§ 10. HEALING of the gergesENE POSSESSED of a devil.

(Matth. viii. 28-34; Mark v. 1-20; Luke viii. 26-39.)

We make use of this most important and difficult of all the histories of the cures effected by our Redeemer, which also stands, according to St Matthew, first of the narratives concerning the treatment of the so-called daovevo, "possessed of δαιμονιζόμενοι, devils," in order to develope our own peculiar view of the situation of such persons, and of the isolated phenomena of which the Gospels make mention in them, in connection with the views contained in the Scriptures. There prevails throughout the entire of the Holy Scriptures, in a manner not easily to be mistaken, the idea,' that the principle of that which is holy, as well

1 That the doctrine of the existence of devils and of evil angels is so zealously combated, may take place partly with a good intention, inasmuch as it is the wish of some individuals to prevent the repetition of the great abuses experienced from this doctrine; but partly are there also active in these polemics, motives of a quite different nature, viz. moral torpidity, and fear to confess to one's self, in all its hideousness, the nature of the evil which we clearly perceive as existing within us. We ought to distinguish with precision between the abuse of a thing, and the thing itself; then would be comprehended, in its full meaning, how the Holy Scriptures, in that which they impart concerning those things which relate to the spiritual world, accommodate themselves perfectly to the necessities of humanity. As many souls, driven to despair by the struggle with evil thoughts, surrender themselves to that which they might have well been able to overcome, had they been taught to separate their own individuality from that of the evil principle, and to have flung back the fiery darts, which galled and tormented them, against the evil one, who had discharged them against them (Ephes. vi. 16). If we earnestly and with careful striving keep off the devil and his angels, we shall still behold a world full of devilish men, and, as regards ourselves, a heart full of devilish thoughts; as Goethe excellently From the evil ones they are freed, the evil (things, thoughts, &c.) remain behind (den Bösen sind sie los, die Bösen sind geblieben)." For, evil itself, with its frightful phenomena, can never be entirely got rid of; it remains inscribed in the history of man in indelible characters. The doctrine concerning the foundation or origin of evil, in a higher region of life, is therefore a benefit bestowed on man; it comprises within itself the key to the doctrine of redemption. On this account is it also so deeply rooted in the Scriptures, that it never can be got over by the church, for, to that end the church would have to commit herself to such an extent, that she must acknowledge that she has accommodated

says:

X

as of that which is unholy in human nature, must be sought for not so much in humanity itself, as, on the contrary, in a higher region of existence, from which emanate the influences of good as well as those of evil, which on the part of men may be either received or rejected, according to the position and faithfulness of the individual. The doctrine promulgated throughout the Scriptures embraces in one grand view the good as well as the evil existing in the universe, as in one unbroken connection, only with this difference, that the good, as that which is itself divine, appears at the same time as that which is absolute and unchangeable, whereas that which is unholy is represented, it is true, as a real disturbance of the harmony of

herself thereto, and lent herself to the open propagation of error, which she has combined with the idea of her Saviour, which would be nothing less than a suicidal act, a true felo de se. But as truth in the abstract will ever remain unconquered, so must also the truth as regards evil, which consists even in this, that we know that it exists, and how it exists. The being ignorant thereof, i.e. its being unknown, is its true conquest. However, as to what concerns the treatment (Behandlung) of this doctrine, on this subject it behoves us, no doubt, to use the greatest precaution, as with all profound and abstruse ideas, which, like a keen two-edged blade, should only be laid hold of in a spirit of wisdom. The use made of this doctrine in the Scripture affords the most valuable hint for our guidance in this matter. In the first place, we find that the idea, in earlier times of the Old Testament life, only comes before us in feeble intimations, it was not until the time of the captivity, when the worship of the true God only had taken deep root in the nation, that the germs thereof developed themselves more extensively. In these manifestations we may find an intelligible hint not to bring the doctrine of the influence of evil spirits either before the minds of children, or before such undeveloped, uneducated minds, as are to be regarded as children. It would be better with such persons, especially as regards the Old Testament, to refer the manifestations of the evil one, without further explanation, to the abandonment of God. Our Redeemer taught concerning the devil in the presence of his disciples only. Thus, then, the doctrine which relates to the kingdom of darkness and its ministry, should be explained or illustrated in no other manner than in its dependence on the doctrine of redemption. The consciousness of all-conquering grace is the surest means of preventing all misunderstanding of this doctrine. Finally. this doctrine, taken in the abstract, belongs less to the guyμa tõs andías, "the preaching of the truth" (seeing that it is not brought forward as such in the New Testament aud in the creeds), it has much rather its chief significancy in the private care for the soul. In the various methods or forms of "the councilling, of self-examination," this doctrine has altogether so deep a psychological root, that, by a wise practical application thereof in such cases, a beneficial effect may be looked for therefrom.

