AN ESSAY ON THE DEMONIACS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. FIRST of all, I will endeavour to explain and establish the true meaning of demoniacs in the New Testament: . In the next place, attempt to solve the several objections that have been urged against that explication; And then point out the advantages of it, and the inconveniences attending the common interpretation of this subject. CHAPTER I. I WILL endeavour to explain and establish the true meaning of demoniacs in the New Testament. Whatever is necessary to our forming a just idea of the gospel demoniacs, will be comprised under the ten following propositions. SECTION I. Prop. I. The spirits that were thought to take possession of men's bodies, are called in the New Testament demons, not devils. THE Greek word* from whence comes the English name devil, when used in the singular number in the New Testament, is generally supposed to refer to one particular evil spirit †, the chief of the fallen angels : but at the same time it must be allowed by all, that even according to the translation now in use, when the same Greek word occurs in the plural number, it is never applied to any evil spirits ‡. Indeed, we often meet with the term devils in the English translation ; but in all these instances that of demons§ is used in the original. Strange as it may seem, it is nevertheless an undoubted fact, that there is not a single passage in the New Testament, in which the devil or devils are spoken of in reference to the present subject. Though possessed persons are so very fre * Διάβολος 1 In the following passages, Matt. iv. 1. ch. xxv. 41. Acts x. 38 ch. xiii. 10. Ephes. vi. 11. Jam. iv. 7. 1 Pet, v. 8. Rev. xii. 9. It occurs only in the following passages: Their wives must be-not slanderers, (un diaboλs, not devils) 1 Tim. iii. 11. In the last times, men will be (diabonos, devils) false accusers, 2 Tim. iii. 3. In like manner, in Tit. ii. 3. aged women are forbidden to be (MɑCoλus, devils) false ac cusers. § Δαίμονες, δαιμονια. That Acts x. 38. is no exception, will be shewn below, sect. v. quently quently mentioned in the Gospels, they are not, on any occasion whatever, said to have, or to be possessed by, the devil. They are uniformly and invariably described as having, or being possessed by, a demon or demons. Beelzebub is called the prince of demons†, not of devils. It would therefore be foreign from our present subject to inquire who the devil is. It is indeed commonly apprehended, that demons and their prince are the very same spirits as the devil: and his angels. In support of this opinion, the abettors of it argue in the following manner ‡: "Satan and Beelzebub are names for the same person : for, when Christ was reproached with casting out demons by the assistance of the prince of demons, he replied, How can Satan cast out Satan §? Now, if Satan, who is considered as the same person with the devil, was the prince of those demons who were cast out by Christ; then demons are the same spirits as the devil's angels. And on this supposition, there can be no other difference between demons and the devil, than * In describing persons, possessed, the word donor occurs in the Gospels fifty-two times; daw three; and dauqua, thirteen; though abonos doth not occur so much as once in reference to poss sessions, either in the Gospels or in any other part of the New Testa ment. + Matt..xii. 24. Mark iii. 12. See Pegge's Answer to Sykes, and the learned Dr. Doddridge on Matt. xii. 25. Fam. Expos. vol. i. p. 372, note g, and also vol. ii. p. 82, § Matt. xii. 26. Mark iii. 26. Luke xi. 18. Rev. ix. 12. Compare Matt. iv. 1, with Mark i. 12. that which subsists between a prince and his subjects, who both partake of one common nature, though the prince, as presiding over the rest, hath a peculiar name of his own." It is observable that Dr. Sykes, who maintained that demons and their prince were a different order of spirits from the devil and his angels, never replied to this objection, though frequently urged against him by several eminent writers. And Dr. Lardner* seems to admit its force. For he "the devil is often called Satan and Beelzebub." says, It doth not, however, seem to me to follow from the passage under consideration, that the devil is ever called Beelzebub. For the term Satan is not appropriated to one particular person or spirit, but signifies an adversary, or opponent, in general. The Jews called every demon by this name, and used it in the plural number. Samael is styled by them the prince of satans ↑. Nay, the very words of our Saviour, How can Satan cast out Satan? if taken in their strictest sense, imply that there were several satans. And our Lord might only mean, that it was unreasonable to suppose that one demon would cast out another. Or if you understand him to the following purpose: "Were Beelzebub, whom you regard as the chief of the possessing demons, to expel himself, which would in ef * Case of the Demoniacs, p. 42. See also p. 36. In what manner the author of a Review of the Controversy concerning Demoniacs attempted to solve this difficulty, the reader may see by consulting p. 79. Compare Remarks on that Tract, p. 17. And the prince of all the satans. See Dr. Doddridge on Matt. xii. 25. vol. i. p. 972. and Ode's Commentar. de Angelis, p. 611. fect fect be the case were he to expel his agents and instruments, he would act against his own interest, and defeat his own schemes:" it will not follow from hence, that Beelzebub was considered as the same person with the devil. It doth not appear that there is any reference here to the latter. He and Beelzebub might be regarded as two distinct persons, and yet each be called satan: a word that the Scripture itself very common applies to every one who is an adversary, or acts in opposition to another*. Indeed, if Beelzebub and his demons * The angel of the Lord is called satan, Numb. xxii. 22. God's anger was kindled against Balaam, because he went: and the angel of the Lord stood in the way row's for a satan or adversary against him. In the 33d verse of the same chapter, the angel says, I went out to withstand thee, which in the original is, to be a satan (pow?) or adversary to thee. The word is also very frequently applied to men. Let not David go down with us to battle, (said the princes of the Phi listines), lest in the battle he be roh a satan or adversary to us, 1 Sam. xxix. 4. What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah, that ye should this day be prou a satan or adversary to me? 2 Samuel xix. 22. The Lord my God hath given me rest on every side, so that there is neither adversary (D) nor evil occurrent. 1 Kings v. 4. See also 1 Kings.xi. 14. 23. 25. Psal. xxxviii. 20. Psal. lxxi. 13. Psal. cix. 4. 20. 29. In the New Testament Christ says to Peter, Matt. xvi. 23. Get thee Lee hind me, satan, "You act rather as an enemy, than as a friend, in dise suading me from submitting to sufferings and death." St. Paul, ig 2 Cor. xii. 7. says, Lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of satan to buffet me. In the original it is not αγγελος του caray, "the angel of Satan," but ayyehog catar, an angel satan, or adversary. The best commentators suppose that the bodily afflic tion, or thorn in the flesh, here referred to, was some paralytic symp tom, called elsewhere the infirmity of the flesh, Gal. iv. 13. In confirmation of this opinion it may be observed, that the word avs B 6 used |