I 3 ! : - ■ ■ - - - - : - £ FEB 2 • » SCC #10,868 Swinton, John, 1703-1777 A critical dissertation concerning th* words ■*o a'critical D I S S E RTATI ON Concerning the Words AAi'MON and AAIMO'NION Occafion'd by Two late Enquiries info the Meaning of De- moniacks in the New Teftament. In a Letter to a Friend. By a Gentleman of Wadham College Oxford. ~\ LONDON: Printed for J. Crokatt; and Sold by J. Roberts in Warwick Lane. MDCC XXXVIII. ( 'Price Six-Pence.) The following Errata, occafioned by the Author's Diftance from the Prefs, the Reader is defired to excufe, and correct thus : Page i . Line 1 1 . for O ©EOS To GElON read O 0EO£, TO 0F.ION; p. I. 1. 19. for aliqui rofc/aliiq; p. 3. 1. 14. put £ Comma after Tj^jj p. 7. line 30. for Plutarch, read Plutarch, p. 7. 1. 32. for Dr. read D, p. 14. 1. 16. put a fmall Line after @iv ; thus, /3jk— p. 19. 1. 24. put a Com- ma after Signification, p. 19. 1. ult. for Jlginar. read JJinar. p. 24. 1. 26. for Miracles read Miracle p. 25. 1. 10. put a Point of Interrogation after the Word called, thus, called ? p. 25. I. 17. put a Point of Interrogation after Sabbath Day ? A CRITICAL DISSERTATION Concerning the Words AAI'MHN and AAIMO'NION. S I R y TH E Word AcctfAcov is ufed in various Significations by the Greek Authors who preceded the Birth of Christ, the principal of which feem to be the three following. I. Fzrft, It is taken for the Supreme Beings the Divinity it/elf] O 0EOZ TO 0EION ; this is evident from a Homer, Plato, Arijlotle, and others. Hence it comes to pafs, that the b E- pithet AocifAcvi^ frequently fignifies, among a Horn. Iliad. P. 98, 99, Sec. O. 403, 404, &c. Odyf. B, 134, 135, ■ &c. Plat.Polit. p. 272. & alibi paffim. Arijiot, de Mund. fub init. Eurip. Demojih. pro Cor. &c. b Arijlot. ibid. Pind. Pytb. Od. 2. Horn, paffim, aliqui multi. B the (4) ] ) • : iher be fore or after Death . Plutarch, lamblichns, Hierocles, and others, are very ex- prejs in this Particular ; but, as I prppofe men- tioning only foine of the moft antient Greek Authors at prefent, I fhall here omit them. II. Tis obfervable, that tho' Hefiod honours the Men of the golden Age with the Title of Demons after their Deaths, yet he does this chiefly by way of Compliment to them, and in order to f) incite his Brother Perfes to imitate them by performing juft and virtuous Actions ; and therefore no certain Conclufion can be drawn from hence with regard to his real Opi- nion of the Nature of Demons. But whatever his Opinion of thefe Beings might be, what- ever he might think of them, 'tis certain p he makes a Dilfindiion betwixt the Qsg) f^cc}ax^g Teat elbdiact, the blejjed and immortal Gods, who are * Homers Demons, and the departed Wor- thies of the golden Age, who are his Demons. He makes them different and diftindt Claries of Beings ; and confequently it cannot be inferred from him, and much lefs from his Followers, that all Demons, or even the Beings to whom Word was firft applied, were Ghofts, or departed Men. . ,er, that Demons in general mould be Spirits of Men, who once lived on Earth, is nnr at all implied in the Word rtfelf, nor does ' ibid. I Hljkd. ibid. \ } 222, this (5 ) this Notion enter into the Idea which it con- veys to us. — This Idea exhibits to our View Beings endued with Knowledge only, without relation to any other Quality, Circumftance, or Perfection ; and therefore rational Beings in this View only are fignined by this Word, i. e. Be- ings endued with a Degree of Knowledge fu- perior to what we enjoy, and who therefore by way of Eminence, with refpect to us, may be called Knowing Beings. This feems to have been the only and genuine Senfe in which the Antients underftood the Word Autpcvsg in ge- neral. In this Senfe it might be applied not only to die fupreme Being, but to all other Natures fuperior to Man -, and in this Senfe it was applied by them to God and all fuch Na- tures. Actipoveg quaji AarfAoveg, fays r Plato : Now Actypav fignifies Doffius, Peritus, Set 'ens , &c. from whence comes Accr^ca-vvv} Scientia, Peritia„ &c, rrr - And this feems to anfwer He/tod's Defcription of them ; f for he allures us, that they obferve, (/. e. know) every thing done on Earth, and that they are Privy-coun- cellors to Jupiter. l Laffiantius and Eujiathius put this Etymology beyond difpute. 