by the people as the Messiah. They show their insanity, ’their shaping fancies,’ by imagining they were demons without number, and by requesting permission to enter the swine. Would actual demons choose such an habitation? They speak and answer, indeed, in a rational manner, but agreeably to Locke’s definition of madmen, they reason right on false principles, and, taking fancies for realities, make right deductions from them. Thus you shall find a distracted man fancying himself a king, and with a right inference require suitable attendance. Others, who have thought themselves glass, take the needful care to preserve such brittle bodies. It is true that Jesus commands the unclean spirit (so called because believed to be the spirit of a dead man), but he does this merely to excite the attention of the people, and to give them full opportunity to observe the miracle. It is not necessary to suppose that the madmen drove the swine, but merely that, in keeping with all the circumstances, the insanity of the demoniacs was transferred to them, as the leprosy of Naaman was transferred to Gehazi, for the purpose of illustrating the miraculous power of Christ; and though this was a punitive miracle, it might serve the good purpose of discouraging the expectation of temporal benefits from him. If the demoniac is represented as worshipping Jesus, it should be remembered that the insane often show great respect to particular persons.

2. The men who were dumb, and both blind and dumb, are not said to have been disordered in their intellects, any more than the blind man in John 5. The disease in their organs was popularly ascribed to the influence of demons. It is observable that in the parallel passage (Mat 9:32), the evangelist says the man was dumb.

3. The symptoms of epilepsy in the youth described Mat 17:15, are too evident not to be acknowledged. If the opinion of relatives is to be pressed, it should be noticed that in this case the father says his ’son is lunatic.’ it was most probably a case of combined epilepsy and lunacy, which has been common in all ages. Epilepsy was ascribed to the influence of the moon in those times. The literal interpretation of popular language would therefore require us to believe that he was ’moonstruck’ as well as a demoniac.

4. The damsel at Philippi is said by Luke to have been possessed with a spirit of Apollo. It was her fixed idea. The gift of divination is said by Cicero to have been ascribed to Apollo. Insane persons, pretending to prophesy under the influence of Apollo, would be likely to gain money from the credulous. A belief among the common people that the ravings of insanity were sacred, was not confined to Egypt. The apostle, who taught that an ’idol is nothing in the world,’ did not believe in the reality of her soothsaying. Many demoniacs are mentioned, the peculiar symptoms of whose diseases are not stated, as Mary Magdalene (Mar 16:9), out of whom Jesus cast seven demons, i.e.restored from an inveterate insanity (seven being the Jewish number of perfection), supposed to be caused by the united agency of seven spirits of the dead. Yet she is said to have been healed (Luk 8:2).

5. If Jesus forbade the demoniacs to say He was the Christ, it was because the declaration of such persons on the subject would do more harm than good. If He rebuked them He also rebuked the wind (Mat 8:26), and the fever (Luk 4:39). If it be said of them, they departed, so it is also said of the leprosy (Mar 1:42).

6. It may be questioned whether the writers of the New Testament make a distinction between the diseased and those possessed of demons, or whether they specify the demoniacs by themselves, as they specify the lunatics (Mat 4:24), merely as a distinct and peculiar class of the sick. It is, however, most important to observe that St. Peter includes ’all’ who were healed by Jesus, under the phrase them that were oppressed of the devil, many of whom were not described by the Evangelists as subjects of demoniacal possession. Sometimes the specification of the demoniacs is omitted in the general recitals of miraculous cures (Mat 11:5), and this, too, on the important occasion of our Lord sending to John the Baptist an account of the miraculous evidence attending his preaching (Mat 11:5). Does not this look as if they were considered as included under the sick?

7. It cannot be proved that all the demoniacs knew Jesus to be the Messiah.

8. It is admitted that Jesus addresses the demons, but then it may be said that His doing so has reference partly to the persons themselves in whom demons were supposed to be, and partly to the bystanders; for the same reason that He rebuked the winds in an audible voice, as also the fever.

9. With regard to our Lord’s reply to the seventy, it will not be urged that it was intended of a local fall of Satan from heaven, unless it may be supposed to allude to his primeval expulsion; but this sense is scarcely relevant to the occasion. If, then, the literal sense be necessarily departed from, a choice must be made out of the various figurative interpretations of which the words admit; and taking the word Satan here in its generic sense, of whatever is inimical or opposed to the Gospel, Jesus may be understood to say, I foresaw the glorious results of your mission in the triumphs which would attend it over the most formidable obstacles. Heaven is often used in the sense of political horizon (Isa 14:12-13; Mat 24:29). To be cast from heaven to hell is a phrase for total downfall (Luk 10:15; Rev 12:7-9). Cicero says to Mark Antony, You have hurled your colleagues down from heaven. Satan is here used tropically. Our Lord does not, therefore, assert the real operation of demons.

