CHAPTER IX. DEMONIACAL MIRACLES—GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS.

It has been objected that the admission which the New Testament is alleged to make as to the reality of demoniacal miracles weakens, if it does not destroy, the value of miracles as an attestation of a revelation. In order to do full justice to the force of this objection I will state it in the words of the author of “Supernatural Religion:”—

“The necessity of asserting the dependence of miracles on doctrines is thrust upon divines by the circumstance, that the Bible narrates so many cases of false miracles, and contains so many warnings against them.”

“The first thought which must occur to any unprejudiced mind is amazement that an Almighty God should select as a guarantee of his supposed communications signs and wonders which can be so easily imitated by others, that there must always be a doubt whether the message be from the kingdom of heaven, or from the kingdom of lies. It seems _à priori_ absolutely incredible that a divine revelation which is so important, and which it is intended that man should believe, should be made in such obscure language, and with such doubtful attestation. That heaven should condescend to use the same arguments as hell, and with so little difference in the degree of the power exhibited, that man can scarcely, if at all, discriminate between them, is a theory of the most startling description.”

“Does not the necessity of this theory of false miracles, of the power of God thus placed on a level with the power of Satan, in a matter where the distinct purpose is to authenticate by miraculous testimony a miraculous revelation, rather betray the unreality of miracles altogether, and indicate that the idea of such supernatural intervention originates solely from the superstitious ignorance of men in ages when every phase of nature was attributed to direct supernatural interference, and ascribed with arbitrary promptness to God or to the devil? It is certain that as miracles are represented as being common both to God and Satan, they cannot be considered as a distinctive attestation of a divine revelation.”

After quoting Dr. Mozley to the effect that “Miraculous evidence cannot oblige us to accept any doctrine contrary to our moral nature”—an abstractly true statement, but quite inapplicable to the New Testament, which no where affirms that miracles have been wrought in attestation of doctrines—the author continues: “The assertion that evidence emanating from God is in some cases to be rejected is a monstrous proposition; and the evidential force of miracles is totally destroyed by the logical inference from it, and from the double character of miracles as Divine and Satanic; that God is not only capable of exerting supernatural power to attest what is true, but that Satan equally possesses and exercises the same power in opposition to God for purposes of deception. If miraculous evidence is indifferently employed to certify truth and error, it is at once degraded by such common service into contempt.”

These passages put us in possession of the author’s views, and perhaps it would be impossible to state the objections more strongly. I have quoted them thus fully, not only as embodying the views of this particular writer, but as placing before us in a clear and distinct light the chief objections which can be urged against the attestation that miracles give to the truth of the Christian revelation, on the assumption that demoniacal miracles have been performed, or even on the admission that they are possible.

Before I enter on the general question, I must briefly draw attention to the statements and assumptions contained in this remarkable passage.

1. The assertion that miracles are alleged in proof of doctrines, and that divines, when the necessities of their position compel them, affirm the direct converse of this, viz. that miracles are dependent for their truth on doctrines, is an entire misapprehension of the Christian argument. Its true position will be discussed in a subsequent chapter.

2. The assertion that the miracles of Almighty God can be imitated by Satan is a gratuitous assumption. Nowhere is this affirmed in the New Testament. On the contrary, our Lord uniformly declares that His works were clearly distinguishable from the working of Satan, and could only maliciously be confounded with them.

3. While the Bible speaks of false miracles, its language is quite consistent with the fact that they were impositions practised on the senses, like the acts of jugglers.

4. The word “miracle” is here used to denote a supernatural fact in external nature devoid of all moral environment. I have already pointed out the inaccuracy of this position; and shall have much to say on this subject hereafter. To strip a superhuman occurrence of its moral aspect is simply to assume the question at issue.

5. It is not correct that the essence of a miracle consists in the degree of power manifested in the performance of the outward act. The performance of a miracle does not necessarily involve a greater exertion of power than is manifested in the ordinary occurrences of nature. A miracle is not only an act of power, but it involves the elements of prediction and of purpose.

6. The affirmation that the Christian argument involves the position that heaven must condescend to use the same arguments as hell, if demoniacal possession is supposed to be possible, is altogether inaccurate.

7. The Christian argument nowhere involves the assumption that evidence emanating from God is under certain circumstances to be rejected. It is quite conceivable that a real miracle may have been wrought, which was adequately attested when it was performed, but that the evidence has become imperfect by lapse of time.

