implied in other parts of Scripture, that both good and evil angels have certain regions assigned to them (see Dan. x. 13, 20). If this be the fact, it is most probable that being driven away from the region assigned to an evil spirit would be identical with being sent into the bottomless pit. In this case the apparently diverse statements between the Evangelists would perfectly harmonise. The principal difficulty connected with the history of the Gadarene demoniac remains to be noticed, the passage of the demons into the herd of swine, and the consequent results. The following is the narrative of Mark, with whom Matthew and Luke substantially agree: Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding. And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them. And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out and entered into the swine. And the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea (they were about two thousand) and were choked in the sea' (ch. v. 11-13). In this remarkable narrative, it is manifest at the first glance that every attempt to explain the particulars by referring to the usus loquendi must altogether fail. It was no part of the popular belief that demons ever possessed brutes. Besides, the effect produced upon the swine proves incontestably that the expelled demons had a real existence, and were not the mere chimeras of the imagination which some would have them to be. Endless have been the attempts of biblical scholars to explain the occurrence without having recourse to supernatural agency. All of them, however, agree in this, that they are utterly irreconcilable with the plain language of the narrative. With some the destruction of the swine was a mere accident, for which no cause can be assigned. With others, it was the demoniacs themselves who rushed upon the swine and frightened them into the sea. In short, the passage has been tortured in every possible way in order to make it square with the prejudices of those who are resolved to acknowledge no spiritual agency in such matters. The plain, self-evident declaration of the three Evangelists, however, can never be made to assume any other sense than the one generally assigned to it,-the transition of the legion of demons into the swine, and the destruction of the animals by their agency in the sea :- And the unclean spirits went out and entered into the swine; and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and were choked in the sea.' On the other hand, if we understand the narrative literally, the circumstances referred to admit of an easy explanation. To those e Paulus, Fritzsche in Matt., § 330. who who believe, according to the Scripture, that Satan deceived our first parents by entering into the body of a serpent, it will seem no difficult matter for a legion of demons-whatever may be the precise number denoted by that term-to enter into two thousand swine. Dr. Strauss, in his celebrated Life of Jesus, asks, 'What did the demons gain by entering into the animals, if they immediately destroyed the bodies of which they had taken possession; and thus robbed themselves of the temporary abode which they had so earnestly entreated?' This objection, however, proceeds upon an erroneous idea of the motives of the demons in entering the swine. The fact is, they only desired to do this as a means to an end. In obtaining permission to enter the swine was involved what they so earnestly desired-not to be sent into the bottomless pit. And in immediately destroying their temporary habitation, they accomplished two objects: first, they set themselves free to enter whatever human beings it might be in their power to possess ; and also restrained the power of our Lord in his ministry of good, by prejudicing the minds of the people against him. The latter object we know was accomplished: for the whole multitude of the Gadarenes besought him to depart from them; for they were taken with great fear.' 6 An attempt has been made to undermine the whole doctrine of demoniacal possession, by denying that the term demon (Saiμóviov, Saíuwv) refers in the Scripture to the fallen angels. According to Farmer, the word is never applied to Satan and his host, but to the souls or spirits of dead men, who were the principal objects of worship by the heathen. The Seventy use the word in the same sense as did the Jews universally in the time of Christ. Hence, to suppose that Christ and his Apostles would use the term in any other sense, would be to cast on them a foul reproach, and charge them with guilt of the deepest dye. And, therefore, inasmuch as these souls of dead men could not be present in the world, they could not possess any person, and the whole doctrine of possession falls to the ground. This opinion has been followed by most of the German commentators, and also by the writer of the article DEMON in the Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature. The latter says, 'It is frequently supposed that the demons of the New Testament are fallen angels; on the contrary, it is maintained by Farmer that the word is never applied to the devil and his angels, and that there is no sufficient reason for restricting the term to spirits of a higher order than mankind. It is but fair and natural to suppose that the writers of the New Testament use the word demons in the same sense in which it was used by their contemporaries, which, f Farmer on Demoniacs, p. 43. as as it appears from Josephus and other authorities, was that of the spirits of the wicked; and that if these writers had meant anything else, they would have given notice of so wide a deviation from popular usage. The writings of the Fathers show that they sometimes understood demons to be fallen angels; at other times they use the word in the same sense as the ancient philosophers. Justin Martyr affirms "those persons who are seized and thrown down by the souls of the deceased are such as all men agree in calling demoniacs or mad."'g In noticing this objection, which, it is evident, strikes at the very root of the doctrine of real possession, we shall first attempt to show that the term demons (or devils, as rendered in our Version) does denote the devil and his angels; and then examine into the meaning of the word as used by contemporary writers and Fathers of the church. As to the first point, that our Lord and the Jews in general, except the Sadducees, understood by the term demons those wicked spirits 'who kept not their first estate,' is capable of the clearest proof from a conversation between our Lord and the Scribes on the occasion of the healing of a demoniac. It is thus recorded by Mark—' And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, "He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils ;" and he