Demon

been, and that the Bible, as the literature of a divine revelation, can not be permitted to be charged with a lack of veracity or to be robbed of its historic basis. In the fourth edition of his Isaiah (Leipsic, 1889, dedicated to Driver and Cheyne of Oxford; Eng. transl., 1890), and in his Messianische Weissagungen (Leipsic, 1890; Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1891), the preface of which is dated five days before his death, a modification of his views also appeared. For those who took offense at his concession to the modern critical school he wrote Der tiefe Graben zwischen alter und moderner Theologie. Ein Bekenntniss (Leipsic, 1888; 2d ed., 1890). Besides the works already mentioned, he wrote: Zur Geschichte der jüdischen Poesie (Leipsic, 1836); Wissenschaft, Kunst, Judentum (Grimma, 1838); Anekdota zur Geschichte der mittelalterlichen Scholastik unter Juden und Moslemen (Leipsic, 1841); Philemon oder das Buch von der Freundschaft in Christo (Dresden, 1842); Wer sind die Mystiker? (Leipsic, 1842); Das Sakrament des wahren Leibes und Blutes Jesu Christi (Dresden, 1844; 7th ed., 1886); Die biblisch-prophetische Theologie (Leipsic, 1845); Symbolæ ad psalmos illustrando isagogica (1846); Vier Bücher von der Kirche (Dresden, 1847); Vom Hause Gottes oder der Kirche (1849); Komplutensische Varianten zum alttestamentlichen Texte (Leipsic, 1878); Fortgesetzte Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der komplutensischen Polyglotte (1886); Iris. Farbenstudien und Blumenstücke (1888). He took a lively interest in the conversion of the Jews, for whose benefit he translated the New Testament into Hebrew, and published works like Jesus und Hillel (Erlangen, 1867; 3d ed., 1871) and Handwerkerleben zur Zeit Jesu (Erlangen, 1868; 3d ed., 1878; Eng. transl., New York, 1883). He also defended them against anti-Semitic attacks and wrote Ernste Fragen an die Gebildeten jüdischer Religion (Leipsic, 1888; 2d ed., 1890), and Sind die Juden wirklich das auserwählte Volk? (Leipsic, 1889) against Jewish pretensions and invectives. In 1886 he founded at Leipsic a seminary in which candidates of theology are prepared for missionary work among the Jews, and which in memory of him is now called Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum. BIBLIOGRAPHY: S. I. Curtiss, F. Delitzsch, London, 1891; H. V. Hilprecht, in Old Testament Student, vi. 209 sqq.; T. K. Cheyne, in Academy, xxxvii (1890), 169, and Athenæum, 1890, i. 308; W. Baudissin, in Expositor, 1890, pp. 465 sqq.; A. Köhler, in Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift, i. 234 sqq. DELITZSCH, FRIEDRICH: German Assyriologist; b. at Erlangen Sept. 3, 1850. He studied at Leipsic, where he became associate professor of Semitic languages and Assyriology in 1877. In 1893 he was called to Breslau as full professor of the same subjects, and since 1899 has held a similar position in Berlin, in addition to being director of the Asiatic section in the Royal Museum. He has written Assyrische Lesestücke (Leipsic, 1876); Wo lag das Paradies? (1881); The Hebrew Language Viewed in the Light of Assyrian Research (London, 1883); Die Sprache der Kossäer (Leipsic, 1884); Prolegomena eines neuen hebräisch-aramäischen Wörterbuchs zum Alten Testament (1886); Assyrisches Wörterbuch zur gesammten bisher veröffentlichten Keilschriftliteratur (3 parts, 1887–90); Assyrische Gram

matik (1889; Eng. transl. by A. R. S. Kennedy, London, 1889); Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens (Calw, 1891); Beiträge zur Entzifferung und Erklärung der kappadokischen Keilschrifttafeln (Leipsic, 1893); Die Entstehung des ältesten Schriftsystems oder der Ursprung der Keilschriftzeichen (1896); Das Buch Hiob neu übersetzt und erklärt (1902); Babel und Bibel (2 parts, 1902-03; Eng. transl. by C. H. W. Johns, London, 1903), which was based on lectures delivered before the Emperor of Germany and roused vehement opposition in certain conservative circles; Die babylonische Chronik (1906); and Mehr Licht (1907). He collaborates with Paul Haupt in editing the Assyriologische Bibliothek (Leipsic, 1881 sqq.) and Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft (1889 sqq.).