8. Even if it be supposed that demoniacal miracles are possible, there is nothing in that assumption which renders it necessary to take for granted that Satan is allowed to ramble over the universe and work miracles at his pleasure, and to imitate the miracles of God. The New Testament uniformly asserts that whatever agency he can exert is a permitted one, which is confined within definite limits.

In considering the question of demoniacal miracles it must be kept in mind that the language employed by the writers of the Bible is invariably phenomenal. They describe events as they appeared to the eye of the beholder. Hence it by no means follows, when they refer to the arts of magic and other similar practices which were so prevalent in the ancient world, and say that the magicians did such and such things, that they meant to affirm the reality of their performance. Their language is always taken from the observer’s point of view. As far as he saw, they did so. We frequently speak in the same way of modern feats of conjurors. Thus, when it is said that the magicians brought forth frogs, the language is quite consistent with the act being a delusion successfully practised on the senses.

It is affirmed by the author that the Bible asserts the reality of such miracles. I reply that it makes no such assertion, but merely describes them as they appeared to the eye of the beholder. Its strong denunciations of such practices is no evidence that they were anything else than deceptions which the performers endeavoured to palm off for wicked purposes. The precept of Moses, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live,” has been urged as affording proof that the Bible in unqualified terms asserts the reality of witchcraft. Whether the art was real or simulated, the sentence of the lawgiver would have been equally just, for impostors who practise such arts for the purpose of delusion, are far more injurious to society than many kinds of criminals who have undergone the severest punishment. In the New Testament “lying wonders” are occasionally referred to. The expression may legitimately mean one of two things, either a supernatural act performed for the attestation or propagation of a lie, or an apparent miracle, which is in itself a lie. It cannot be denied that the language of the New Testament will honestly bear this interpretation. I will quote the strongest passage to be found in it. St. Paul, writing to the Thessalonians, in speaking of the manifestation of a great anti‐ christian power, says, “Whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all the deceivableness of unrighteousness, in them that perish, because they receive not the love of the truth that they might be saved.” This language is quite consistent with the idea that the works here spoken of were not supernatural, but deceptions wrought for the propagation of a system of falsehood.

There can be no question that impositions of this kind have been systematically practised in later times in support of a great system of ecclesiastical power, and to attest doctrines in connection with it. But it is worthy of observation that the demoniacal supernaturalism which we read of in the New Testament, is not represented as having been employed for the attestation of any system of doctrine whatever. Elymas, the sorcerer, practised his art for the purpose of establishing an influence over Sergius Paulus, but for aught that appears he was a simple impostor. All the other cases of Satanic supernaturalism referred to in the Gospels resolve themselves into cases of possession, or the occasional production of a disease.

It is further to be observed that nowhere throughout the New Testament is a miracle, properly so called, ascribed to Satanic action. Possession is a phenomenon entirely different from a miracle. I admit that there is one apparent exception, namely in the history of our Lord’s temptation. This if it is intended to be a description of an objective fact, is undoubtedly an instance of direct interference with the action of the forces of nature; Satan is here represented as possessing and exercising the power of counteracting the force of gravitation by transporting the body of our Lord from place to place. As this is the one solitary instance in the New Testament in which such power is ascribed to him, it demands especial consideration. We are told that during one period of his temptation our Lord was carried by Satan to an exceeding high mountain; and again, that he was placed on a pinnacle of the temple. These acts involve such an exercise of supernatural power as may justly be put in comparison with his walking on the water. It becomes therefore a very important question whether this account is intended to be taken as a literal narrative. The fact of its being the only recorded instance of its kind affords a contrary presumption, for if the writers had believed that there was nothing in such interference with the physical forces inconsistent with the ordinary course of Satanic action it is hardly possible that they could have viewed this as a solitary instance of the exercise of such power, especially when the case of the demoniacs afforded so many opportunities for its manifestation. It is clear from the narrative itself that the only source of information regarding the temptation must have been an account given by our Lord himself to his disciples, as it was an occurrence of which there could have been no witnesses. Otherwise it must be assumed to be a mere fiction. It is also clear that the three temptations into which the narrative is divided are intended to describe three great crises through which our Lord’s mind passed. According to Mark’s account he is represented as undergoing temptations during the whole period of forty days. Matthew and Luke present us with the general results of the entire temptation. If our Lord gave an account of it to his disciples, there can be no reason why he should not have embodied its results in a narrative form, as is the course which he adopted in his parables. If the parables were not usually introduced with the formula “he spake a parable,” we might easily mistake them also for narratives of actual occurrences. But although this is the usual form, it is not the only one, as appears in the parable of Dives and Lazarus. It is therefore quite conceivable that on giving his disciples an account of the crises through which his mind passed during the period of the temptation he may have put it into a parabolic form, of which himself was the centre, as one which would be most adapted to the level of their apprehensions; otherwise it would have assumed the character of a number of abstract disquisitions.