'Tis proper likew T ife to remark, that v Hefiod calls his Demons iS-Xoi xa\ i7ri%6ovioi (good and terrejirial) which feems to infinuate, that there r Plat, in Cratylo. f Hejtod. ubi fupra. 1 Laaant. II. 14. Euftath. in Iliad. A. ^222. * Hefiod, ubi fupra, were (6) were other Demons who were neither good nor terrefirial ; and therefore this PaiTage is fo far from proving, that all Demons, or Demons- in general, were in Hefiod 's Time fuppofed to be good and terrcjlrial, or fuch as had once lived on Earth, (for that this is the true Signification of inxflwoi is evident both from w Hefiod him- felf and Homer) that it is an Intimation to the contrary, and a prefumptive Argument that Hefiod believed there were Demons of a male- volent Nature, who had never been Inhabi- tants of this Earth ; efpecially, fince this was a Notion that prevailed amongft all polite Na- tions, even from the remoteft Antiquity, as may be proved by one or two exprefs Teftimo- nies, which we mall beg leave here to in- fert. x P hit arch, in his Dio, affirms, : j ■ < c of (7) cc cc cc of divine Knowledge, and -Formers of Com- monwealths, to the Poets and Philofophers ; and of fo great Antiquity, that its firft Au- " thor could not be found; and that it was the Perfians and Chalda- ans, Ahdriman ; and from thefe laft it appears, that he was created by God, tempted Men to all Kinds of Wickednefs, and took the greater!: Delight in oppofing the divine Will. The Chaldeans and Perfians acknowledged Angels, both good and bad, as diftinct from the Souls of Men. This is evident from b Damafcius, Plutarch, and Shabriftdni in conjunction with the Sad-der, or Compendium of the DoEZrines of Zerdujht, c which exprefly mentions fuch An- gels, the Good ones as guarding and protecting Men, the Bad ones as inftigating and tempting them to .all Kinds of Wickednefs and Sin, and afterwards becoming the Inftruments of their Punifhment, agreeably to the Scripture Account of the fallen Angels. — - And that the d laft a Diogenes Laertius in Proacm. ad Vit. Philof. & "Plutarch. This laft Author, in the fame place, calls the good Principle QiU and the bad one Aai^cov. 1 Damafcius y Plutarch, & Shahrijldni apud D. Hyde in Hifl. Rel. vet. Per/, c. 22. c Lib. Sadder aipud Dr. Hyde Port. I. 2. 5.9. & alibi paf. * 3 Lib. Sad-der Port. 1.2. Angeh / ( 8). Angels in particular, according to the Perfian and Chaldcean Do&rine, were diftinft from the Souls of Men, is undeniable \ for Zerdujht makes all the wicked Souls to be thrown into Hell, or Gehevina, from the Bridge l'chinavar, and to be there confined, in the ftridteft Manner, till the Day of Judgment ; e whereas his evil Angels are left at liberty to rove about, to trou- ble'and iflfeft Mankind. And that this was the Sentiment of the Magi in the earlieft Times, long before the Age of Zerdujht, is plain from hence, that Zerdujht made no f Alterations in the doclrinal and fundamental Points of their Religion, but only abolifhed fome fuperftitious Rites and Practices that had crept in amongft them ; and that they were never guilty of Ido- latry, as the neighbouring Nations were, but conftantly adhered to the Worfhip of the one only and true God, as they received it from their great Anceftors Shem and E/am, who muft undoubtedly have been acquainted with the Fall of the Angels : So that we may fairly con- clude, that the s Belzebub, Satan, and Sam- mael of the Jews j the Ahdriman of the Chal- c Ibid. Port. 9. 