DEMONOLOGY
self in the midst of a simple, credulous, and supersti- tious population, would shrink from adopting harsh and drastic measures to get rid of these cherished superstitions and popular errors. And though on this point we must speak with some reserve, it is possible that in such a case the teacher, in endeavouring to make himself understood by his hearers, will use their own language and convey his own message of truth through the medium of words and phrases which, taken literally, may seem to give some countenance to these popular errors. But whether this be permissible or no, it may be safely asserted that a wise and good teacher will not carry his accommodation to the point of con- firming his hearers in their delusions. And these critics themselves can hardly question the fact that the whole treatment of demonic possession in the Gospels has had this effect, and has confirmed and perpetuated the belief in real demonic possession.
And at least in these latter days there must be many who would have abandoned all belief in the reality or even the bare possibility of any such possession, but that they felt constrained to believe it on the author- ity of Christ and the testimony of the Gespels. Cer- tainly, if it were possible to accept this interpretation of the early Rationalists, and regard the attitude of Christ as an accommodation to popular beliefs and superstitions, it must be confessed that the alleged economy has had very unfortunate consequences. Later Rationalists, who see the difficulty, or rather the impossibility, of reconciling this view with the evidence of the Gospels, have turned to other ways of escape, and, like the other supernatural and mirac- ulous elements in the Gospel narrative, the instances of demonic possession and the casting out of devils have been explained as parts of a mythical legend that has grown up around the figure of Christ; or again they have furnished grounds for disputing the fullness of His knowledge. or the authenticity and veracity of the narrative. This is not the place to deal with these problems of apologetics; but it may be well to say a word on the true ground for the rejection of belief in real demonic possession. The tendency has been to deny the possibility of miracles or demonic possession. And it is sometimes curious that critics who are so bold in setting limits to the knowledge of Christ are often strangely oblivious of their own natural knowl- edge. On metaphysical principles we can have no valid ground for deciding that such a thing as demonic obsession is impossible, and it is a more reasonable, as well as a more modest, course to keep to means of knowledge within our reach and examine the evidence adducible for the actual occurrence of obsession. If any one has examined this evidence and found it in- sufficient, his denial of demonic agency, whether we aceept it or not, is at any rate entitled to respect. But few of those who have been most decided in their rejection of obsession or other preternatural or mirac- ulous manifestations have taken any pains to examine the adducible evidence. On the contrary, they have generally dismissed it with contempt, as unworthy of serious consideration. And Baader is surely well warranted when he complains of what he calls “ Ra- tionalistic obscurantism and dogmatism” in this matter (Werke, IV, 109). Of late years the mag- netism to which this acute thinker was calling the at- tention of philosophers in the work we have cited, and more recently the phenomena of hypnotism and spirit- ism, have helped to bring the critics to a more rational attitude. And with the weakening of this eredulous prejudice many of the difficulties raised against the demonic possession in the New Testament will natur- ally disappear.
The instances of obsession mentioned in the New
Testament may be roughly divided into two classes. In the first group we are given some facts which, even apart from the use of demonized or some equivalent term might suffice to show that it is a case of demonic possession properly so called. Such are the cases of the "man with an unclean spirit" in the synagogue at Capharnaum (Mark, i) and the Gerasene demoniac (Luke, xi). In both of these instances we have evi- dence of the presence of an evil spirit who betrays knowledge beyond the ken of the demonized person or (in the latter case) manifests his power elsewhere after he has been cast out. In the second group may be placed those cases in which we are not given such dis- tinct and unmistakable signs of true demonic posses- sion, e. g. the woman who had a spirit of infirmity (Luke, xiii, 11). Here, apart from the words, spirit, and whom Satan hath bound, there is apparently noth- ing to distinguish the ease from an ordinary healing of infirmity. A careful consideration of the medical aspect of demonic possession has often been associated with a denial of the demonic agency. But this is by no means necessary; and, rightly understood, the medical evidence may even help to establish the truth of the record. This has been done within the last few years by Dr. Wm. Menzies Alexander in his “ Demonic Possession in the New Testament: Its Relations, His- torical, Medical, and Theological ” (Edinburgh, 1902). In his view, the Gospel records of the chief cases of demonic possession exhibit all the symptoms of such mental diseases as epilepsy, acute mania, and so on, with such accuracy of detail that the narrative can only owe its origin to a faithful report. of the actual facts. At the same time Dr. Alexander is equally impressed by the cogency of the evidence for real demonic possession at least in these cases. Even those readers who are unable to accept his conclusions —and in regard to later instances of obsession we are unable to follow him—will find the book helpful and suggestive and it may be commended to the attention of Catholic theologians.
For authorities see modern titles cited at end of DEVIL. W. H. KENT.
Demonology.— As the name sufficiently indicates, demonology is the science or doctrine concerning de- mons. Both in its form and in its meaning it has an obvious analogy with theology, which is the science or doctrine about God. And with reference to the many false and dangerous forms of this demonic science we may fitly adapt the well-known words of Albertus Magnus on the subject of theology and say of demon- ology, “A dæmonibus docetur, de dæmonibus docet, et ad dæmones ducit”.—It is taught by the demons, it teaches about the demons, and it leads to the de- mons.—For very much of the literature that comes under this head of demonology is tainted with errors that may well owe their origin to the father of false- hood, and much of it again, especially those portions which have a practical purpose (what may be called the ascetical and mystical demonology) is designed to lead men to give themselves to the service of Satan. There is, of course, a true doctrine about demons or evil spirits, to wit that portion of Catholic theology which treats of the creation and fall of the rebel angels, and of the various ways in which these fallen spirits are permitted to tempt and afflict the children of men. But for the most part these questions will be dealt with elsewhere in this work. Here, on the con- trary, our chief concern is with the various ethnic, Jewish, and heretical systems of demonology. These systems are so many that it will be out of the question to deal with them all or to set forth their doctrines with completeness. And indeed a full treatment of these strange doctrines of demons might well seem somewhat out of place in these pages. It will be enough to give some indication of the main features of a few of the more important systems in divers lands and in distant ages. This may enable the reader to appreciate the important part played by these ideas in the course of human history and their influence on the religion and morals and social life of the people.