But we are not left to infer from mere probabilities that the narrative was not intended to be understood literally. One portion of it places it beyond doubt that it was intended to contain a visionary or parabolic element of some kind. In the account of the temptation to fall down and worship Satan, it is expressly stated that the Devil transported our Lord to an exceeding high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them. The narrative of Luke adds that all this was done in a moment of time, which shows clearly that it was not intended to be from one end to the other a literal statement of facts. It is therefore absolutely necessary to assume the presence of a visionary element somewhere; the only question is, where, and to what extent? If we attach the meaning usually assigned by the writers in the New Testament to the word “world,” it is impossible to imagine that any amount of credulity can have believed that there was any mountain from whose top such a view could have been attained by the unaided power of the human eye. But further, it is asserted not only that the kingdoms of the world were rendered visible, but _their glory_; that is to say, the spectator was able to see their great cities, their buildings, and all their signs of outward magnificence, for the sight of their glory was obviously intended to add force to the temptation. Yet even the most credulous people possess some moderately correct idea as to the extent of view which the eye can reach and would feel quite certain that without the interposition of a miracle such a survey in a moment of time would be impossible.

It may probably be urged by some that the first part of the account only is intended to be a description of an objective fact, and that the last temptation was visionary. To this I reply that the entire narrative is couched in language of fact, and the latter portion quite as much so as the former. Besides, if the sight of the kingdoms of the world and their glory was a visionary representation, then the reason for conveying Jesus to a lofty mountain ceases, for such a vision might equally well have been presented to him in a plain; whereas if we take it as an account of a literal fact, it is clear that the reason for conveying him to the mountain was to afford him an extensive view. It is therefore impossible to draw a distinction between the two portions of the narrative.

Every consideration therefore proves that the entire narrative is either parabolic or an account of a visionary transaction, precisely similar to many of those described in the Old Testament, and not of an actual occurrence. This being so, we arrive at the inference that nowhere in the New Testament is Satanic influence described as interfering with the ordinary action of the forces of nature, by a direct exertion of power.

It may however be objected that there were probably reasons why he was permitted to do so on this particular occasion; but on such a question I shall not enter. I shall only repeat that it is impossible to view the latter portion of the narrative as an account of an objective fact; and this being the case it is far more probable that the whole partakes of the same character. At any rate it is the single instance in the New Testament in which the possession of such power is ascribed to Satan.

This has a very important bearing on the argument. The author affirms that the writers of the New Testament attributed to Satan a general power of interfering with the forces of nature, and of working miracles which may fairly be contrasted with the miracles of God. But whatever may have been the opinions of others on this subject, it is clear that such opinions were not held by them. If they had believed that Satanic agency was constantly exerted in the affairs of the visible universe, there is every reason why they should have invented numerous stories of this description, and ascribed them to Satanic intervention. The writer to whom I am referring, urges in the strongest manner, that the belief in magic, and in frequent exertions of demoniacal power over the external universe, was universal among the Jews at the time of the Advent. To prove this, he has adduced a number of opinions entertained by the writers of the Talmud and others, involving the most grovelling superstitions, and asserts that indications of the same are to be found in the Gospels. As an instance, he favours us with the following story told by Josephus, who declares that he was an eye‐witness of the fact.

“Josephus had seen a countryman of his own, named Eliezer, release people possessed of devils in the presence of the Emperor Vespasian and his sons, and of his army. He put a ring containing one of the roots prescribed by Solomon, into the nose of a demoniac, and drew the demon out of his nostrils, and in the name of Solomon, and reciting one of his incantations, he adjured him to return no more. In order to demonstrate to the spectators that he had power to cast out demons, Eliezer was accustomed to set a pitcher of water a little way off, and he commanded the demon, as he left the body of the man, to overturn it, by which means the skill and wisdom of Solomon was made very manifest.”