creation, but as that which at the same time is ever merely conditional on the will of the creature. Holy writ knows no second principle, and the church has always rejected the doctrine of Manichaeism,' as being irreconcilable with the idea of God. By the removal of the source of evil out of and beyond human nature, the redemption is at once recognised as being possible. For, it is only the germ of that which is good in man, viewed in its state of bondage under an inimical power, which can be re

1 The Manichaeans were Christian heretics, who derive their name from one Manes, who began to preach his erroneous doctrines in the third century. He gave himself out as the Пagázλnros or Comforter whom our Saviour had promised to send; he was originally a slave in Persia, but his mistress, having adopted him as her son, caused him to be instructed in the learning of that country. He held the doctrine of two distinct principles of good and evil, and, of consequence, of two souls in man, striving against each other, and that from the evil soul proceeded the body. He permitted his disciples to wallow in all impurity, and forbade to give alms to any but his own followers; he attributed the motions of concupiscence and all bodily desires to the evil soul; he taught that the souls of his followers passed through the moon and afterwards through the sun for purification, and then to God, into whom they are absorbed, and that those of other men went to hell, to be again sent forth into other bodies; he taught that Christ resides in the sun, the Holy Ghost in the air, wisdom in the moon, and the Father in the abyss of light. He denied the resurrection, and condemned marriage; he taught the transmigration of souls, that Christ had no real body, that he was neither dead nor risen, and that he was the serpent that tempted Eve. He forbade the use of eggs, cheese, milk, and wine, as proceeding from the evil principle, and used a form of baptism differing from that of the church. Finally, he taught that magistrates were not to be obeyed. Such were the tenets of this heresiarch, that Pope Leo said of him, that "the devil reigned in all other heresies, but that he had built a fortress and raised his throne in Manichaeism, which embraced all the errors and impurities that man is capable of. For, whatever profanation was in paganism, carnal blindness in Judaism, unlawful curiosity in magicians, or sacrilege in other heresies, they did all centre in that of the Manichaeans." This heresiarch promised the king of Persia to cure his son, whereupon the king sent away all the physicians, the consequence of which was that the patient soon after died. Manes, therefore, was thrown into prison, but made his escape; yet having been recaptured soon after, he was flayed alive, and his body thrown to the wild beasts.

The Manichaeans were divided into hearers and the elect; of the elect twelve were called masters, in imitation of the twelve apostles, and a thirteenth was placed as a kind of pope over them. The emperors, in the fourth century, passed severe laws against these heretics, whose opinions were gaining ground in Africa, Gaul, and in Rome itself, where a council was held against them. The Latin fathers do not well agree as to the time of this heretic's first appearance, but Spannheim says it was in the reign of Probus.-T.