1 6. & alibi paf. In fhort, according to Dr. . the antieni Pcrfians and People of the Eajl had the fame Notion of the Devil and his Angels that Chrijlians have always had. See likewifc Stilling Jleet\ Orig. Sacr. lib. iii. c. 3. and the C , in the Uni, i. e. a Spirit, incorporeal Being, an immortal Subjiance, a rational Power, or Principle, &c. And this Obfervation is fufficient to reconcile all the feeming Contradictions to be found in him on this Head. Befides, Philo, being a yew, muff, have been very well acquainted with the Scriptures of the Old Teftament ; and that thefe treat Angels as Beings different from, and fuperior to the Souls of Men, is univerfally allowed. III. This laft Signification of the Word Aatpav is what at prefent I muft infill chiefly upon, viz. a created intelligent Being fuperior to Man -, (for f that He/iod's Demons were made, or created, by the Gods, he plainly afferts) and 1 all fuch Beings as thefe were, from the re- moter! Antiquity, thrown into two different Claries. The one were reckon'd of a good and beneficent Nature, and Friends to Mankind $ the other the reverfe — Beings that (as we have above obferved) were implacable, had an invincible Averfion to Men, and made it their Bufineis to defeat them in all their eood Pur- fuits to influence and perfwade them to what was wrong, and, in fhort, to draw them r Phil. Jud. de Somn. p. 584, &c. f Hefiod. lib. 1. y no. : Plut. Dr. Hyde, Stillingfieet ; Cafauhon, &c. ubi fupra. C 2 tO ( " ) to Deftrudtion. That the Notion of evil De- mons (in this laft Senfe of the Word Aui'pav) was coeval with that of good ones, is evident from Homer, who is as early an Author as any, if not the firft, amongft the Greeks that men- tions either of them, and v who mentions both of them. To the evil Demon he joins the E- pithets m ytctitog, x q-vyeocg, and ? % * t~ a, * Coromss own vitious Difpofi-'--*?--*' jc«K8 P y/«v rps** JW tionj or h e r evil Demon &&*** Kop«v**«, M*i avcupsBvpm tempted her to commit the Sin^ ? «utviv x«T£«rKcU*ir6 KaA- of Adultery, and was theCaufe/ 7y ' */^*%o; £s <})^;J. Taubm, commend in loc. Ed, Scbttr. 1621. early ( 15 ) early Times a Notion of good and evil Genii ; the Author of Onomafiicon vetus Latino-Gr cecum renders the Latin Word Genius by the Greek Actipav ; and laftly, the Platonic PhUofopher k Apuleius frequently tranflates the Word Aat- (jl&v by Genius. Many other Teftimonies and Arguments might be produced in favour of our AfTertion, but the Truth of it is fo apparent, that they are intirely fuperfluous. But to come nearer the Point we have in View, the Word Genius cannot, with any to- lerable Propriety, be deduced a gignendo, as J fome of the Antients, particularly Varro, have fondly imagined : - — this Etymology is too far fetch'd and unnatural, and 'tis well known that nothing can be more ridiculous than many of Farro's Derivations , — 'tis, in all Probability, to be fought for in the Eaft, as a great Part of the Latin Words are ; efpecially thofe that the Latins m borrowed from the Etrufcans. This will be clear, almoft to Demon ftration, when we confider, that the n Arabic Gin y or Gen, is taken for a Being of the fame kind with the Latin Genii ^ Aft. xii. 15. that it fignifies a Demon, in the Scripture Senfe of the Word, I/a. xiii. 21. Matt. xvii. 15, &c. and that the p JEthiopic Genn denotes a Spectre, or Ap- k Apuleius de Deo Socrat. & de Mundo. 1 VarrOy Feftus, Cenforin. &c. v m Vid. Differt. de Ling. Etrur. reg. vern. Oxon. 1738. f Cajiel. Lex. Cajiel. Lex. & Schind. Lex. pent, P Vid. Bibl. Polyglot, in loc. parition. C I* ) parition, Mar. vi. 49. and the JD^y/7 himfelf, i Aict£o\&, i Joh. iii. 8, &c. In fhort, that Gen both in the Arabic and Ethiopic Lan- guages, when ufed in a bad Senfe, exactly an- fwers both to the Aoupovig, or Aaipovia, and Aioc£o\@^ of Scripture ; from whence we may, with no fmall Appearance of Reafon, infer, that thefe Words are all of the fame Import ; and that a Demon, or Genius, in the bad Ac- ceptation of the Word, is a Devil, or evil Spi- rit, ftrictly and properly fo called. But of this more hereafter. Before I