The object for which this and kindred stories are referred to, is to prove that the Jewish mind was so intensely credulous and superstitious on the subject of demoniacal action at the time of our Lord, that there was nothing so monstrous, which it was not in the habit of accepting as fact. We are also repeatedly informed that the followers of Jesus shared in this unbounded credulity. It may be even inferred from the assertion before us, that they were far more credulous. The argument which this writer adduces is plausible, and it may be stated thus. If a writer like Josephus, who was extensively acquainted with Greek literature, and the Talmudists who belonged to the _élite_ of the nation, could narrate such follies as facts, what must have been the beliefs of the vulgar herd? We must not forget that the followers of Jesus were chiefly from the lower orders. “The common people heard him gladly.” The inference which the reader is allowed to draw is that they must have been addicted to yet more gross credulity.

What were the reasons which induced Josephus, a man who had seen the wide world, to relate this monstrous story I shall not inquire. One can hardly believe that he was a dupe; his reporting it, however, no more proves that such beliefs were universal when he wrote, than the existence of a wide‐ spread spiritualistic literature proves that a belief in spirit‐rapping prevails generally among all classes of society at the present day, although many of the believers in spiritualism belong to the educated classes, and readily accept absurdities which the sound sense of multitudes of artisans would immediately repudiate.

The argument before me tells in a direction precisely opposite to that which is intended by those who have invoked it, and it is marvellous that they do not perceive that it is destructive of their own case. I put it as follows: If the authors of the Gospels entertained the views of demoniacal agency which this author represents them to have held, their narratives, which directly lead them to refer to that subject, would have contained numerous references to stories of the type of that quoted from Josephus. Let me illustrate this argument by an example. The Arabs and other Orientals believe in the power of demons and magicians over external nature. They consider this action to be of frequent occurrence. Their literature therefore abounds with accounts of such monstrous interventions. But the Gospels, with the exception of the history of the Temptation, do not contain an account of a single marvel wrought by the agency of demons on external nature. Demoniacal agency is repeatedly mentioned by them; but it belongs to an order of phenomena of an entirely different character. What, I ask, is the only legitimate inference? That the authors of the Gospels were free from the superstitions in question.

Before going further it will be necessary to ascertain what is the precise nature and character of that demoniacal supernaturalism which is apparently asserted in the pages of the New Testament. Without doing so, it will be impossible to form a correct opinion on the subject under consideration.

The New Testament apparently ascribes to Satanic agency not only a power of suggesting temptations to the minds of men, but also in certain cases of depriving them of the supremacy of their wills, of enslaving their intellectual and moral powers, of interfering with the use of their bodily organs, and, in one instance, of imparting an unusual strength. These phenomena constitute what is designated as “possession,” and bear no inconsiderable resemblance to different forms of insanity.

But the New Testament also makes mention of lunacy as well as possession. How far they were distinguishable from each other we have no sufficient data to enable us to determine. At one time they are spoken of as the same disease; at others they are clearly distinguished from each other.

The language of the Gospels seems to imply that some maladies were believed to be produced by the influence of possession. In one or two instances language is used which may imply that a bodily disease was brought on by Satanic agency without actual possession. Whatever may have been the belief of the Jews on this subject, it is certain that the cases referred to in the Gospels are very few; and although the mention of diseases is very common, nothing is said about their being due to demoniacal influence. Not a single case occurs in which ordinary accidents are referred to this influence, although such is affirmed to have been the common belief of the Jews. In the Acts of the Apostles only two cases of possession are mentioned, one that of the damsel at Philippi, and the other the occasion when certain Jewish exorcists undertook to exorcise demoniacs at Ephesus in the name of Jesus.

The former case is of some importance. The girl is described as possessed by a spirit of Pytho, _i.e._ she pretended to practise the art of divination by the inspiration of the god Apollo, and in many respects she practised the arts of the modern fortune‐teller. Such persons were not uncommon at the time. The Pythia at Delphi professed to prophesy under the influence of a similar inspiration. Whatever may have been the real causes by which this mental condition was brought about, the paroxysms were so real that one is recorded to have died under their influence. Her state when under prophetic influence, is described as one of phrensied excitement. St. Paul is represented by the historian as addressing himself to the spirit, and commanding him to come out in the name of Jesus Christ. The powers of such persons were confined to diving into the secrets of the future; but to other kinds of supernatural power they made no claims.