DELLA VOLPE, FRANCESCO SALESIO: Cardinal; b. at Ravenna, Italy, Dec. 24, 1844. He studied at the seminary of Bertinovo, the Seminario Pio, Rome, and the Pontificia Accademia dei Nobili Ecclesiastici. At the age of thirty he became a privy chamberlain of Pope Pius IX., and five years later was appointed secretary of the Congregation of Indulgences. He became Maestro di Camera in 1886 and Majordomo in 1892. He was created cardinal in petto in 1899, although his appointment was not publicly announced until 1901, when he received the title of cardinal priest of Santa Maria in Aquiro. Since 1903 he has been prefect of the Congregation of the Propaganda.

DELUGE. See NOAH.

DEMAREST, WILLIAM HENRY STEELE: Reformed (Dutch); b. at Hudson, N. Y., May 12, 1863. He studied at Rutgers College (B.A., 1883), and was graduated at the New Brunswick Theological Seminary in 1888. In the same year he was ordained to the ministry, and held pastorates at Walden, N. Y. (1888-97), and Catskill, N. Y. (1897-1901). From 1901 to 1906 he was professor of ecclesiastical history and church government in New Brunswick Theological Seminary, and in 1906 was elected president of Rutgers College, having already been acting president in 1905-06. He has written History of the Church of Walden (New York, 1893); Outline of Church Government (New Brunswick, N. J., 1903); and Outline of Church History (1904).

DE MENT, BYRON HOOVER: Baptist; b. at Silver Springs, Tenn., May 17, 1863. He was graduated at the University of Nashville in 1885, and studied at the University of Virginia (1888–90), and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky. (1896-1900). He was professor of Greek and Latin in Doyle College, Doyle, Tenn., 1885–86, and from 1893 to 1896 was pastor at Lexington, Va. In 1900-03 he was pastor of the Twenty-second and Walnut Street Baptist Church, Louisville, Ky., and of the First Baptist Church, Waco, Tex., 1904-06. In 1903-04 he was professor of Hebrew and practical theology in Baylor University, Waco, and since 1906 has been professor of Sunday-school pedagogy in Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky. He was a member of the Texas Baptist Education Commission in 1903-06.

DEMETRIUS OF ALEXANDRIA. See ORIGEN,
I., § 3.

DEMON, DEMONISM.

Background of Demonology (§ 1).
Nature of Demons (§ 2).

The Se'irim and Shedhim (§ 3).

Other Hebrew Demonic Conceptions (§ 4).

The Greek daimon (diminutive, daimonion), the
original of the English "demon," did not connote
necessarily the idea of evil. It was rather neutral,
and might even be used as a synonym of theos,
"god"; it was also generally employed to desig-
nate a tutelary genius (Lat. lar, lemur, genius), and
came to be applied to any departed soul. In the
Septuagint of the Old Testament, in the New Tes-
tament, and in Christian usage the connotation is

