POSSESSION
316
POSSESSION
or that they are powerless to influence the human
body in the manner described. It was on this prin-
ciple that, according to Lecky, the world came to dis-
believe in witchcraft : men did not trouble to analyse
the evidence that could be produced in its favour;
they simply decided that the testimony must be mis-
taken because "they came gradually to look upon it
as absurd" (op. cit., p. 12). And it is by this same
a priori principle, we believe, that Christians who try
to explain away the facts of possession are uncon-
sciously influenced. Though put forward once as a
commonplace by leaders of materialistic thought,
there is a noticeable tendency of late years not to
insist upon it so strongly in view of the admission
made by competent scientific inquirers that many of
the manifestations of Spiritism cannot be explained
by human agency (cf. Miller, op. cit., 7-9). But
whatever view Rationalists may ultimately adopt,
for a sincere believer in the Scriptures there can
be no doubt that there is such a thing as possession
possible. And if he is optimistic enough to hold that
in the present order of things God would not allow
the evil spirits to exercise the powers they naturally
possess, he might open his eyes to the presence of sin
and sorrow in the world, and recognize that God
causes the sun to shine on the just and the unjust and
uses the powers of evil to promote His own wise and
mysterious purposes (cf. Job, passim; Mark v, 19).
That mistakes were often made in the diagnosis of cases, and results attributed to diabolical agency that were really due to natural causes, we need have no hesitation in admitting. But it would be illogical to conclude that the whole theory of possession rests on imposture or ignorance. The abuse of a system gives us no warrant to denounce the system itself. Strange phenomena of nature have been wrongly regarded as miraculous, but the detection of the error has left our belief in real miracles intact. Men have been wrongly convicted of murder, but that docs not prove that our reliance on evidence is essentially unreason- able or that no murder has ever been committed. A Catholic is not asked to accept all the cases of diabol- ical possession recorded in the history of the Chiu-ch, nor even to form any definite opinion on the historical evidence in favour of any particular case. That is primarily a matter for historical and medical science (cf. Delrio, "Disq. mag. libri sex", 1747; Alexander, " Demon. Possession in the N. T.", Edinburgh, 1902). As far as theory goes, the real question is whether possession has ever occurred in the past, and whether it is not, therefore, possible that it may occur again. And while the cumulative force of centuries of experi- ence is not to be lightly disregarded, the main evidence will be found in the action and teaching of Christ Himself as revealed in the inspired pages of the New Testament, from which it is clear that any attempt to identify possession with natural disease is doomed to failure.
In classical Greek Saiiu>vq.v, it is true, means "to be mad" (cf. Eurip., "Phcen.", 888; Xenophon, "Me- mor.", I, i, ix; Plutarch, "Marc", xxiii), and a sim- ilar meaning is conveyed by the Gospel phrase Sai/iAwoK fx", when the Pharisees use it of Christ (Matt., xi, 18; John, vii, 20; viii, 48), especially in John, X, 20, where they say "He hath a devil, and is mad" {ia.i^lbvLov «x^^t '^^^ Awi^Kxai); Sat/xor^*', however, is not the word used by the sacred writers. Their word is baifiovi^tadai, and the meanings given to it previously by profane writers ("to be subject to an ap- pointed fate"; Philemon, "Incert.", 981; "to be dei- fied"; Sophocles, "Fr.", 180) are manifestly excluded by the context and the facts. The demoniacs were often afflicted with other maladies as well, but there is surely nothing improbable in the view of Catholic theologians that the demons often afflicted those who were already diseased, or that the very fact of ob- session or possession produced these diseases as a
natural consequence (cf. Job, ii, 7; Gorres, "Die
Christ, mystik", iv; Lesetre in "Diet, de la Bible",
s. V. D6moniaques). Natural disease and possession
are in fact clearly distinguished by the Evangelists:
"He cast out the spirits with his word: and aU that
were sick he healed" (Matt., viii, 16). "They brought
to him all that were ill and that were possessed with
devils . . . and he healed many that were troubled
with divers diseases; and he cast out many devils"
(Mark i, 32, 34); and the distinction is shown more
clearly in the Greek: iriinai toi)s KaKws exofras /cai toi>s
Saifxovii^ofji^i'ous.
A favourite assertion of the Rationalists is that lunacy and paralysis were often mistaken for posses- sion. St. Matthew did not think so, for he tells us that "they presented to him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases [7roiK(Xais vdcrois] and tor- ments [pacrdvois], and such as were possessed by devils [daifwpi^oiji^povs], and lunatics [o-cXr/i-iafo/i^vous], and those who had the palsy [TopaXi/ri/toiis], and he cured them " (iv, 24) . And the circumstances that attended the cures point in the same direction. In the case of ordinary diseases they were effected quietly and with- out \dolence. Not so always with the possessed. The evil spirits passed into lower animals with dire results (Matt., viii, 32), or cast their \'ictim on the ground (Luke, iv, 35) or, "crying out, and greatly tearing him, went out of him, and he became as dead, so that many said: He is dead" (Mark, ix, 25; cf. Vigouroux, "Les livres saints et la crit. rationaliste", Paris, 1891).
Abstracting altogether from the fact that these passages are themselves inspired, they prove that the Jews of the time regarded these particular manifesta- tions as due to a diabolical source. This was surely a matter too closely connected with Christ's own Di\-ine mission to be Ughtly passed over as one on which men might, without much inconvenience from the religious point of view, be allowed to hold erro- neous opinions. If, therefore, possession were merely a natural disease and the general opinion of the time based on a delusion, we might expect that Christ would have proclaimed the correct doctrine as He did when His followers spoke of the sin of the man born blind (John, ix, 2, 3), or when Nicodemus misunder- stood His teaching on the necessity of being born again in Baptism (ibid., iii, 3, 4). So far from correct- ing the prevalent conviction, He approved and en- couraged it by word and action. He addressed the evil spirits, not their victims; told His disciples how the evil spirit acted when cast out (Matt., xii, 44, 45; Luke, xi, 24-26), taught them why they had failed to exorcize (Matt., xvii, 19); warned the seventy-two disciples against glorying in the fact that the demons were subject to them (Luke, x, 17-20). He even con- ferred express powers on the Apostles "over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities" (Matt., x, 1; Mark, vi, 7; Luke, ix, 1), and, immediately before His Ascension, enumerated the signs that would proclaim the truth of the revelation His followers were to preach to the world: "In my name they shall cast out devils : they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them: they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover" (Mark, xvi, 17-18). Thus does the expulsion of demons become so closely bound up with other miracles of the Christian dispen- sation as to hardly permit of separation.
The problem, therefore, that confronts us is this: If a belief so intimately connected in Christ's own mind with the mission He came to accomplish was based on a delusion, why did He not correct it? Why rather encourage it? Only two answers appear possi- ble. Either He was ignorant of a religious truth, or He deliberately gave instructions that He knew to be false — instructions that misled His followers, and that were eminently calculated, as indeed the issue proved,