If the language here employed be other than phenomenal, it seems to imply that in St. Paul’s opinion certain practices of the ancient world which were far from uncommon, were connected with demoniacal agency. These were usually combined with certain forms of religious phrensy, such as even in the present day manifest themselves in connection with the more degraded forms of religion. At no period was this class of phenomena more prevalent than during the century which preceded, and that which followed the Advent, when human nature was stirred to its profoundest depths.

There are also a few passages in St. Paul’s writings which seem to affirm a connection between demoniacal agency and pagan worship. Whatever may have been his own opinions on this subject, it is evident that the action which he supposed to have been exerted was entirely mental. Not one word is uttered by him which implies that he regarded this mode of demoniacal action as involving a power of interfering with the forces of the material universe.

Such is a general statement of the facts as they appear in the New Testament in connection with possession, and demoniacal action. It has been necessary thus distinctly to state them, in order that we may keep the subject clear of all adventitious issues with which it has been attempted to obscure it. That form of demoniacal action involved in the supposed power possessed by demons of tempting men to evil does not fall within the limits of the present controversy.

But the opponents of Christianity are not content to reason on the facts respecting demoniacal action as they are presented to us in the pages of the New Testament. They charge its writers with a number of the most grotesque beliefs on this subject, for which the book itself furnishes us with no evidence. This course has been taken for the purpose of fastening on them a boundless credulity, and thereby destroying their claim to be accepted as credible reporters of historical facts. I will cite one or two examples of this mode of reasoning, in order that we may be able to form a correct estimate of its value.

After having given a detailed account of a number of monstrous beliefs gleaned from the Talmud and other sources respecting angels, the author of “Supernatural Religion” then proceeds: “The belief in demons at the time of Jesus was equally emphatic and comprehensive, and we need not mention also that the New Testament is full of it. They are in the air, on earth, in the bodies of men and animals, and even at the bottom of the sea. They are the offspring of the fallen angels who loved the daughters of men. They have wings like angels, and can fly from one place in the earth to another. They attain a knowledge of the future by listening behind the veil of the temple of God. Their numbers are infinite. The earth is so full of them, that if man had the power to see, he could not exist on account of them; there are more demons than men, and they are about as close as the earth thrown up out of a new made grave. It is stated that each man had 10,000 demons on his right hand, and 1000 on his left.... The crush on the Sabbath in the synagogue arises from them; also the dresses of the Rabbins become so soon worn through their rubbing; in like manner also they cause the tottering of the feet. He who wishes to discover these spirits must take sifted ashes, and strew them about his bed, and he will perceive their footprints upon them like a cock’s tread.” Here follow a number of the most ineffable absurdities, unsurpassed by anything contained in the Arabian Nights, which I need not cite. The author then proceeds: “Demons, however, take more especial delight in foul and offensive places, and an evil spirit inhabits every private closet in the world. Demons haunt deserted places, ruins, graves, and certain kinds of trees. We find indications of these superstitions throughout the Gospels. The possessed are represented as dwelling among the tombs, and being driven by unclean spirits into the wilderness, and the demons can find no rest in clean places. Demons also frequented springs and fountains. The episode of the angel who was said to descend at certain times and trouble the water of the pool of Bethesda, so that he that first stepped in was healed of whatsoever disease he had, may be mentioned here in passing, although the passage is not found in the older manuscripts of the fourth Gospel, and was certainly a late addition.” Here follow further citations of Rabbinical absurdities. The author then proceeds: “The Talmud and other Rabbinical writings are full of references to demoniacal possession, but we need not enter into details on this point, as the New Testament itself presents sufficient evidence respecting it. Not only could one spirit enter into a body, but many took possession of the same individual. There are many instances mentioned in the Gospels, such as Mary Magdalene, out of whom went seven demons (ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια), and the man whose name was legion, because many demons (πολλὰ δαιμόνια) had entered into him. Demons likewise entered into the bodies of animals, and in the narrative to which we have just referred, the demons, on being expelled from the man, requested to be allowed to enter into the herd of swine, which being permitted, ‘the demons went out of the man into the swine, and the herd ran violently down the cliff into the lake and were drowned,’ the evil spirits, as usual, taking pleasure only in the destruction and injury of man and beast. Besides possession, all the diseases of men and animals are ascribed to the action of the devil and demons. In the Gospel, for instance, the woman with a spirit of infirmity is described as bound by Satan, although the case was not one of demoniacal possession.” The author then proceeds to enumerate a large number of grotesque beliefs as held by the Jews at the time of the Advent.