deemed; but the inimical power itself, as also man, if he has totally and knowingly given himself up thereto, and has thus become one with it, is no object for the ministry of redemption. Hence it is that the kingdom of evil, considered in its individual character, and as the contrast (although a relative one) to the kingdom of good, is called in the Scriptures, daßonos nai ayyo aurou, "the devil and his angels" (Matth. xxv. 41; Rev. ἄγγελοι xii. 9), as also Busineía Tou ouravã, "the kingdom of Satan" (Matth. xii. 26). The expression, dάßoλos, “devil," and caravas, "Satan" (==narhywg rãv àöèh.¢ãv, "the accuser of the κατήγως ἀδελφῶν, brethren," Rev. xii. 10), is only used in the singular when speaking of the centralised power of the evil one, which as the power of his kingdom is conceived according to his potential might as being borne within him. It is true that oaravas, "Satan," appears to be used once as equivalent to dauóviov, "that which is demoniacal or devilish" (in the text, Matth. xii. 26), but it is even here only apparently so applied. The subordinate evil spirits (corresponding to the ❝yyλor rou so, "angels of God") are called daróna, and sometimes, though not so frequently, daíoves, “demons" (Matth. viii. 31; Mark v. 12; Luke viii. 2, xxvii. 3); more frequently, however, they are called νúμara ànálagra, “unclean spirits" (Luke viii. 29; Ephes. vi. 12, aveuμatinà rès Tovngías, “the spiritual powers of evil"). The ancient signification of the word dai, "dæmon," danov, "knowing, skilled," is more comprehensive; it denotes that which is cunning or knowing, and since to be knowing is to possess innate knowledge, announces itself as the characteristic of a spirit, hence it denotes spiritual beings in general. (The more exact distinction of the character of the being is pointed out by means of additions, such as ayatodaíμwv, "good dæmon or spirit;" nazodaiwv, "evil dæmon.") Analogous to the mode of viewing that which is good in its various manifestations in thea ngels of light, is evil individualised in its various modifications of the angels of darkness (concerning the classification of demons, comp. Ephes. vi. 12). The germ of this view of the subject is contained even in the earliest writings of the Old Testament, and without calling in the aid of foreign influence, which is said to have affected the Jews during their Babylonian captivity,' we

1 This view, which has become so very common, offers many important historical difficulties. For, as the Chaldeans ruled in those parts of the country to which the Jews were led by Nebuchadnezzar, from whose national form of devotion such an influence upon the Jews cannot be

can imagine a development of this germ springing out of the national mode of life itself, by the help of a progressive enlightenment through the Spirit of truth. If we proceed, however, upon the magnificent view of an unity of the entire kingdom of the evil spirit, the question then will be, which peculiar form of the influence of the powers of darkness the Scripture here indicates when using the expression, damovióμevor, "possessed with devils." For, although the Scripture connects in this manner the spiritual evil existing in humanity with the influence of the devil (St John xiii. 27, for example, speaking of Judas Iscariot, says, ὁ σατανᾶς εἰςῆλθεν εἰς αὐτόν [εἰς ἐκεῖνον, “into that one,” is the term derived, seeing that the Chaldeans held no doctrines of demons (Münther's supposition in his Relig. der Babyl. p. 87 sqq., that the Chaldaic mystery contains some hints respecting demons, is a mere hypothesis); hence the question arises: whether the doctrines of the Zend, the influence of which is had in view when asserting that the Jews had derived their doctrine of demons during their exile, had been promulgated anywhere in the kingdom of the Chaldeans? Magi, it is true, were in this city indeed long before the conquest of Babel by Cyrus (comp. Bertholdt's third Excurs to his commentary on Daniel), but whether these magi were servants or worshippers of Ormuzd or Oromazes, and acknowledgers of Ahrimanes, is very doubtful (comp. Gesenius in the second supplement to the commentary on Isaiah), inasmuch as all Chaldean names of the gods bear no resemblance with the Persian ones. But granting that the Zendavist form of worship had formed a part of the altogether mysterious doctrines taught in the kingdom of the Chaldaeans, it would be nevertheless inconceivable how the poor Jewish exiles could thereby have obtained any knowledge of it; and so much, too, as that they should have admitted new dogmas within the circle of their ideas. The whole affair requires, as has been already said, a thoroughly profound historical investigation. But no less refutable is the notion that the assumption of the existence and influence of evil spirits is a view inseparable from the infancy of human nature. The history of the development of demonology, as contained throughout the Scriptures, proves as forcibly to the contrary as does the nature of the thing itself. The purer, deeper, and more true the sense is in which that which is Divine is comprehended as that which is good, the more completely and profoundly will man recognise the evil existing in his nature, and the more thoroughly will he examine into it throughout the course of its development. As the highest personifications thereof, the Scriptures point out the false prophets and false Christs, whose appearance they defer until near the end of the world. That the most modern doctrinal views, even since the period of the Reformation, have been, even according to their own theories, so little able to assimilate or appropriate to themselves the doctrines concerning the kingdom of darkness (as may be seen, for example, from Schleiermacher's Dogmatic), all this only proves that Christian knowledge has not as yet been thoroughly penetrated by the light of Gospel principle.