difmifs this Point, it may not be improper to obferve, that Herodotus, the Fa- ther of Hiftory, ufes the Word Auluav both in the firft and laft Significations we have taken notice of. Aocl^m equivalent to Qeog may be feen in his Clio, c. 87. and for a tutelary infe- rior rational Being (fynonymous to dyad eg AuifJLav, or bonus Genius) ibid. c. 86. Which laft Paflage I take to be very valuable ; fince the Office of a good Demon, or Genius, is there defcribed, and exactly agrees with that affigned to good Angels in Scripture, viz. to guard and protect the righteous and religious Man from all impending Evils and Dangers; and iince from hence we learn, with Certainty, that this Opinion did not only prevail amongft the Greeks when Herodotus wrote his Hiftory, (about 450 Years before the Commencement of the Chrtjlian /Era) but likewife amongft the Perfian$ 4 when Cyrus conquered the Kingdom of (i7 ) of Lydia (near 560 Years before that Period, and even before the Time oi Zerdafht) — two Confederations of very great Moment in the prefent Enquiry. That Herodotus believd the Exiftence of toil Demons , or Genii, is likewife evident from the Word 1 Kuao^cti^ovtyj, which may be found in the ufual Senfe in his Wri- tings. What has been faid of the Word Aalpw is likewife to be underfliood of its fynonymous Term r Aoupivw -, it may however be obferv'd, that this laft is moft frequently ufed by the facred Writers, as the other is by the profane. I might eafily prove this by an Induction of Particulars, were it, in any manner, neceifarys but as it is not, I mall only remark, that the Word Aaipoviov is properly an Adjective in the neuter Gender, and that according to the ge- nius of the Greek Language, fuch Adjectives are very frequently equivalent to Subftantives of the fame Original. From the Authorities produced it appears highly probable, Firfi, That the Greek Authors who preceded the Birth of Chrift did not always underftand by the Words Axipovsg and Ampina, the Spirits, or Ghojis, of departed Men, even when thefe Words were applied to finite Beings, c i Herodot. in Clio, c. 87. k alibi. x Pro ipfo Numine paflim fumitur apud Xenopbontem, De- tnoflh. Athen. Sec. — Item pro Damone bono & malo. Vid. Stepk. Thefaur, Ling. Gr#c, D Secondly, ( 18 ) Secondly, That when they were taken in a bad Senfe, they were generally fuppofed to mean fuch Beings as the apojlate Angels are re- prefented to be in Scripture ; lince the Office and Difpofition of the apojlate Angels are attri- buted to thefe Beings. And Ubirdly^ That the Egyptians, 'Chaldeans , Phoenicians, Perfiafis, Greeks, &c. did all firmly believe the Exigence of one particular evil Be- ing, under whofe Conduct and Direction were many others ; and that, from what we find delivered by the moil antient Writers of all thefe Nations, thefe f evil Beings did, in Nature, Office and Difpofition, agree with the Devil and his Aigels, as the focred Writers defcribe them. IV. I {hall now proceed to confider the Senfe in which the Words Aaipoveg and Acupoviu • are ufed in the New Tejiament ; but before this can be done, it will be neceflary to enquire into the true Import and Meaning of the Words Zajoivccg and AidEoX@*. The firft of thefe is of Hebrew, the fecond of Greek Extraction. Sctjams is only the He- drew yov Satan with a Greek Termination ; it jignifies Akerfarins, Inimicus, Hcjlis, &c. from the Verb pltf Satan acherjatus eft, hofiis it, impedvvit, &c. The infpired Writers of he Old Tefiament often underftand by it the Plutarch, in Sympofiac. Devil 3 ( 19) Devil \ or Chief of the fallen Angels, that grand Enemy of Mankind. In this Senfe it muft certainly be taken, fob i. 6, 7, 8, 9, 12. Zech. iii. 1, 2, &c. where it is rendered by the Septuagint AwSoA^. And the Juftnefs of this Verfion is confirmed by St. Matthew, who makes Zctjav&g and Aid£oh@*> to be the felf- fame Being, i. e. the Chief of the fallen A?i- gels, ch. iv. 1, 5, 8, 10. by St. Mark, ch. i. 13. by St. Luke, ch. iv. 2, 3, 5, 6, 8. and laftly, by St. John, the Author of the Apocalypfe, ch. xx. 2, Gfc. Let this fuffice for an Explanation of the Word Jtottf Satan, or JZeflavcts Satanas. As for the Word A.