I regret the necessity which has compelled me to cite so lengthy a passage, but it is absolutely necessary that the reader should be enabled to see, beyond the possibility of misapprehension, the nature of the objections which are urged against the historical credibility of the Gospels, and the reasonings by which they are attempted to be supported. The general principle that underlies them may be stated in a few words, that the followers of Jesus and the authors of the Gospels were a prey to such a multitude of degrading superstitions on the subject of demonology as wholly to destroy the value of their historical testimony.

The effect of this passage with its context is to produce the impression on the mind of the reader, not only that these absurd beliefs were generally entertained by the Jews at the time of the Advent, but that they constituted the form of thought of the followers of Jesus. It may be urged that the object of the author is to prove the general superstition of the times; and that he does not intend to affirm that it was shared in by every one of the followers of Jesus. This may be correct; but if it is not intended to be asserted that the followers of Jesus were the prey of equal superstitions, the reference to this mass of credulity can have no bearing on the present argument, and is simply misleading. To what purpose, I ask, is it made, unless it is intended to implicate our Lord’s followers in these beliefs? Unless it were so, the fact that others entertained them would not in the smallest degree affect the value of their historical testimony. But on this point we are not left to inferences; not only are passages in the Gospels referred to, but we are repeatedly informed that the followers of Jesus did share in these popular delusions.

The position, therefore, which is taken by the author is clear. His readers are invited to believe that the followers of our Lord were a prey to the belief in a number of ineffable absurdities respecting demons such as he has enumerated. If this can be established, the conclusion is inevitable, that their historical testimony is valueless.

Let us now consider the mode in which the proof of this is attempted to be established. The authorities quoted are chiefly the Talmudical writers; that is to say, persons who wrote as late as from A.D. 200 to A.D. 500, are cited as the proof that such opinions were universally entertained by the Jews in the time of Jesus Christ. Equally valid would it be to quote the writers of modern spiritualism to prove that such opinions were held by our ancestors in the time of the Stuarts or the Plantagenets. On the strength of this and kindred evidence, such opinions are ascribed to the original propagators of Christianity, and to the authors of the Gospels.

But this is not all. The only correct method of ascertaining the superstition and credulity of any particular writer is carefully to examine the contents of his book, and to note the various instances which we find in it of what we consider to be superstitions; and then proceed to estimate their value, and, if needful, to compare them with other contemporary authorities. This course, however, is not that pursued by this writer. On the contrary, he quotes the absurdities which we have seen from the Talmudical writers, and refers in the midst of them to nearly every passage in the Gospels which can be made to bear even a remote reference to the views in question. I submit that such a mode of reasoning is not conducive to the interests of truth.

A few examples of this mode of conducting the argument require notice.

After referring to a number of monstrous superstitions, he tells us that the Jews believed that “demons took especial delight in foul and offensive places, and that an evil spirit inhabits every private closet in the world. Demons haunted deserted places, ruins, graves, and certain kinds of trees. We find indications of these superstitions throughout the Gospels. The possessed are represented as dwelling among the tombs, and as being driven by unclean spirits into the wilderness, and demons can find no rest in clean places.”

“We find indications of these superstitions throughout the Gospels.” To this observation I invite the reader’s attention. Is it meant to be affirmed that any indication can be found in the Gospels that the writers believed that a demon inhabited every private closet in the world? Two instances only are referred to in the text, in one of which the demoniac of Gadara is represented as dwelling among the tombs, and as having been driven into the wilderness; and the other the parable of the unclean spirit going out of the man, and finding no rest when walking through dry places. Do these two cases prove the truth of the sweeping assertions above referred to? Does the parabolic representation that the expelled demon found no rest in dry or clean places prove that the disciples of Jesus believed that they took especial delight in foul or offensive ones? Does the fact that the demoniac of Gadara had been driven by the evil spirit into the wilderness prove that it was a universal belief that deserts and graves were haunted by demons?

In proof also of these assertions we are referred in a note to five passages in the Gospels, viz. Matt. viii. 28; xii. 43; Mark v. 3‐5; Luke viii. 27‐29; xi. 24. Five passages are very few to justify the assertion that we find indications of these superstitions throughout the Gospels. On examining them, however, the five references are reduced to two, three belong to the account of the demoniac at Gadara, reported by each of the Synoptics; and two to the twofold report of the same parable as given by Matthew and Luke! This is a very slender foundation on which to ground the assertion that the followers of Jesus believed that “demons took especial delight in foul and offensive places, that they inhabited every private closet in the world, and that they haunted deserted places, graves, ruins, and certain kinds of trees, and that we find indications of these superstitions _throughout the Gospels_.”