10. In the refutation of the charge that he cast out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of the demons, he simply argues with the Pharisees upon their own principles, and ’judges them out of their own mouth,’ without assuming the truth of those principles.

11. The facts he seems to assert respecting the wandering of demons through dry places (Mat 12:45), were already admitted in the popular creed of the Jews. They believed that demons wandered in desolate places (Bar 4:35). Upon these ideas he founds a parable or similitude, without involving an opinion of their accuracy, to describe ’the end of this generation.’ The observations respecting prayer and fasting seem to have relation to that faith in God which he exhorts his apostles to obtain. Prayer and fasting would serve to enable them to perceive the divine suggestion which accompanied every miracle, and which the apostles had not perceived upon this occasion, though given them, because their animal nature had not been sufficiently subdued.

12. The application of the term Satan to the case of the woman who had a spirit of infirmity, is plainly an arguing with the Jews on their own principles. It is intended to heighten the antithesis between the loosing of an ox from his stall, and loosing the daughter of Abraham whom Satan, as they believed, had bound eighteen years.

13. The objection taken from the supposed consequence of explaining the casting out of demons to signify no more than the cure of diseases, that it tends to lower the dignity of the Savior’s miracles, depends upon the reader’s complexion of mind, our prior knowledge of the relative dignity of miracles, and some other things, perhaps, of which we are not competent judges.

It has further been observed, that the theory of demoniacal possessions is opposed to the known and express doctrines of Christ and his Apostles. They teach us that the spirits of the dead enter a state corresponding to their character, no more to return to this world (Luk 16:22, etc.; 23:43; 2Co 5:1; Php 1:21). With regard to the fallen angels, the representations of their confinement are totally opposed to the notion of their wandering about the world and tormenting its inhabitants (2Pe 2:4; Jud 1:6). If it be said that Jesus did not correct the popular opinion, still He nowhere denies that the phenomena in question arose from diseases only. He took no side; it was not His province. It was not necessary to attack the misconception in a formal manner; it would be supplanted whenever His doctrine respecting the state of the dead was embraced. To have done so would have engaged our Lord in prolix arguments with a people in whom the notion was so deeply rooted, and have led Him away too much from the purposes of His ministry. ’It was one of the many things He had to say, but they could not then bear them.’ It is finally urged that the anti-demoniacal theory does not detract from the divine authority of the Savior, the reality of His miracles, or the integrity of the historians.

Demoniacs. This word is frequently used, in the New Testament, and applied to persons suffering under the possession of a demon or evil spirit, such possession generally showing itself visibly in bodily disease or mental derangement. It has been maintained by many persons that our Lord and the evangelists, in referring to demonical possession, spoke only in accommodation to the general belief of the Jews, without any assertion as to its truth or its falsity.

It is concluded that, since the symptoms of the affliction were frequently those of bodily disease, (such as dumbness, Mat 9:32, blindness, Mat 12:22, epilepsy, Mar 9:17-27), or those seen in cases of ordinary insanity (as ill)), Mat 8:28; Mar 5:1-5, the demoniacs were merely persons suffering under unusual diseases of body and mind.

But demoniacs are frequently distinguished from those afflicted with bodily sickness, see Mar 1:32; Mar 16:17-18; Luk 6:17-18, the same outward signs are sometimes referred to possession, sometimes merely to disease, Compare Mat 4:24 with Mat 17:15; Mat 12:22 with Mar 7:32, etc.; the demons are represented as speaking in their own persons with superhuman knowledge. Mat 8:29; Mar 1:24; Mar 5:7; Luk 4:41, etc. All these things speak of a personal power of evil. Twice our Lord distinctly connects demoniacal possession with the power of the evil one. Luk 10:18.

Lastly, the single fact recorded of the entrance of the demons at Gadara, Mar 5:10-14, into the herd of swine, and the effect which that entrance caused, is sufficient to overthrow the notion that our Lord and the evangelists do not assert or imply any objective reality of possession. We are led, therefore, to the ordinary and literal interpretation of these passages, that there are evil spirits, subjects of the evil one, who, in the days of the Lord himself and his apostles especially, were permitted by God to exercise a direct influence over the souls and bodies of certain men.