sinister and always involves an evil

1. Back- spirit. The origin of the idea of de-
ground of mons lies far back in the empirical
Demon- dualism of man's animistic concep-
ology. tions, according to which all nature is
peopled with spirits which are believed
constantly to affect or control human acts and des-
tiny (see COMParative ReligION, VI., 1, a, § 4).
Man's efforts may turn out to his satisfaction or
to his disappointment, and he attributes the re-
sults to the assistance or hindrance of spirits whom
he regards as good or bad according as they seem
to assist or to thwart his efforts. This primitive
bipartition of the spirit-world into good spirits
(which may become angels) and bad (which be-
come demons) persists through many stages of un-
folding in civilization and in religion, and remains
as a belief even in the period of enlightenment.
Traces of animistic belief have not been wholly
eradicated from the Old Testament; cf., e.g., the
serpent of Gen. iii. which has speech, mentality,
and evil purpose, and also the anointing by Jacob
of the stone to which he attributed his wonderful
dream (Gen. xxviii. 18). The narrative in Num.
xxii. 22-34 presupposes a belief in the vocal power
of animals, though the impression given by the
narration is rather that of miraculous impartation
of speech to an otherwise mute animal. The en-
tire religious provenience out of which the Hebrew
religion sprang is full of demonism (see ASSYRIA,
VII., § 8; BABYLONIA, VII., 1, §§ 4-6). The Baby-
lonian religion divided its spirits into good and bad.
These were again classified and grouped, and to the
classes and groups names were given, though in
general the individual demons did not receive
names. This is in accordance with the general law
that only in the more developed stages do the
spirits become so individualized as to be named.
This appears in the Hebrew representation, where
in the earlier writings individual spirits are merely
referred without individualization to classes (cf.
the unnamed "evil spirit " which tormented Saul,
I Sam. xvi. 14-15, and the "evil spirit" which by
divine commission came between Abimelech and
the Shechemites, Judges ix. 23), while Satan, not
at first as devil, but as one belonging to God's com-
pany, or at least admitted to his presence (Job i.
6 sqq.; Zech. iii. 1 sqq.), Azazel, and Asmodeus
(see below) emerge as personal spirits possessing
names only in the late (postexilic) literature. A
wealth of demonic conceptions quite equal to the

Demon

Babylonian is found also in the Arabic religion,
according to which demons swarm in the regions of
air, earth, and water, lying in wait for the unwary.
The magic and incantations of Arabic folk-lore are
hardly less prominent and numerous than those of
Babylonia, and where these exist belief in demon-
ology is sure to be found (see DIVINATION; and
MAGIC).

The characteristics of the demons in the Semitic
sphere are like those of demons among other peo-
ples. These beings, whose power is greatest dur-
ing the hours of darkness, are responsible for ills of
the flesh, of the mentality, and of the spiritual life.
They cause disease, aberration of mind, and per-
verseness toward the gods; they con-
2. Nature trol the atmosphere and bring storms;
of Demons. by their mastery of the waters they
bring floods and destruction; they
enter the bodies of human beings, are especially
dangerous to women and children, and at the crit-
ical periods of life are alert to work them harm.
They may be warded off by attention to the proper
ritual, by the use of drugs and herbs, and by the
potency of incantations and charms (the later Jews
regarded the shema, "Hear, O Israel," of Deut.
vi. 4 as a protection). Yet they may be welcomed
by the individual and become so at home in his
person that he becomes virtually one of their num-
ber. In accordance with their perverse nature, the
demons have their dwelling-places in spots shunned
by mortals in the deserts, among ruins and in
cities which have been destroyed by the enemy,
among graves, in miasmatic morasses, and in like
places. The demonology of the Old Testament and
the New exhibits many of these traces. Yet it is
to be observed that not even in its monotheism
does the religion of Israel show a loftier elevation
above the faiths of the surrounding peoples than
in its demonology. The most numerous traces
appear in the period of depression when national
disaster had enforced contact with the pregnant
demonism of Babylonians, Persians, and the in-
vading Arabs. As a matter of course, the nature of
demons is ever vaguely treated, and the exact no-
tions about them are difficult to determine.
mons were regarded as not of flesh and blood (cf.
Eph. vi. 12), yet they ate and drank, reproduced
their kind, and might be wounded and killed.
They were pictured with the passions and even the
lusts of mankind (cf. Tobit vi. 14). They were
above the laws of nature, and could transform
themselves into various shapes, even into those of
angels of light (cf. II Cor. xi. 14). In Judaism they
were regarded as especially the opponents of the
Messiah (see DEMONIAC). Their origin is seldom
accounted for in popular belief. They come down
as elemental spirits in the common belief of the
people, and their number is added to as the souls
of the departed become regarded as malignant.
When an angelology develops, the angels are re-
garded as falling from their high estate and adding
to the number of the demons. So in the earlier
stages of the Hebrew religion demons are not ac-
counted for; but in late Jewish works, especially in
the Book of Enoch (see PSEUDEPIGRAPHA), the de-
mons are largely derived from the episode narrated