Still more extraordinary is the next reference. “Demons haunted springs and fountains,” says the author. To this he adds, “the episode of the angel who was said to descend at certain seasons and trouble the water of the pool of Bethesda, so that he who first stepped in was cured of whatsoever disease he had, may be mentioned in passing.”

Why, I ask, mention it at all? Is the visit of an angel to this particular pool for the purpose of working a miracle, a proof that the followers of our Lord believed that demons inhabited springs and fountains?

But our astonishment at the author’s reference to it is increased when we read the following words: “_Although the passage is not found in the oldest manuscripts of the Fourth Gospel, and it is certainly a late interpolation_.”

I must put the question again in real earnestness. This being so, why mention it here? The author admits that it formed no portion of the original Gospel of St. John, and that it is certainly a late interpolation. Now the Gospel of St. John, according to the opinion of the most eminent unbelievers, was not published before A.D. 170. If this was the case (the author himself evidently assigns to its composition a very late date) a late interpolation could not have found its way into its pages until about the year 250, at the earliest 200. What then is the nature of the reasoning before us? We are referred for proof that the followers of Jesus held these opinions to an authority which the author himself admits to have been a late interpolation, which could not have been introduced into this Gospel earlier than 180 years after the ministry of our Lord, as a proof that his original followers believed that demons inhabited springs and fountains. Such reasonings furnish their own refutation.

The exposure of one more fallacy of this description will be sufficient. We are told that, “Not only one evil spirit entered into a body, but many took possession of the same individual. There are _many instances mentioned in the Gospels_, such as Mary Magdalene, out of whom went seven demons, and the man whose name was legion, because many demons had entered into him.”

I ask, where are these “many instances”? The plain fact must be stated, that the two here referred to, constitute the only ones which are mentioned as facts by the Evangelists. Besides these there is the parable of the unclean spirit going out of the man above alluded to, who, when he could find no rest returned to his former habitation in company with seven other spirits more wicked than himself. It should be observed that in two of the cases the number given is the mystical number “Seven”; and that one of them occurs in a parable, the moral of which is, to warn the Jews, that although they had got rid of the evil spirit of idolatry, they were in danger of falling into the greater evil of Phariseeism and hypocrisy.

But to return to the argument. The great mass of the author’s citations for the purpose of proving that the Jews at the time of the Advent, and among them the followers of Jesus, were a prey to these grotesque beliefs respecting the action of demons, are made from authors who are separated by an interval of centuries from the ministry of our Lord. I submit, therefore, that such authorities are utterly valueless to prove that His disciples and early followers were a prey to these gross delusions. Nor has he adduced an atom of valid proof from the New Testament itself. The references above referred to have either been made in a most careless manner, or have been used to assist in proving a foregone conclusion.

But let us suppose for the sake of argument that the Jews at the time of our Lord did generally entertain these monstrous demoniacal beliefs: to what conclusion, I ask, would such a fact, if true, indubitably point? Credulous and superstitions people, invariably invent stories that are the counterparts of their own credulity. This is proved by the whole mass of existing mythology. Mythological inventions give us the precise measure of the beliefs of those who have originated them. If then the demonology of those who have elaborated these portions of the Gospels was of the character that this writer and others assert it to have been, the Gospels would have contained an embodiment of such demoniacal beliefs as those which the author has so industriously collected, and has endeavoured to fasten upon their writers.

Now the idea of demonology having been present in the minds of the writers, it is obvious that they did not omit all reference to these absurd beliefs, merely because they were outside the subject on which they were writing. But while demoniacal action is repeatedly alluded to, it is an undeniable fact that no stories of the description given by this writer are to be found in them. The author therefore has furnished the most conclusive proof, without intending to do so, that these forms of thought, to whomsoever else they may have appertained, were neither those of the original followers of Jesus, nor of the authors of the Gospels.

It follows therefore that this attempt to prove that the followers of our Lord and the authors of the Gospels were a prey to such a mass of grotesque beliefs respecting demons, as to invalidate their historical testimony, falls to the ground, and that the data on which this has been attempted to be established, afford proof on the contrary that they did not entertain the beliefs in question.