This word is used to describe men who were possessed by demons, as revealed in scripture. In the N.T. those ’possessed’ by demons were certainly under the control of the demons, even to casting them into the fire and into the water.

It has been argued that the persons said to be possessed were really lunatics, who imagined they were possessed; and to meet that fancy the Lord spoke to the supposed spirit and told it to come out! But this is simply an effort to deny the power of Satan and his emissaries over man, and also God’s power in the miracles. The Lord spoke of the casting out of demons when he was not speaking to those possessed. The demons also knew the Lord to be the Son of God, answered Him, asked permission to go into the herd of swine, and feared he had come to punish them before the time. Those who were lunatics are mentioned along with, and as different from, those possessed with demons. Mat 4:24. It is true that the father of a lad who was possessed by a demon called him a lunatic, and said the disciples could not cure him, in Mat 17:14-16; but in Mar 9:17 he said his son had a dumb spirit, and in Luk 9:39 ’a spirit taketh him.’ It was clearly a case of possession: the Lord rebuked the demon, and it departed from him.

In all cases the relief was experienced immediately the demon was expelled; the words used are too explicit to mean aught else than that the persons were possessed, and that the wicked spirits were cast out. The case of Judas Iscariot was somewhat different, inasmuch as it was Satan himself that entered into that wretched man. Luk 22:3. Here it was more than the mere question of power over man, it was the Adversary standing up against Christ.

Besides the permanent possession of men, there was the unclean spirit of lying prophecy. In the O.T. we have a remarkable instance of a spirit influencing 400 prophets. Ahab was to be enticed to go to war, and a spirit said he would accomplish it. He would go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. "Now therefore," said Micaiah, "behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil against thee." 2Ch 18:20-22. We do not know the nature of this spirit, nor how he influenced the prophets.

