William Peter Blatty used a historical study of Demonic possession as the main source for his novel “The Exorcist.” The original work goes back to 1921, and was done by a Dr. Traugott Oesterreich. It’s titled “Possession and Exorcism among primitive races, in antiquity, the middle ages, and modern times,” and includes the following account of a 19th Century exorcist who tried to bring a demon to repentance:
Although all the manifestations appeared unfavorable, I wanted … to make an attempt to know whether there was in him any response to good. I asked gravely: “Can you repeat ‘God be merciful to me a poor sinner and receive me with pity in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ?” He refused and told us contemptuously to mind our own business, saying: “I shall not do it, and even if I did, what good would it do me? For me all pity is lost!” Nevertheless, we did not leave him, but comforted him with suitable passages from the Gospels. In the end he began to stammer like a child: “Go-Go-God!” Here he stopped and said: “Ah, if you only knew how much it costs a damned soul, you would not insist!” … Soon he lent ear to our remonstrances and we took up again the thread of yesterday’s conversation…Again, we commanded him to repeat after us: “God be merciful…” which he did with less effort. As for our desire that he say “Our Father,” he at first refused obstinately, asking how he could say “Father” when he was damned and lost. "Earlier, earlier, it might have been possible." Already during the repetition (of a canticle) it was observed that he was profoundly agitated. But soon he was seized with a lively repentance of his sins and breaking into poignant lamentations, wrung his hands, imploring pity of his Heavenly Father. “Yes, yes,” cried he, “compassionate and pitiful!” All his features were animated by an emotion hitherto unknown to his heart. From his eyes flowed the tears of repentance, he was overwhelmed with an indescribable grief. [The possessed woman] had heard and seen all that occurred. For she never lost consciousness, but in spite of her utmost efforts she could not resist the demon when it took possession of her body. [When the demon finally left] We asked her then if the tears which the demon shed must not have been inspired by her, but she denied it positively (pgs. 62-63, “Possession and Exorcism among primitive races, in antiquity, the middle ages, and modern times,” Causeway Books: New York. 1974.)
If True, the above account should be of interest to those who believe in Apokatastasis (Universal Salvation, Reconciliation, or Restoration.)
Andrew Jukes (a 19th century Anglican Theologian) made certain remarks concerning the devil and his angels that I believe deserve consideration. The view he expressed was hardly new--it was shared by Gregory of Nyssa (who, in an earlier century helped draft the final version of the Nicean Creed, and was declared among the highest authorities of the Church by two eccumecal councils.) Jukes put it in the form of a question.
"Where do we read that there can be no hope for such? Is it not rather distinctly written, that though 'the Lord punish the host of the high ones which are on high, and they shall be gathered together in a pit and shut up in prison, yet after many days shall they be visited' (Isa. 24:21,22.)...This at least is certain, that the seven Nations of Canaan, whom Israel was called to judge, that they might posses the land beyond Jorden, are the appointed figure in Scripture of those 'wicked spirits in heavenly places' (Eph. 6:12), with whom the Church's conflict is throughout this present age. Yet in a later age they shared a common mercy, and one at least of this cursed race displayed a faith not to be found in Israel (Matt. 15:22-28)."
The following remarks are from the Appendex to this same book by Andrew Jukes, and the underlined spaces represent Greek or Aramaic words that cannot be reproduced without the proper software.
NOTE C.
On Hebrews ii. 9, 16.
THE possibility of the recovery of fallen angels is said to be absolutely negatived by the Apostles words, in Hebrews ii. 16, that our Lord "took not on Him the nature of angels." Angels therefore, it is argued, cannot be restored.
But is it true that our Lord has never taken the nature of angels? What then is taught in such Scriptures as Gen. xxii. 15, 16; xlviii. 16; Judges vi. 12, 14, 22, 23; xiii. 21, 22; Isa. lxiii. 9; Zech. iii. 1; Mal. iii. 1; Acts vii. 38; Col. ii. 10; &c; where our Lord is shewn to have appeared before His Incarnation as an angel?
In the next place, is it true that the verse in question really says that our Lord "took not on Him the nature of angels?" To answer this we have only to turn to the Original, where (as the marginal note of our Authorized Version shews even to an English reader,) the words, translated in the Authorized Version "took not on Him the nature of," are seen to be simply, "is not laying hold of"; the statement being, that Christ is not now laying hold of angels, but only of the seed of Abraham.
That this is the meaning may be shewn from countless passages, such for example as S. Matt. xiv. 31; S. Luke ix. 47; Acts xvi. 19; xxiii. 19; Heb. viii. 9. See also the LXX. In Gen. xxv. 26; Exod. iv. 4; and Judges xvi. 3, 21, &c. This verse therefore gives no support whatever to the doctrine based on the translation (corrected in the margin) of our Authorized English Version.
There is however a passage in the same second chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which, if we take what appears to have been the original reading, teaches, as Bengel and others have shewn, a very different doctrine. I allude to the 8th and 9th verses, where our Version reads, "that He by the grace of God should taste death for every man." It is not generally known that an older reading is, "that He should taste death for all excepting God"; _________ instead of ________. This is the way Ambrose, A.D. 370, quotes the verse; and long before his time, when Origen wrote, A.D. 203, this was the usual reading, though in his Commentary on S. John (tom. i. para. 40,) he allows that "in some copies," the other reading was also then to be met with. The ancient Syriac Version was also then to be met with. The ancient Syriac Version too has followed the reading ______________. The following notes on the passage, from Cornelius a Lapide,--who gives us Ambroses exposition,--from Origen, and lastly from Bengel, shew how strong the evidence is in favor of ____________.
Cornelius a Lapide's note is as follows. "Which explanation of the words shews that Ambrose accepted the reading, '__________' though he would draw another conclusion from it.
Origen constantly quotes the passage, with the reading '________'; e.g. Comment. in Johna. tom. i. para. 40; (vol. iv. p. 41. Ed. Delarue, Paris, 1733-59;) and again tom. xxviii. para. 14, (vol. iv. pp. 392, 393.) And again in his Comment. In Epist. ad. Rom. lib. iii. para. 8; (vol. iv. p. 513.) And again lib. v. para. 7, of the same; (p. 560.) In quoting the verse in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, (lib. v. para. 7. pp. 559, 560.) he says, '___________."
Bengel too evidently prefers the reading _______. Having pointed out, (Gnomon, in loco,) how nearly identical the teaching of verses 8 and 9 is with that of 1 Cor. xv. 17, where, as he observes, "in treating of the same Psalm, the same verse, and the same words, All things put under Him, the Apostle states, that the All admits of one most evident and proper exception, saying, 'It is evident that He is excepted which did put all things under Him," Bengel goes on to say, that "the same exception is made in this passage, only here it is as those for whom He tasted death. For all, excepting God." He then thus sums up in favour of the reading _______:--_________________."
To Read the entire book online, click here To return home, click here