DAMONIAC. 
proof of the ce oS igs the eae a a Jews, 
how ever, referenc © Phas 
niacs ; 
i renee 
however that the term “demon hears a 
different meaning af the facred writings, from that which be- 
longed to it in the profane; or, that our Saviour and - 
apottles ufed it ina fenfe peculiar to themfelves. T'o 
argument it has been replied, that as the facred writers have 
. a gece! explained the fenfe in which they ufe the 
d demon, we may naturally infer, that they ufe it in 
Hee common and ordinary fignification; and that if they had 
affigned to *t a new and peculiar meaning, we might have 
they would have apprized ue of it for the pre- 
or the general fenfe of thefe ages, con- 
cerning the fubj.c& cae our prefent confideration, we caunct 
refer toa more re{pe@table authority than that of Juftin Mar- 
‘tyr, who was bred a heathen, and inftructed in the principles 
of the heathen philofophy ; and who afterwards becam 
Chriftian, and flourifhed near the times of the a oitles, or 
about the’ middle oF the fecond centu ek This learned writer 
affirms (Apol. 1. i. al. 2. p. 65. 1620), ‘* That thofe 
perfons who are feized and eae down by the tou!s of 
ine deceafed, are fuch as all men agree iu calling demoniacs 
and mad.’’? Fromm the cafe of the poffeffed this father infers 
the Douruaee | of tue human foul after death ; 
fcems to have betieved in demons of a diferent order from 
thefe who were of the human {pecies. Accordingly he calls 
the d_vil a demon (Cohort. ad Gree. p es - - 
fpraks of the devil’s deceiving our fait par With re- 
gard to the language of the New Teltament on 5 hee f{ubject, 
it has been afferted that the ev n 
mate (ch. xiil. 2.) that the devil oe pofleffion of Judas ; 
whence it has been inferred this was the language o 
ae vul it fhews that, in their eur: ion, a and his 
t 
ngels did occafionally enter the bodie another 
oe (Ads, x. 38.) we read of fine that were ey 
“¢ who were oppreffed of the devil,” or heid in fubjeMion to 
the devil: pea it has been concludcd, that to be poffefled 
oi demons, for to perfons in this flate the apottle feems to 
refer, and to be ‘el din fubje&tion to Satan, were expreflions 
of the fame import in the eitimation of the alee ith re- 
{pe& to the teftimony of Juttin Martyr, an ing writer 
obferves, that he is ple cading the caufe of Chrittianity againit 
the worfhippers of demons, and that he feems to be cefirous 
of placing the objects of their oo the moft aad eg 
and contemptible point of view : therefore in the dil- 
cuffion of this queltion, mere Sale him as an ad- 
vocste, and not as exercifi is the a of a judge. : 
fephus, fays the fame writer, was a o held the pagan 
fyitem in the fame contempt ith oe it was pegarecd by 
nity for ee the objets of pagan wore: his words 
may be fuppofed to aaeryet not that the {pirits of deceafed 
perfons only parent the bodies of ssh but that ali thofe 
{pirits which, under the name ce » were adored by the 
heathens, were merely the fpirits of deoteed perfons deitied 
Juftin 
wellin 
fallen san ey Hat Beclzcbub and the demons compre. 
os the devil and his angels, as well as the fpirits of wicked 
en deceafed. It mult be allowed, whatever may be the 
fenmens which we may adopt on ae fubject, whether we 
fupp se devil and his angels to be real 
be i however we may extend or limit, admit or 
ey, ihe reabty of their power and agency, that peste i 
were actually aferibed by many of the tathers, after the 
uflin Martyr, to failen angels. For their cond in 
this ee Mr. Farmer endeavours to account by the fol- 
lowing confideretions. Several ge lofophers taught - 
h 
oO 
emoans setianate 
dead, gods, and aa and procured themfe ves to be wor- 
thipped under ie ames. 
aa he fle on 
on the d ies pieloameed the ghofts of thofe a had {offered 
a violent death, and thus caufed men to think, that they be- 
# honour of 
pre= 
t martyrs, but contributed to 
di ilyrace paganifm, whillt ape reprefent . its gods as devils, 
who o perfouated ¢ thefe gods, and paffed under their names. 
This view of the pagan ee ferved allo to difparage the 
ea sate and a afcribed to them by | 
cites a number of pa ages, from 
he infers that the ae hers doubted or difbelieved the 
rity Toon though they afferted it in ther popular 
difceu 
In 
and never, (fays Mr. Farmer), reprefents, ae 
perfons as jofletled by the dew, or by devils, not even ina 
fingle inftance, notwithftandin ng the great frequency ae 
which the evangelifts {peak on the fubjeGt of pofleffions. In 
all the inftances in which the term devil occurs in the Eng. 
lith tian ee . the ee re fe a tne original word is 
eros) and not that from 
devil (3 2502.05. 
cribing aa poffeffed tie word casa occurs on- 
ly three times mm the New Teftament 3 ance in cach of the 
I Luke; and in thefe 
the fepulchres. O€s not, oer feem to “be any 
material difference in this appellation from that of the dimi- 
nutive dasuonov, which is alfe ufed uke in relation to the 
fame niac. This term deipowuy occurs above fifty 
times, in reference to poffcffi ns real or fuppoied, and date 
poarsgopacee thirteen times. Whe eas, it i.as been faid, the 
word d1e-Bor0s, devil, is never applied The 
paflage in the As in which thole op) fed by the devil’? 
are mentioned, and which we have already cited, ought to 
ave been excepted. 
as, indeed, been generally apprehended, that de. 
mons and their prince are the fame f{pirits with the devil and 
is angels. : whic 
Satan and Beelzebub perfon ; for 
when Chrift a reproached on ooane out demons by 
the 