(See also DEMONOLOGY, EXORCISM, EXORCIST, POSSESSION.)(Gr. daimonikos, daimonizomenos, possessed by a demon).The idea of demonic possession by which a man becomes demonized, that is possessed or controlled by a demon, was present in many ancient ethnic religions, and in fact it is found in one form or another wherever there is a belief in the existence of demons, and that is practically everywhere (cf. DEMONOLOGY). Here, however, we are chiefly concerned with the demonic possession in the New Testament, for this is in many ways the most worthy of special attention, and serves as a standard by which we may judge of cases occurring elsewhere. Further questions in regard to these other cases and the general practice of the Church in dealing with those who are possessed by evil spirits will be treated in other articles (EXORCISM, OBSESSION).Among the many miracles recorded in the synoptic Gospels, special prominence is given to the casting out of devils or demons (daimon, daimonion). Thus, in St. Mark, the first of all the wonders is the casting out of the devil from a demoniac, the man "with an unclean spirit" (en pneumati akatharto) in the synagogue at Capharnaum. And St. Peter thus describes the mission and the miracles of Christ: "Jesus of Nazareth: how God anointed him with the Holy Ghost, and with power, who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed by the devil" (tous katadynasteuomenous upo tou diabolou -- Acts 10:38).The reason for the stress thus laid on this casting out of the devils is not far to seek. For the miracles of Christ, as St. Augustine says, are both deeds and words. They are works done in testimony of His power and His Divine mission -- and they are words because they have a deep significance. In both these aspects the casting out of devils seems to have a special preeminence. Few, if any, of the wonders can be said to give such a striking proof of a power above the order of nature. And for this reason we find that the disciples seem to have been more impressed by this than by the other powers given to them: "Even the devils are subject to us." And as, when He calmed the storm at sea, they cried: "Who do you think this is this, who commands both the winds and the sea, and they obey Him?" (Luke 8:25). So those who saw the devil cast out at Capharnaum asked: "What thing is this? What is this new doctrine? For with power He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey Him" (Mark 1:27). In the same way it may be said that these wonders speak in a special manner and show forth the meaning of His mission, for He had come to break the power of Satan and deliver men from their state of servitude. It is thus that Christ Himself, on the eve of His Passion, speaks of the great victory which He was about to accomplish by His Cross on Calvary: "Now is the judgment of the world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out" (John 12:31). That casting-out is symbolized in the deliverance of every demoniac. They might also be in the slavery of sin and in need of forgiveness. They might possibly have some bodily infirmity and need healing; still, it was not for this that they were said to be demoniacs, but because an evil spirit had literally entered into, and taken possession of, them to control and direct, or perhaps hinder their physical powers, e.g. to speak through their vocal organs, or to tie their tongues. And though this possession might be associated with sin, this was not necessarily the case; for sometimes this affliction might befall an innocent person, as in the case of the boy who had been possessed from his infancy (Mark 9:20). So neither is it necessary to suppose that there was any bodily infirmity in the victim distinct from the demonic possession itself, even in the case of those who are described as being blind or dumb as well as being possessed by a devil. For it may be -- and in some places it may seem that this is intimated by the text - that the dumbness or other infirmity is not due to any defect in the organs, but to the fact that their normal activity is hindered by the possessing devil. Hence, when once his influence and restraint is taken away, the infirmity immediately disappears.It is in this way that these cases of demonic possession have been constantly understood by Catholic commentators, that is to say, the words of Scripture have been taken literally, and understood to mean that an evil spirit, one of the fallen angels, has entered into the demoniac, that this spirit may speak through the voice of the demonized person, but that it is not the man, but the spirit, who is speaking, and that by the command of Christ or that of one of His servants the evil spirit may be cast out, and the possessed person set free. And though our commentators and theologians have treated the subject of obsession with their wonted fullness of detail and critical discrimination, for a long time there was little occasion for any determined defense of this literal interpretation and acceptance of the Scriptural doctrine on this matter. For even in the days of the first Reformers, when so many traditional doctrines were rudely called in question, there was no disposition to dispute the reality of demonic possession. The primitive Protestants might not accept the claims of the Church to the power of exorcizing evil spirits, as they plainly denied the higher sacramental powers of the Christian priesthood but they had no mind to doubt or deny the existence of evil spirits and the reality of Satanic influence and activity. Nor is this surprising, since the beginning of Protestantism was marked by an increase in practices of superstition, and for a long while, both in Catholic and in Protestant countries, men were prone to be too credulous in these matters, and to exaggerate the extent of obsession, witchcraft, and intercourse with evil spirits.Needless to say, the whole traditional doctrine on this matter was rejected by the Sceptical philosophers of the eighteenth century. And with the spread of new ideas in the age of revolution and political economy and practical science, it seemed, for a time at any rate, in the early nineteenth century, that the old superstitious beliefs in spirits and witchcraft were dying a natural death. Most educated men were incredulous of any diabolical agency in this world, even if they retained some shadowy belief in the existence. of the evil spirits in another sphere. But with a happy inconsistency, many who rejected as superstitious all other alleged cases of obsession still professed their belief in the Gospel narrative, with its numerous demoniacs and its miraculous exorcisms. Of course it was possible, at least in the abstract, and without i making a too curious examination of the facts, to hold a theory that possession