De-

Demoniac

in Gen. vi. 1-4 or from the conceptions of the fall
of the angels who thereby became demons. In the
same region demonology developed pari passu
with angelology, and a demonarchy with Satan
and archdemons at the head were opposed to the
hierarchy of God and the archangels and angels
which left its traces in all Western and some East-
ern literatures.

The word daimon was introduced into the Bib-
lical sphere through the Septuagint as a translation
of the two Hebrew words sa'ir (pl. se'irim) and
shedh (pl. shedhim; cf. Assyr. shedu,
like the Gk. daimon, originally a word
of neutral signification, found also in
Se'irim and Phenician inscriptions, and possibly
Shedhim. etymologically connected with Shad-

3. The
Hebrew

dai, one of the patriarchal names for
God, e.g., Gen. xvii. 1, R. V., margin, and also with
the Arabic sa'id, sayyid, "lord "). The former oc-
curs Lev. xvii. 7 (A. V. “ devils," R. V. " he-goats,'
margin satyrs "); Isa. xiii. 21, xxxiv. 14 (A. V.
and R. V. "satyrs," R. V. margin "he-goats ");
and II Chron. xi. 15 (A. V. "devils," R. V. he-
goats," margin satyrs"). Shedh (shedhim) oc-
curs in Deut. xxxii. 17 and Ps. cvi. 37 (A. V.
devils," R. V. " demons "). In Isa. xiii. 21, re-
garded as exilic or later, the reference is to the
desolate site of Babylon where repulsive creatures
and dancing se'irim are to abide. The conception
is evidently that of hairy goat-like creatures, not
unlike the satyr or Pan of Greek myth; some va-
rieties of the Arabic jinn are also represented as
having somewhat of the same form (Wellhausen,
Heidentum, pp. 151-152). This representation is
in full accord with that of Isa. xxxiv. 14, also exilic
or postexilic, in which the sa'ir cries "to his fel-
low" in Edom, which has become a waste inhabited
by wolves and by the night monster (Heb. lilith,
R. V. " night-hag," see below). Further, light is
cast on the subject by the passage Lev. xvii. 7,
which forbids sacrifice to the se'irim, here men-
tioned as the objects of worship. This worship
may have been simply avertive, after the primitive
fashion of bringing offerings to beings whose ill will
it was desired to avoid. It is significant that the
purpose of the entire passage is to proscribe sacri-
fice in "the open field "-i.e., apart from the dwell-
ing-place-which may mean the desert, the assumed
home of evil spirits. Similar in purport is Deut.
xxxii. 17, where the fathers are said to have sacri-
ficed to shedhim, and Ps. cvi. 37, in which case
sons and daughters were the offerings presented.
It is questionable whether these two cases are mere
invidious comparison of false gods to demons (W.
von Baudissin, in Hauck-Herzog, RE, vi. 4), since
this comparison is not met again for several cen-
turies, possibly not till apostolic times. The entire
provenience of the passages and the ideas con-
nected are best suited by the supposition that offer-
ings of an avertive character are here referred to,
and that not the heathen deities, but actual demons
were conceived as objects of worship. The possible
renascence of totemistic practises (probably under
the influence of Arabic immigration) suggested by
Ezek. viii. 10 and Isa. Ixvi. 17 is in favor of this
conclusion.

