DEMON 
DMeffish. It has been baad oe ia fupport of the reality 
"of ayia that Chrift c anded the ‘* devils (demon) 
not to difcover him.”’ “(Ma a OG. 42 
IV. 33, 34, 355 To this argument it has becn aie 
that demoniacs were not only regarded by others, but gen ne- 
rally conceived of tbemfelves, as {peaking and aGting u 
the influence of the fpirits by which they believed shelve 
“h 26. 34. lil. 
ae 
a 
= 
e Dzmon 
not the demons to ‘ay, that they knew him to be - 
fiah,”? they are to be underftood of the men poffeffe by 
them. The fame prohibition which he gav 
Pp 
alfertion is chiefly rane upon the beha- 
viour of ce ‘Case ene demoniac: (Matt. viii. 28. Mark, 
v.2. Luke, viii. 27.); and many reafons have been ftated 
by Mr. Farmer (Eff, on nace P Rear &c.) in order to 
prove, that it did not w 
demons are faid to have entered, anal to have ftimulated to 
inftantaneous madnefs; which cafe has been confidered as a 
decifive ie of the power of demons, both over the hu- 
man and brutal race, and fuppofed to have been purpofely 
ark, v 
a1. Luke, viii. 32.) 
by Dr. Sykes and Dr. Larduer, that the Gates were frighted 
by the two i igi and 
the fea. Mr. Farmer, difapproving account of this faé& 
given by thefe ee as well as e advocates of real 
poffeffion, maintains, that the men, tr we take the words of 
the evangelifts for our guide, neither drove, nor attempted 
‘to drive, the herd into the fea. The hiftory, he fays, 
afcribes the deitruétion of the {wine, not to their being 
driven by the czmoniacs, but to 
e immediate a Go 
This miraculous deftruGtion of the {wine he reoiicn as a 
TACAL. 
jel punifhment of the owners, who were probably Jews, 
and vho were prohibited by the laws of Hyrcanus from 
keeping {wine, and by the law of Motes ae partaking of 
their flefh as food; and in this view of it, the miracle itfelf 
performed by Chrift under a divine commiffion, ferved to 
manife% his aicek to the law of God. The deftrudtion of 
the {wine ferved alfo to ‘afcertain the oe, and to fpread 
the fame of the miracle wrought upon the demoniacs. It 
was alfo adapted iu correCting the faife notions, concerning 
oe power of demons, which were entertained in that age, 
well by Jews as Gentiles, by both of whom Gadara was 
fae, Befides, this miracle prevented feveral great in- 
conveniencies that would otherwife have attended the minif- 
which was not their ape Oo bje » and which could not be 
oe to the Gentiles without increaling the aie esac 
of the Jews; the behaviour of the 
mercy, was confi 
neverthelefs neceflary that there fhould be fome examples of 
feverity, to check prefumption, and to warn men of the 
danger of reje@ting a prophet, who was eminently the mef- 
fenger of one be but at the fame time the appointed 
sab 8 of his j 
for me,” fays Dr, Campbell, ‘to deny the exiftence of pof- 
{effing demons, without admitting that the facred hiftonians 
were either deceived themfelves in regard to them, or in- 
tended to deceive their readers, Nay, if they were faithful 
hiftorians, this refle@ion, I am afraid, will ftrike fill deeper.?? 
It is allowed, on the other hand, that our Lord and his 
apoftles did ufe the common language of the age and country: 
in which they lived on the fubjeé&t of damoniacs, and that 
this language was originally founded on the fuppofition of 
the reality of dzmoniacal poffeflions. But, it is faid, that 
by ufing this language, they did not give their fan&tion to 
the opinion from which it took its rife. As neither the 
Opinion nor the language originated with Chrift and his 
apottles, they incur blame, if this fheu'd be the cafe, merely 
for not departing from accuftomed modes of expriffion on 
this fubject, — recurring to the ufe of new language con- 
cerning it. As they never affert the dotrine of poffcflions, 
ae are yao by thofe whofe féntiments we are now 
ing, to have taught doétrines that militate againft and 
fates it, they nue contradi themfelves, if by ufing a 
mmo 