had really happened of old and had since ceased altogether. For all must admit that in any case it does not occur with the same frequency in all ages or in every land alike. But it is one thing to dispute the fact and another to deny the possibility of demonic possession in medieval or modern times. It may be a great mistake, but there is no contradiction involved in saying that obsession did happen of old but does not happen now; it is surely another matter if we say that these things cannot happen now, that they are intrinsically impossible. And though they may not be fully conscious of their own motives it is to be feared that this is really the position adopted by those who reject all cases of demonic possession except those that are recorded in the New Testament. It is true that some are provided with a theological, or Biblical, reason for this limitation. For they tell us that possession was indeed possible before the Death of Christ, but that since that great victory the power of Satan has been broken, or, in the language of Scripture, he has been bound, so that he can no longer gain possession of the bodies of men. It may be freely allowed that there is no contradiction or inconsistency involved in admitting the Gospel cases of obsession and denying the others, if this be the real reason for making the distinction. But it is difficult to believe that this is really the ground on which all later instances are rejected as unreal. For after all, this doctrine about the binding of Satan and the consequent ceasing of obsession is at best a theological conjecture (see DEVIL) and a plausible interpretation of a mysterious text, and as such it can hardly afford a basis for a certain conclusion. And it may be safely said that those who deny all modern or medieval cases of obsession are generally very certain of their conclusion. There is a further difficulty in the fact that cases of obsession are recorded in the New Testament as having taken place after the death of Christ.It was no doubt due to the force of these objections or to a desire to find some means of meeting or evading them, that the Rationalistic school of German Biblical criticism set about the task of providing a new interpretation of the Gospel cases of demonic possession. Older free-thinking philosophers and assailants of revealed religion had bluntly denied the fact of obsession, and asserted that the demoniacs were merely madmen, that they were suffering from epilepsy, or mania, or some other form of mental alienation, and that Jewish superstition had ascribed the disease to the presence of an evil spirit. The earlier school of German Rationalist theologians endeavoured to modify this view of the matter and so interpret the Sacred Text as to reconcile the naturalistic explanation with due reverence for the Gospel and for the wisdom of the Divine Redeemer. Thus they accepted the view that the demoniacs were merely lunatics, and that it was only popular superstition that imagined that they were possessed by devils. So far these theologians agreed with the infidel writers. But, instead of making the confusion between lunacy and possession a ground of attack on the Gospel, they went on to explain that Christ indeed knew the truth and only accommodated Himself to the ideas of His ignorant hearers, who were incapable of grasping the true facts, and that this was the wisest way to lead them on to the truth. One of these interpreters seeks to explain the answers to the evil spirit at Capharnaum by the method adopted by doctors in dealing with those who are suffering under a delusion. The best means of curing them is often found in an affected adoption of the patient’s delusion, e.g., if he imagines that he has to undergo some operation, the doctor will pretend to perform it. In the same way it is suggested that the superstitious belief in demonic possession prevailed among the Jews in the time of Christ (and whether true or false it certainly did prevail among them), and in these circumstances a lunatic might very well be under the delusion that he was a subject of this imaginary obsession -- and thus a wise physician might cure the delusion by means of an affected exorcism of the non-existent evil spirit.The fallacy of this crude Rationalism was searchingly criticized and exposed by Strauss in his critical Life of Christ in the nineteenth century (Das Leben Jesu, ix). He points out that such interpretations not only have no basis in the text, but that there is much there that plainly contradicts them. The critic, he observes, is really ascribing the ideas of his own time to those who lived in the first century. And indeed a closer scrutiny of the evidence may well be enough to show that this Rationalistic exegesis is inconsistent in itself and in conflict with the testimony of the very documents on which it professes to be founded. It may be admitted that there is an element of truth in the general notion that there may be some condescension or accommodation where an enlightened teacher is addressing a rude and uncultured audience, and one who cannot in some measure adapt himself to their crude conceptions and habits of thought and expression might as well address them in a foreign tongue. It may be added that in the case of a Divine teacher there must needs be some condescension or accommodation to the lowly ways of men. And for this reason St. Gregory Nazianzen likens the inspired words of Holy Scripture to the simple language in which a mother speaks to her lisping little ones. It need not surprise us, therefore, did we find that Christ accommodated His words to the limitations of those who heard Him. But this principle will not serve to explain His manner of speaking and acting in regard to this matter of demonic possession, for it simply will not fit the facts. It is not a question of some isolated and possibly ambiguous action or utterance, but of many and various acts and utterances all consistent with each other, and with the belief or knowledge that there is real demonic possession, and utterly incompatible with the interpretation that has been put upon them by these critics. It may be a wise course to humour a madman who imagines himself to be possessed, by pretending to accept his belief and bidding the devil depart from him, and in the case of some modern missionary, of whom we knew no more than the fact that he had used some words in a case of supposed possession there might be room to doubt whether he himself believed in the possession, or was merely seeking to pacify a lunatic by making use of his delusion. But it would surely be otherwise if we found the same missionary speaking in this way about demons and demonic possession to others who were not lunatics suffering from this painful monomania: if we found him