Mention of lilith (Isa. xxxiv. 14, A. V. “screech-
owl," margin and R. V. "night monster," R. V.
margin" Lilith ") has already been made. There
can be no doubt of the Babylonian origin of this
word. The god of Nippur was known as En-lil,
"lord of spirits" (see BABYLONIA, VII., 2, § 2), and
the Assyrian lilu, lilutu had the signification
sprites." The Semitic lilatu, " night," may be
compared, and the fem. Lilith is named in the cunei-
form inscriptions as an attendant of
4. Other Namtar, the deity of plagues (see
Hebrew BABYLONIA, VII., 2, § 8). In late rab-
Demonic binic literature lilin means female de-
Conceptions. mons, and Lilith herself bears no slight
part in legend and was conceived as
living in the desert whence she emerged to make
her attacks. A kindred conception is that of Prov.
xxx. 15 (Heb. ‘alukah, A. V. "horseleech," R. V.
margin" vampire," described as having daughters
ever crying" give, give "), to which what is at
least a parallel, if not a cognate conception, is
found in the Arabic 'aluk. The circumstances of
the reference suit much better the conception of
a demon than that of a horseleech, especially the
circumstance of the insatiable daughters. Azazel
(Lev. xvi. 8 sqq.) is the name of a demon whose
home is in the desert, whose character and aims are
opposed to those of Yahweh. The name has not
yet yielded to investigations on the side of Hebrew
philology, and is unique as being the one element
of this character entering into the ritual of the
Hebrews. Asmodeus, mentioned in Tobit, is either
derived from Persian sources or is a literary imita-
tion of a Persian conception. Heylel (Isa. xiv. 12),
the "day star, fallen from heaven," is interesting
as an early instance of what, especially in pseud-
epigraphic literature, became a dominant concep-
tion, that of fallen angels. The Septuagint trans-
lates by daimonia the elilim of Ps. xcv. 5 (A. V.
and R. V. "idols," R. V. margin "things of
naught "), probably rendering aright the concep-
tion of the author of this late psalm. It is not im-
probable that behind the " pestilence" and "de-
struction of Ps. xci. 6 are animistic conceptions
of mischief-working demons, and that they are not
mere personifications. A belief closely akin to
that in demons is referred to in the obh, "familiar
spirit," of I Sam. xxviii. 7 sqq. In direct line with
this and connecting the belief of the early Hebrews
with that of surrounding nations are the teraphim
(q.v.), the best explanation of which relates them
to ancestral spirits that are sought among the
graves (cf. Isa. lxv. 4; cf. Deut. xxvi. 14; Ps. cvi.
28). Etymologically connected with teraphim is
the word rephaim, "giants," and this again con-
nects the Hebrews with the beliefs of other peoples
who speak of earlier inhabitants of their land as
still remaining, though in the shape of elves, dwarfs,
and fairies. In the Assyrian tongue the words
utukku and ukimmu designated both a class of de-
mons and also the spirits of the dead, and they are
compared with zakiku, "wind," recalling the
"spirits" mentioned above as unclassified (cf.
Heb. ruah). The idea which underlies that of re-
phaim is unsubstantiality, and ruḥim becomes a
late Jewish word for demons. The Hebrew popu-

lar belief in demons is attested further by the many injunctions against sorcery which appear in the legislative and prophetic utterances. In ethnic custom one of the universally employed means of averting the harmful action of demons is the use of the magic word or act. The fact that the people needed this admonition so constantly speaks more strongly for the abiding belief in demons than the few specific references which are found. For the New Testament doctrine and for later Jewish belief in demons see DEMONIAC, §§ 1-4.