calleth them unto him and said unto them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end." Now, it is admitted, we believe, by all, that in this passage Satan ( Zaravas) and the devil are the same; and Satan is spoken of as identical with Beelzebub, the prince of the demons. Hence, in the opinion of the Jews, as well as our Lord himself, the devil was the prince of those demons who possessed men, and who are, accordingly, in other passages represented as his angels (see Matt. xxv. 41, and Rev. xii. 7). We cannot but regard this as a complete demonstration of the fact, that the term demons in the Scriptures refers to the fallen angels. A trivial objection has indeed been made to the argument. It has been said that if it proves anything it also proves that the word Satan is equivalent to daovov. But it should be remembered that there is an absolute necessity for assigning a figurative import to the word in this case. In the very nature of things, it is quite impossible for any being literally to contend against himself. The only way in which the language Satan rise up against Satan can be understood is, by regarding the term s Apoll. i. ii. p. 65. Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature, art. 'Demon.' Satan Satan in the latter instance as figurative, and significant of the power, government, or cause of the great adversary of man. The assertion that the word demon was used by contemporary writers to denote the spirits of dead men is wholly unsupported by proof. The only writer whose authority can be adduced in support of this statement is Josephus, who certainly does say that 'demons are no other than the souls of wicked men, that enter into men and destroy them.' h But it is well known that Josephus received his education in the schools of the Grecian philosophers, hence it is impossible to know whether, in this statement, he is expressing the opinion of demoniacal possession which prevailed amongst the Greeks, or that which was current in Palestine. The writings of the Fathers are also referred to as affording evidence that the words Saμóviov and Saíuwv were used in the sense of the souls of the deceased. This proof too is equally destitute of real ground. The only Father whose authority can be produced on this side the question is Justin Martyr. This writer, in one passage of his Apology, has used the term in the alleged sense. It is as follows:-Those persons who are seized and thrown down by the souls of the deceased are such as all men agree in calling demoniacs or mad.' But this opinion can scarcely be said to be Justin's own, for he is here labouring to convince the heathens of the immortality of the soul from their own acknowledged sentiments. Besides which, he uses the word repeatedly elsewhere in the Scriptural sense, to denote the fallen angels. In his dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, for instance, when attempting to prove the existence of apostate angels, he quotes the ninety-sixth Psalm, ὅτι οἱ θεοὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν δαιμόνιά εἰσιν —the gods of the heathen are demons. And in his Cohort. ad Græcos, speaking of the devil who deceived our first parents, he calls him & moartρaños Saíuwv-the man-hating demon. We certainly cannot look upon Justin Martyr, then, as a witness that daquóvior, daiμar, denoted the souls of the deceased, especially as his pupil Tatian expressly asserts the contrary. In his Orat. cont. Græc., he says, Δαίμονες δὲ οἱ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἐπιτάττοντες οὐκ εἰσίν αἱ τῶν ἀνθρώπων uxaí- The demons who govern men are not the souls of men.' In a previous passage, too, he asserts of demons that they were ἐκβλητοι τῆς ἐν οὐρανῷ διαίτης γεγενημένοι—cast out from the heavenly conversation. Theophilus of Antioch, too, calls him who tempted Eve the evil-working demon (Saíuav), who is also called. Satan.' And Tertullian, in the same century, speaks of demons as the authors of the fall of man." Very many other proofs to the i Apol. i. ii. p. 65. kAd Autolyc., ii. 104. h De Bell. Jud. same same effect, from the writings of the Fathers of the second, third, and fourth centuries, might be adduced. But the above authorities will be considered sufficient to set against the quotation from Justin-the only one which all the industry and research of the German and English biblical scholars have been able to discover in the voluminous writings of the Fathers, and that too a statement which can hardly be said to express his own views on the subject-in proof of the fact that the word demon was used by the Fathers of the Church universally in the sense not of the souls of departed men, but of the angels who kept not their first estate.' 6 6 6 It is also objected by Farmer, and generally by those who adopt his views at home and abroad, that the representations of the confinement of the fallen angels are totally opposed to the notion of their wandering about the world and tormenting its inhabitants.'n The writer then refers to 2 Pet. ii. 4, and Jude 6. This, we confess, appears to us very strange; for whatever difficulties we may find in our attempts to explain the precise mode in which wicked angels operate upon men, that the devil originally tempted our first parents, and that he and his associates still employ all their skill and power to entice men to sin, are facts plainly stated, or clearly implied, in very many passages of Scripture. The devil is called the god of this world; the prince of the power of the air.' He is said to 'deceive the nations,' to work in the hearts of the children of disobedience,' to 'go about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour.' We are warned to take heed of 'the devices of Satan,' not to give place to the devil,' and exhorted again to withstand the wiles of the devil.' Satan is said to have tempted David to number Israel, and to have inflicted fearful evils upon Job. He appeared personally to Christ in the wilderness, and tempted him, and afterwards 'departed from him for a season.' Lastly, the Apostle Paul reminds believers that they 'wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits (Marg.) in high places' (Ephes. vi. 12). It appears to us that these and similar passages do, in the most plain and positive manner, teach that the fallen angels have access to this world, and possess the power of inflicting evil, by God's permission, upon mankind. The texts referred to above, in proof of the confinement of these wicked spirits, are as follow:-' If God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness to be reserved unto judgment' (2 Peter ii. 4); and the very similar one in Jude- And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own n Cyclop. of Biblical Literature, art. 'Demoniacs.' habitation, |