66 the opinion and to pass on, contenting ourselves Iwith the observation that the "dæmon" the δαιμόνιον oι δαίμων of the Gospels has not necessarily anything in common with the "devil" or "demon of popular imagination, though dæmons are sometimes spoken of as unclean spirits, veúμата åκáðaρтα,1 or " evil," painful (Tovηpá) spirits. Most Greek pagan writers both before and after Christ, considered the dæmons as intermediate spirits between men and the gods, in which sense angels could be called dæmons; and indeed Plato's dæmon" was in fact his guardian angel. St. Paul on the other hand treated the pagan gods themselves as dæmons.2 Thus the word itself simply means a discarnate spirit, which may be either good or evil. Naturally a spirit causing sickness would be "unclean" (åκá@apтov) and "painful, causing pain or hardship, bad" (Tovηpóv). Some people think that such evil spirits lost their power when Christ came to bring a higher order among men, and that among pagan peoples such spirits are still to be found; and many missionaries of balanced and observant minds relate extraordinary instances which have come into their experience. Here, at 66 66 1 It is a pity that the revisers had not the courage to put demon or dæmon" from the margin into the text. In Acts 171 18 the word daμóviov, translated devil" in the Gospels, is translated "god"-"a setter forth of strange gods"! 2" But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to dæmons, and not to God," etc., 1 Cor. IO 20-21. 3 It must, however, be remembered that a case with all the classic signs of "diabolic possession" may turn out to be one of dual personality, as in that of Achille " (Dr. Janet, Névroses et Idées fixes, 1898, I, p. 377), which is as diabolic as anything in old writers. Achille was exorcised," or 66 least, is a field for further investigation. At the other extreme the mere biologist may content himself with the thought that a man with influenza is, in fact, possessed with a legion of living creatures whom we do not hesitate to consider evil. That a man should become the host of innumerable protozoa (each a being with a certain psychology of its own) is perhaps not more strange than that he should harbour beings that have not even a unicellular organism, and therefore have to be called spirits or dæmons: our ancestors would have thought it less strange possibly our descendants may come to agree with them. It may be worth while to add one further consideration to what is admittedly a difficult matter in our present state of knowledge. Christ is reported in the Synoptists as addressing the dæmons, as commanding them to come forth, as conveying power over them and exorcising them. If we accept this as final, we may argue either that dæmons existed in the first century and do not exist in the twentieth, or that they have disappeared only within the territory of the Church, and still exist in pagan centres. If, however, we think that dæmoniac possession never was nor can be possible, but at the same time accept Christianity as a whole, what position is to be taken? We may argue that the Synoptists did not report literally our Lord's words, but coloured them with their own ideas in this matter; and in favour of this the silence of St. John on the subject of dæmons can be legitimately brought forward. Or rather reintegrated, by suggestion and hypnotism. Ibid., pp. 404-5. See p. 159. we may hold that, as the Son of God, "emptied himself" of omniscience as well as of omnipotence at the Incarnation, his human knowledge of pathology was merely the knowledge of his time-which seems to have been the view of Romanes. Or we may argue that Christ without accepting the theory of dæmoniac possession himself, considered it best to fall in with the current ideas, rather than to give lectures on natural science, which would certainly have wrecked his spiritual work. Lastly, it may be urged that even at the present day, if a patient believes himself to be possessed of a devil, he has to be addressed as if there was a real devil there, and the devil has to be ordered about although he is only a fragment of the patient's own personality; the devil in such a case is an evil fragment — so far as modern science has brought us -- not an evil spirit, but an evil part splintered off from the patient's own spirit, and it has to be dealt with precisely in the way we read of in the Gospels.1 Those who held this view might be met by the objection that apparently Christ had not explained to 1 See again the case of "Achille" in Janet's Névroses et Idées fixes, as translated in Myers, Human Personality, Vol. I, p. 304 - "I will not believe in your power,' said Professor Janet to the malignant intruder, unless you give me a proof.' 'What proof? 'Raise the poor man's left arm without his knowing it.' This was done to the astonishment of poor Achille - and a series of suggestions followed, all of which the demon triumphantly and unsuspectingly carried out, to show his power. Then came the suggestion to which Professor Janet had been leading up. It was like getting the djinn into the bottle. You cannot put Achille soundly to sleep in that arm-chair!' 'Yes, I can!' No sooner said than done, and no sooner done than Achille was delivered from his tormentor from his own tormenting self.” the disciples that his language was adapted to the needs of the afflicted; but they could reply that one disciple enjoyed the special confidence of his Master, and this disciple wrote no word about dæmons something seal'd The lips of that Evangelist. I do not give any of these opinions as commanding my own acceptance, but I think it is worth while to give them all, since this is one of those questions to which at the present moment we cannot expect every man to give the same answer. CHAPTER XV THE POWER THAT HEALED Faith: Were the Miracles Evidential? 1 WHAT is said in the Gospels about the power which could effect the redemption of the body? It is clearly the power of God exercised in order to restore nature to that perfection which is God's ultimate will; and healing is thus a manifestation of "the works of God." This power our Lord exercises in his own person, as when he says, “I will, be thou clean." 2 He puts forth the power of God because he is the Son of God" My Father worketh even until now, and I work." When he is challenged for this statement, he makes the declaration which St. John has presented for us, as the Master's own explanation of his healing works "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and greater works than these will he shew him, that ye may marvel. For as the Father raiseth the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son also quickeneth whom he will." 3 1 Jn. 93. 2 Mt. 83. |