GEO. W. GILMORE. BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. Kohut, Angelologie und Dämonologie in ihrer Abhängigkeit vom Parsismus, in Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, iv., 1866; W. Baudissin, Studien zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte, i. 110-146, Leipsic, 1876; P. Scholtz, Götzendienst und Zauberwesen, pp. 133-137, Regensburg, 1877; J. T. de Visser, De Daemonologie van het O. T., pp. 80-83, Utrecht, 1880; H. Schultz, O. T. Theology, London, 1892; R. Stube, Jüdisch-babylonische Zaubertexte, Halle, 1895; W. R. Newbold, Demon Possession and Allied Themes, in New World, Sept., 1897; E. Stave, Ueber den Einfluss des Parsismus auf das Judentum, pp. 235-280, Haarlem, 1898; Smith, Rel. of Sem., pp. 119-120; DB, i, 590-594; EB, i. 1069– 1074; JE, iv. 514-521. On Lilith consult: J. A. EisenEntdecktes Judentum, ii. 413 sqq., Frankfort, menger, 1700; W. Gesenius, Jesaia, i. 916-920, Leipsic, 1821. On ethnic demonology consult: F. Lenormant, La Magie chez les Chaldéens, Paris, 1874; J. Wellhausen, Heidentum, pp. 151 sqq.; J. L. Nevins, Demon Possession and Allied Themes, New York, 1895; E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture, London, 1903. Consult also the literature under DEMONIAC.

DEMONIAC.

Jewish and New Testament Demonology (§ 1). New Testament Ideas Concerning Demoniacs (§ 2). Symptoms of Possession (§ 3).

Exorcism by Jesus (§ 4).

Exorcism in the Early Church (§ 5).

Exorcism by Jews (§ 6).

Modern Explanations (§ 7).

A demoniac is one supposed to be possessed by a demon or evil spirit or by several demons. The name demon originated in Greek mythology and was introduced into the Bible and Christianity through the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew se'irim and shedhim (see the article DEMON for the Old Testament demonology). In postexilic Judaism demonology gained ground, either through foreign influence or by a recrudescence of primitive Semitic or Israelitic folk-lore. The New Testament reflects the current beliefs of its time. The demonic powers are represented as spirits, not flesh and blood (Eph. vi. 12); they can assume any form, even appearing as angels of light (II Cor. xi. 14); they dwell in ruins (Rev. xviii. 2), in tombs (Mark v. 1 sqq.), and especially in the desert (Matt. iv. 1 sqq., xii. 43). In the Talmud their generic name is mazzikin ("injurers"). They lead men to sin (Enoch Ixix. 4, 6), and return more readily

to the sinner than to the righteous

1. Jewish (Testament of Naphtali 8); yet it and New is possible to resist the devil (Eph. Testament vi. 12; James iv. 7; I Pet. v. 8), Demon- and even to stop the way of the ology. evil spirits by opposing them (Matt. xii. 43 sqq.). One who transgresses the commandments falls an easy victim to the demons (Debarim rabbah 4), although he is protected by the recitation of the Shema, or by III.-26

Demoniac

the strict observance of other commandments (Berako 5; Pesikta 187"). The devil and his hosts are the special foes of the Messianic kingdom (Rev. xii. 10). The mission of Jesus was the conquest of the " strong man (Matt. xii. 29), although, according to Luke xxii. 3, I Cor. ii. 8, he apparently fell a victim to the evil one; yet, as he had expressed the conviction that he had cast out the kingdom of Satan by the spirit of God (Matt. xii. 26, 28), he inspired his disciples and all early Christianity with the consciousness of victory over the demons (Luke x. 17 sqq.). They, on the other hand, recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Mark i. 24, and frequently). According to Rev. xii., which is confirmed by allusions in the Pauline writings, the devil, having been cast down from heaven, is come to earth to work evil during the little time which still remained to him, and must be resisted continually, although he can win no real victory. The Pauline concept of the "rudiments of the world " (Col. ii. 20; cf. ii. 15; Rom. viii. 38; Eph. vi. 12) refers not only to the sovereigns of the Jews and the Gentiles (Gal. iii. 19; iv. 1-4, 8-9; Enoch Ixxxix. 59-60), but also to the gods of the nations and of idolatrous Israel (Deut. xxxii. 17; Ps. xcv. 5, cvi. 37). This comparison of the pagan deities to shedhim recurs in postexilic Judaism (Enoch xix. 1; Rev. ix. 20), in the writings of Paul, and throughout ecclesiastical antiquity. Though Paul denied the existence of idols (I Cor. viii. 4 sqq.), declaring them dead (I Thess. i. 9) and no gods by nature (Gal. iv. 8), he expressly stated that the sacrifices offered to pagan deities were really given to devils (I Cor. x. 19 sqq.; cf. Justin, i. 5, 10, 12, 23, ii. 1, 12, 13; Tatian, Oratio ad Græcos; Tertullian, Apol., xxii., xxiii., et passim; Origen, Contra Celsum).

