the demon and the demoniac were often, in common speech, confounded together; both were described under the same term*, and the same act was referred indifferently to either. St. Chrysostom, in the passages cited from him above t, at one time represents the demons as saying they were the soul of such a monk; though, at another time, he ascribes this to the demoniacs. Instances of the same manner of speaking are to be found in the Gospel. St. Mark, on one occasion, says‡, Unclean spirits, when they SAW Jesus, FELL DOWN before him, and CRIED; saying, Thou art the Son of God. On another occasion §, similar to this, the same evangelist represents, not the unclean spirit, but the man supposed to be possessed by him, as seeing Jesus, wcrshipping him, (or falling down before him||,) and crying, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son

sent. Either confounding themselves with demons, and fancying themselves to be such; or else speaking in their names and under their imagined influence; they beg not to be tormented before the time, and ask leave to enter a herd of swine.

* In that passage from Plautus, (Mercator, act. v. sc. 4. v. 20.) Etiam loquere larva, the word larva, which properly signifies a ghost, seems. to be used for the madman possessed by him. Demon seems likewise to have been used by the Jews in the same manner. When some reproached Christ with having a demon, and being mad; others replied in his vindication, These are not the words of a demoniac (dauonapevov). Can a demon (that is, a demoniac) open the eyes of the blind? John x. 20, 21: Their meaning was, " His discourses are sober and ra tional; and is it likely, if he were a possessed person or a madınan, that God would impower him to perform such great miracles?"

† P. 30, 31.

Mark iij. 11.

§ Mark v. 6, 7,

Luke viii. 28.

of

of the Most High God? In the sequel of the history of this demoniac, we are told by St. Mark †, that HE besought Jesus much, that he would not send them away out of the country. By St. Luke, in the parallel passage, it is said, the DEMONS besought him, that he would not command them to go out into. the deep. The request to enter the swine is, by the three evangelists, referred to the demons §. On all these occasions, the demoniacs were the only persons who spoke to Jesus; of them alone it is true, that they saw him, and fell down before him. Nevertheless, demoniacs having been antiently considered as the mere organs of evil spirits, it was no uncommon thing to ascribe to the latter what was said and done by the former. The evangelists, we have seen,` adopted this phraseology, and referred to demons the acts of the demoniacs. And therefore, when they tell us "that Jesus suffered not the demons to say that they knew him to be the Messiah," they are to be understood of the men possessed by them. These are the persons who published Christ's character; and, on this account, might be enjoined silence. If you still contend, that it was not to the person possessed, but to the spirit supposed to be within him, that Christ addressed this injunction; yet it must be designed to have its effect upon the former, rather than upon

* Matthew likewise, chap. viii. 28, 29. and Luke viii. 28. agree with Mark.

+ Chap. v. 10.

Chap. viii. 31.

Matt. viii. 31. The demons besought him.

Mark v. 12. All the

demons besought him. Luke viii. 32. They (the demons) besought him.

the latter, who was most effectually silenced by being ejected. In reality, it is a matter of little moment, whether the restraint were laid on the demoniacs or not; for if Christ, in mere conformity to the accustomed modes of speech (as will be shown below in the third section) commanded demons to come out; he might, upon the same principle, command them to be silent. Nor was any thing more likely to awe the demoniac himself into immediate silence, than his hearing such a command delivered to the spirits that (in his opinion) actuated him, by one so famed as Jesus was for his power of controling them. The language was adapted to his apprehensions and the disturbed state of his mind. And if Christ saw fit to speak to him at all in that state, was it not proper to speak according to his conceptions, and in the manner most likely to be attended with success? Indeed, if Christ had addressed the demoniac, he would nevertheless have been considered as speaking to the demon; as appears from the following fact. When Jesus asked a possessed person*, What is thy name? the man, conceiving of himself as an evil spirit, or as being merely the organ of evil spirits, regarded the question as proposed to them, and, under this impression, replied, My name is legion.

Christ forbad his own immediate disciples to deelare him openly to be the Messiaht, (leaving men

He asked him, aurov, the man, not, to veμa to analapтov, the unclean spirit, whom he commanded to come out of the man. Mark v. 9. See also Luke viii. 30:

† Matt. xvi.. 20.

to

to collect it at leisure from the evidence that was set before them,) that he might not draw after him an immense crowd of worldly-minded Jews*, who, mistaking the nature of his kingdom, were disposed, and had once attempted, to take him by force and make him a kingt. Persons of such a temper were not prepared to receive the spiritual doctrines of the Gospel; and their following Christ in large crowds, in order to advance him to the throne of David, must have given umbrage to the Roman government, or at least afforded the Jewish rulers, filled with envy and hatred † against him, an opportunity of accusing him of sedition and treason. Now, the same prohi→ -bition which Christ gave to his own disciples, (and also to many others §,) it was equally proper to give to the demoniacs, whose cor,ident persuasion of his being the Messiah, and warm gratitude to him for the benefit of their miraculous cure, would prompt: them to proclaim their exalted opinion of him..

If Christ had any peculiar reason for checking the zeal of the demoniacs, it probably was the desire of

* From the same and other motives he sometimes forbad the publication of particular miracles. See Hammond on Matt. viii. 4. Where no inconvenience could arise from it, Christ required the publication of his miracles, as in the case of the Gadarene demoniac, Mark v. 19. + John vi.

Johniv. 1. 3. ix. 22.

§ The strict charge given to demons or demoniacs not to make him known, taken notice of Mark iii. 11, 12. was at the same time given. to the multitudes that followed him, in order to be healed, (as appears from Matt. xii. 15, 16.) and probably, therefore, for the same general reason, the desire of preventing all tumult and disturbance. Mat t. xii. Ya, 19, 20.

leaving

leaving no room for the specious pretence that there was a secret agreement between him and those evil spirits, who were judged to be so eager in applauding him. Christ's refusal of (what was deemed to be) their testimony, is a full proof that they were not constrained by God to bear it; and at the same time serves to condemn the conduct of those impostors that afterwards swarmed in the Christian church, who laid so great a stress upon the pretended confession made by demons, and even claimed a power of extorting it against their inclination and interest. The frequent and confident appeal to these confessions which the fathers make, do them no credit, and were, without doubt, received with contempt by men of understanding. For, if demons are wicked and lying spirits, as they are generally supposed to be, they are much more likely to speak falsehood than truth.

3. Some have said, that demoniacs could not be mere madmen, because they argue with Christ in a very rational manner, and speak to better purpose than the bulk of those who were in their senses.

This assertion being chiefly founded upon the behaviour of the Gadarene demoniac *, let us inquire how far it agrees with the supposition of his being

* Matt. viii. 28. Mark v. 2. Luke viii. 27. Matthew speaks of two demoniacs; Mark and Luke take notice only of one, who was probably the fiercer of the two, and had laboured under his disorder a longer time, or on some other account was the most remarkable. He belonged to the neighbouring city, (Luke viii. 27. and Wetstenius in loc.) and was probably a man of note and substance there; as Dr. Ladner conjectures in his Remarks on Dr. Ward's Dissertations, p. 3. See also his Case of the Demoniacs, p. 4, 5. 10.

directed