which is also used by Luke in relation to the same demoniac. § 8. Aayovior occurs frequently in the Gospels, and always in reference to possessions, real or sup posed. But the word daßo20s is never so applied. The use of the term dayuoviov is as constantly indefinite, as the term Staßo20s is definite. Not but that it is sometimes attended with the article: but, that is only when the ordinary rules of composition require that the article be used, even of a term that is strictly indefinite. Thus, when a possession is first named, it is called simply datuoviov, a demon, or πνευμα ακαθαρτον, an unclean spirit, never το δαιμονιον or το πνευμα ακαθαρτον. But when, in the progress of the story, mention is again made of the same demon, he is styled to daiovior, the demon, namely, that already spoken of. And in English, as well as Greek, this is the usage with respect to all indefinites. Further, the plural dauova occurs frequently, applied to the same order of beings with the singular. But what sets the difference of signification in the clearest light is that, though both words, daßo205 and Saruoviov, occur often in the Septuagint, they are invariably used for translating different Hebrew words. Aiaßotos is always in Hebrew either Διαβολος tsar, enemy, or o Satan, adversary, words never translated dauovov. This word, on the contrary, is made to express some Hebrew term, signifying idol, pagan deity, apparition, or what some render satyr. What the precise idea of the demons, to whom possessions were ascribed, then was, it would perhaps be impossible for us, with any certainty, to affirm; but as it is evident that the two words, διαβολος and δαιμονιον, are not once confounded, though the first occurs in the New Testament upwards of thirty times, and the second about sixty; they can, by no just rule of interpretation, be rendered by the same term. Possessions are never attributed to the being termed o Siaßo20s. Nor are his authority and dominion ever ascribed to Saiμονια Movia: nay, when the discriminating appellations of the devil are occasionally mentioned, Sauovov is never given as one. Thus he is called not only o diaβολος, but ο πονηρος, ο πειραζων, ο αντίδικος, ο σατανας, ο δρακων ο μεγας, ο οφις, ο παλαιος, ο αρχών το κόσμο τότε, ο αρχων της εξουσίας το αερος, and o deos to uwvos 7878, that is, the devil, the evil one, the tempter, the adversary (this last word answers both to ο αντίδικος and ο σατανας, which cannot be translated differently), the great dragon, the old serpent, the prince of this world, the prince of the power of the air, and the god of this world. But there is no such being as to daquovov, the appellation Sauomov being common to multitudes, whilst the other is always represented as a singular being, the only one of his kind. Not that the Jewish notion of the devil, had any resemblance to what the Persians first, and the Manicheans afterwards, called the evil principle, which they made in some sort co-ordinate with God, and the first source of all evil, as the other o is of good. For the devil, in the Jewish system, was a creature, as much as any other being in the universe, and as liable to be controlled by omnipotence, an attribute which they ascribed to God alone. But still the devil is spoken of as only one; and other beings, however bad, are never confounded. with him. 9. I KNOW but two passages of the history, that have the appearance of exceptions from this remark. One is, that wherein our Lord, when accused of casting out demons by the prince of demons, says in return, How can Satan cast out Satan 10? there is no doubt that o Zaravas and o Alaẞ020s are the same. Here then, say the objectors, the former of these names is applied to Saiova, which seems to show an intercommunity of names. Yet, it must be observed, that this term Satan, is introduced only in the way of illustration by similitude, as the divisions in kingdoms and families also are. The utmost that can be deduced from such an example is, that they are malignant beings as well as he, engaged in the same bad cause, and perhaps of the number of those called his angels, and made to serve as his instruments. But this is no evidence that he and they are the same. The other passage is in Luke", where we have an account of the cure of a woman, who had been bowed down for eighteen years. 10 Mark, iii. 23. She is said to 11 xiii. 11. have had a spirit of infirmity; and our Lord himself says that Satan had bound her 12. But let it be observed, first, that nothing is said that implies possession. She is not called Sauovouεvn, a demoniac. Our Saviour is not said to dispossess the demon, but to loose her from her infirmity: secondly, that it is a common idiom among the Jews, to put spirit before any quality ascribed to a person, whether it be good or bad, mental or corporeal. Thus the spirit of fear, the spirit of meekness, the spirit of slumber, the spirit of jealousy, are used to express habitual fear, &c. thirdly, that the ascribing of her disease to Satan, does not imply possession. The former is frequent, even where there is no insinuation of the latter. All the diseased whom our Lord healed, are said to have been oppressed by the devil, no Tov diaßo2ov": All Job's afflic tions are ascribed to Satan as the cause 14, yet Job is no where represented as a demoniac. § 10. A LATE learned and ingenious author 15 has written an elaborate dissertation to evince, that there was no real possession in the demoniacs mentioned in the Gospel; but that the style there employed was adopted, merely in conformity to popular prejudices, and used of a natural disease. His hypothesis is, by no means, necessary for supporting the distinction which I have been illustrating, and 12 Mark, xiii. 16. 13 Acts, x. 38. which is founded purely on scriptural usage. Concerning his doctrine, I shall only say, in passing, that, if there had been no more to urge from sacred writ, in favour of the common opinion, than the name δαιμονιζομενος, or even the phrases δαιμονιον εχειν, εκβαλλειν, &c. I should have thought his explanation at least not improbable. But when I find mention made of the number of demons, in particular possessions, their actions expressly distinguished from those of the man possessed, conversations held by the former, about the disposal of them, after their expulsion, and accounts given how they were actually disposed of; when I find desires and passions ascribed peculiarly to them, and similitudes taken from the conduct which they usually observe; it is impossible for me to deny their existence, without admitting that the sacred historians were, either deceived themselves, in regard to them, or intended to deceive their readers. Nay, if they were faithful historians, this reflection, I am afraid, will strike still deeper 16. But this only by the way. Το 16 The following observation from the judicious Mr. Jortin's excellent remarks on ecclesiastical history, appears to me a strong confirmation of the judgment I have given "." In the "New Testament, where any circumstances are added concern"ing the demoniacs, they are generally such as shew that there 66 was something preternatural in the distemper; for these dis"ordered persons agreed in one story, and paid homage to "Christ and to his apostles, which is not to be expected from "madmen, of whom some would have worshipped, and others a 2d Edit. Vol. I. p. 10. |