The principal source for the Biblical view of demoniacs is the historical books of the New Testament. According to the general concept of the various passages, the demon enters into man as a second personality (Luke viii. 30), dwelling in him as in a house (Matt. xii. 44; Luke xi. 24), so that evil spirits dread to be banished into 2. New Tes- the abyss (Luke viii. 31), or (Mark v. tament 10) to be expelled from a land they Ideas Con- love, preferring to inhabit the bodies cerning of swine. The demon tortures man Demoniacs. (Matt. xv. 22), driving him whither he would not go (Luke viii. 29). The demoniac is often so thoroughly possessed by the evil spirit that he lives in sepulchers and other lonely places, a danger to passers-by (Matt. viii. 28) and unable to be bound by even the strongest fetters (Mark v. 3-6); he even speaks as though he were himself the demon, using the plural when possessed by many evil spirits (Matt. viii. 29; Mark i. 24, v. 9; Luke iv. 34, viii. 28).

The manifestations of demoniac possession are extremely varied. The boy at the foot of the Mount of Transfiguration (Mark ix. 14-27) is represented as seized with convulsions, writhing on the ground, and foaming at the mouth. At the first attack the boy wallowed dumb upon the ground, nor did he cry out until the demon had been expelled, although the account of Luke (ix. 39) states that

Dempster

the child screamed at every attack, and that the evil spirit" bruising him, hardly departeth from him." Both Mark and Luke record symp3. Symptoms of epilepsy; the account in Mattoms of thew not only omits all these details, Possession. but especially characterizes the disease as lunacy (xvii. 15), thus giving a preferable explanation of the falling of the boy into fire and water, which has no specific cause in Mark, and is altogether lacking in Luke. The passage in Matthew is the more interesting since in iv. 24 he distinguishes "those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatic, and those that had the palsy." The demoniac met by Jesus in the synagogue at Capernaum (Mark i. 23-28) does not exhibit the characteristic foam of epilepsy, but shows symptoms of epileptic hysteria, especially as Luke iv. 35 notes that the fit did him no harm. It is evident, from a summary of the cases in Matthew and Mark, that such attacks were regarded as demoniac in origin, and to the same agency are ascribed the superhuman strength, the selfinjury, the dwelling among tombs, the threatening gestures, and the nakedness of the demoniac of Gadara (Mark v. 2-5; Luke viii. 27-29). Other complaints of a less serious nature, however, are also referred to the agency of demons, such as dumbness (Matt. ix. 32; Luke xi. 14), or blindness and dumbness (Matt. xii. 22), although no mention is made of the expulsion of demons in the accounts of the healing of the dumb and the blind in Matt. ix. 27-31; Mark vii. 32, 37, viii. 22-26, x. 46–52. In like manner, Luke iv. 40-41 (cf. vi. 17-18, vii. 21) regards the curing of demoniacs as a special phase of healing, and in Acts viii. 7 demoniacs are distinguished from the paralytic and the lame. On the other hand, the woman bowed with a spirit of infirmity eighteen years" was "bound by Satan" (Luke xiv. 11-16), and the fever of Peter's mother-in-law seems to have been believed to be demoniac (Luke iv. 38-39). The healings at Capernaum (Matt. viii. 16) were in the main exorcisms of demons, and these formed a large part of the activity both of Jesus (Mark i. 39) and of the Twelve (Mark iii. 14-15, vi. 7, 13; Matt. x. 8).