teaching how evil spirits enter into a man and how, when they are cast out, they wander in desolate places. Yet this is what we actually find in the Gospels, where Christ not only addresses the devils and bids them depart or be silent, and thus treats them as personalities distinct from the man who is the subject of possession, but speaks of them in the same way to His disciples, to whom he teaches a doctrine about demonic possession. So again, it may sometimes be a wise course for a religious teacher to deal gently with the beliefs of the ignoranth; may feel that it is impossible to do all at once, and that some errors can only be destroyed by gentle means and gradual enlightenment. It may be that the best and most enlightened teacher, who found him self in the midst of a simple, credulous, and superstitious population, would shrink from adopting harsh and drastic measures to get rid of these cherished superstitions and popular errors. And though on this point we must speak with some reserve, it is possible that in such a case the teacher, in endeavouring to make himself understood by his hearers, will use their own language and convey his own message of truth through the medium of words and phrases which, taken literally, may seem to give some countenance to these popular errors. But whether this be permissible or no, it may be safely asserted that a wise and good teacher will not carry his accommodation to the point of confirming his hearers in their delusions. And these critics themselves can hardly question the fact that the whole treatment of demonic possession in the Gospels has had this effect and has confirmed and perpetuated the belief in real demonic possession.And at least in these latter days there must be many who would have abandoned all belief in the reality or even the bare possibility of any such possession, but that they felt constrained to believe it on the authority of Christ and the testimony of the Gospels. Certainly, if it were possible to accept this interpretation of the early Rationalists, and regard the attitude of Christ as an accommodation to popular beliefs and superstitions, it must be confessed that the alleged economy has had very unfortunate consequences. Later Rationalists, who see the difficulty, or rather the impossibility, of reconciling this view with the evidence of the Gospels, have turned to other ways of escape, and, like the other supernatural and miraculous elements in the Gospel narrative, the instances of demonic possession and the casting out of devils have been explained as parts of a mythical legend that has grown up around the figure of Christ or again they have furnished grounds for disputing tie fullness of His knowledge, or the authenticity and veracity of the narrative. This is not the place to deal with these problems of apologetics; but it may be well to say a word on the true ground for the rejection of belief in real demonic possession. The tendency has been to deny the possibility of miracles or demonic possession. And it is sometimes curious that critics who are so bold in setting limits to the knowledge of Christ are often strangely oblivious of their own natural knowledge. On metaphysical principles we can have no valid ground for deciding that such a thing as demonic obsession is impossible, and it is a more reasonable, as well as a more modest, course to keep to means of knowledge within our reach and examine the evidence adducible for the actual occurrence of obsession. If any one has examined this evidence and found it insufficient, his denial of demonic agency, whether we accept it or not, is at any rate entitled to respect. But few of those who have been most decided in their rejection of obsession or other preternatural or miraculous manifestations have taken any pains to examine the adducible evidence. On the contrary, they have generally dismissed it with contempt, as unworthy of serious consideration. And Baader is surely well warranted when he complains of what he calls "Rationalistic obscurantism and dogmatism" in this matter (Werke, IX, 109). Of late years the magnetism to which this acute thinker was calling the attention of philosophers in the work we have cited, and more recently the phenomena of hypnotism and spiritism, have helped to bring the critics to a more rational attitude. And with the weakening of this credulous prejudice many of the difficulties raised against the demonic possession in the New Testament will naturally disappear.The instances of obsession mentioned in the New Testament may be roughly divided into two classes. In the first group we are given some facts which, even apart from the use of demonized or some equivalent term might suffice to show that it is a case of demonic possession properly so called. Such are the cases of the "man with an unclean spirit" in the synagogue at Capharnaum (Mark 1) and the Gerasene demoniac (Luke 11). In both of these instances we have evidence of the presence of an evil spirit who betrays knowledge beyond the ken of the demonized person or (in the latter case) manifests his power elsewhere after he has been cast out. In the second group may be placed those cases in which we are not given such distinct and unmistakable signs of true demonic possession, e.g. the woman who had a spirit of infirmity (Luke 13:11). Here, apart from the words, spirit and whom Satan hath bound, there is apparently nothing to distinguish the case from an ordinary healing of infirmity. A careful consideration of the medical aspect of demonic possession has often been associated with a denial of the demonic agency. But this is by no means necessary, and, rightly understood, the medical evidence may even help to establish the truth of the record. This was done by Dr. Wm. Menzies Alexander in his "Demonic Possession in the New Testament: Its Relations, Historical, Medical and Theological" (Edinburgh, 1902). In his view, the Gospel records of the chief eases of demonic possession exhibit all the symptoms of such diseases as epilepsy, acute mania, and so on with such accuracy of detail that the narrative can only owe its origin to a faithful report of the actual facts. At the same time Dr. Alexander is equally impressed by the cogency of the evidence for real demonic possession at least in these cases. Even those readers who are unable to accept his conclusions -- and in regard to later instances of obsession we are unable to follow him -- will find the book helpful and suggestive and it may be commended to the attention of Catholic theologians.-----------------------------------W.H. KENT Transcribed by Tomas Hancil The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IVCopyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, CensorImprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York