The gloom and asceticism of John the Baptist gained him the reputation of a demoniac (Matt. xi. 18; Luke vii. 33), and this charge was brought against Jesus himself (Matt. ix. 34, xii. 24; Mark iii. 22, 30; Luke xi. 15; John vii. 20, viii. 48, x. 20). Nor was it an easy matter to distinguish between spirits of evil and spirits of God (Matt. xxiv. 11, 24; I John iv. 1-3), so that the " discerning of spirits was regarded as a special grace (I Cor. xii. 10, xiv. 29). Even a storm (Mark iv. 37-41; cf. Rev. vii. 1; Enoch lx. 11 sqq.; Jubilees ii.) was considered the work of demons. It is surprising, on the other hand, that moral defects and delinquencies are seldom represented as demoniac either by popular belief or by Jesus himself. Neither Matt. xi. 18; John vii. 20, viii. 48, 52, nor Luke xi. 24-26 admits of such an interpretation, the only passages really entering into consideration being Luke xxii. 3, 31 and the account of the temptation, where, however, Satan is rather the avowed opponent of all Messianic work than the principle of evil.

4. Exorcism by Jesus.

In the exorcisms of Jesus the demoniacs are agitated at his approach (Mark i. 23, iii. 11, v. 6, ix. 20), while the evil spirits, recognizing him as the Son of God, implore him not to torment them before their time (Matt. viii. 29). Such recognition, although rebuked by Jesus (Mark i. 25, iii. 12), receives its explanation in the supernatural power of perception possessed by the evil spirits, since by means of his Spirit God wrought through Jesus all his miracles, wonders, and signs. The rebuke of Jesus is sufficient in most cases to exorcise evil spirits (Matt. viii. 16; Mark i. 25, ix. 25), even at a distance (Mark vii. 29, 30). The successful exorcism of the demon is recognized by the quiet and repose of the patient (Mark v. 15, vii. 30), or by a loud cry from the person possessed (Mark i. 26), while the transfer of the demon from the man of Gadara to the swine in Mark v. 2-13 finds its probable explanation in the fright of the animals at the final paroxysm of the maniac. The historicity of Jesus' successful treatment of demoniacs is admitted in principle even by adherents of the critical school. Exorcisms were the order of the day and were expected from a Messianic prophet, and the chief proof for their historicity lies in statements of Jesus which represent their importance for himself and his activity as the Messiah (Matt. xi. 5; Luke vii. 22). It becomes clear from Matt. xii. 25-32 and Luke xi. 17-23 that Jesus believed not only in the existence of demons (cf. Matt. xii. 43-45; Luke xi. 2426), but, like his contemporaries, in exorcism (Matt. xii. 27; Luke xi. 19). The expulsion of demons implied the debilitation and the destruction of the "kingdom of Satan" (Matt. xii. 26; Luke xi. 18), thus representing victories over the principle of evil in the dawn of the Messianic age (cf. Assumption of Moses x.). It is clear, from the allusion to the "strong man in Matt. xii. 29, and Luke xi. 21-22, that Jesus deduced his victory over the demons from his previous conquest of Satan, their lord, in his temptation (cf. Luke x. 18-20).

The accounts of the Gospels receive their full explanation, however, only in the light of the history of religion, which shows that the belief in demoniac possession was not restricted to the time of Jesus or to his surroundings. Exorcism 5. Exor- continued to be practised in the early cism in the Christian Church (Acts v. 16, viii. 7). Early Of particular interest is the account Church. of the "spirit of divination,” in Acts xvi. 16-18. The narrative in Acts xix. 13-19, on the other hand, contains no exorcism in the strict sense of the term, but merely shows the power of the name of Jesus over those possessed with demons (cf. Mark ix. 38-39; Luke ix. 49). Jesus himself admitted the success of other exorcists and sanctioned them as helping to destroy the kingdom of Satan, so that the failure of the Jewish exorcists (Acts xix. 13-16) is an exception to the general rule. Although the epistles contain no direct statements concerning demoniacs and exorcisms, such beliefs must be attributed to Paul when he mentions among charismata the ability to discern between spirits (I Cor. xii. 10). The con