^SoA^, I remember not to have feen it in any Greek Author before the Birth of Chrif, except the Septuagint, who, as I have juft obferved, ufe it to denote the fame implacable and malicious Being that the. Hebrews underftand by the Word pi*> Satan above mentioned -, and fo do the Writers of the New c Tefia?nent, as has been clearly proved. The Word 2^Qc\vj, indeed, is to be found as equivalent, in Signification to the Latin Ca- lumnia, Criminatio, Obtreclatio, &c. in various Authors, preceding (not only the Chrijlian /Era, but even) the Age of the Septuagint them- felves, particularly c Herodotus, Plato, &c. And that even the Word Aid£c\@^ itfelf was known to the antient Greeks is evident from v Plautus y 1 Hero dot. in Polymn. Plat, in Apol. &C. I Phut. Aginar* A&. 3 . Sc. 3 . D 2 who ( 1° ) who ules it as a proper Name in a Scene where all the proper Names are Greek, as this ma- nifeftly is ; as likewife from the Superlative &*- €cxdrai& in * Anftopbanes, and the Adverb StaCoXag in x Thucydides, both apparently Deri- vatives from AictcoxgH and agreeing in Signifi- cation with oictQcXr, above mentioned : and that Aict£oA@- in the New Tejlament, is deduced from the Verb SiuQdxXa calumnior, obtreclor, criminor, &c.- plainly appears from Rev. xii. 9, ic. where the Office of this Author of Evil is defcribed, and the true Reafon of his Name Atd^o?,®* affign'd. y Athenceus likewife gives us to under ftand, that this Word was not un- known to Pagan Writers in the Senfe wherein 'tis applied to the Prince of fallen Angels in Scripture, when he fays " many of Plato's " Followers were tvqclwuo) xcti SidSoXoi, ingenio cc tyrannico & calumniator e$r The Verb z &&- idhXtt) fometimes anfwers to the Latin invi- diam conflo, odiofwn % inimicum, ,&c. reddo ; and if we fuppofe Axa'SoA(^, as applied to the grand Adveriary and Envier of the Happinefs of Mankind, to flow from this Signification of the faid Verb, it will not only agree with the known Nature and Difpofition of this wicked Being, but will likewife very well correfpond with the Hebrew Word ycV Satan. The w Aifi^h. in Equit. * Vbutydid. p. 202. y Jit hen. Deipiujcpb. lib. n. fub finern Thcfaur. Ling. Cr.-. Word in} Word therefore Aidco\(& is expreffive of {q many wicked Offices and Qualities of the De- vi/, that a more appofite Name in the Greek Language could not have been given him. Having thus confidered the true Import and Meaning of the Words Z, ly and properly pofefed with the Devil, viz. That Devils fpake out of the poffeffed Perfons ; that they were fent out of them, and they entered into the Herd of Swine ; that perfonal Adtions as well as Speeches are afcribed to them, which can never be afcribed to meer Phrenfy and ^Madnefs, &c." muft be left to the Judgment ©f the Reader, If he is defirous of feeing that Side fo much Power to fuch unclean Spirits, who delight in doing Mifchief ? Thefe are reafona* ble Enquiries, and deferve a ferious Anfwer ; and therefore I fhall attempt impartially to confider them. In order to this, it will be neceflary to ob- ferve Firjl y That the general Notion of Demons amongft the ancient Greeks, was not the No- tion which Chriflians have ufually now adays to the Word Devils , but They meant by it in general, the Souls of departed Men. Hejiod tells us, that in * the " Golden Age, when Saturn reigned in Heaven, Men lived like Gods, free from Evils, and died juft as if they had fallen afleep : Thefe were made Demons, Good Beings, the Guards of mortal Men , They obferve the Good and Evil done here ; and cloathed with Air, they are every where on Earth, number- lefs," &c. Thefe were Good Beings, and the Authors of Good to Mankind. The Souls 'A9oC*XT0l TTOHKTOt,* — — — — — • Oi fOfi tV« Kpoyx vtcruv or xpxvu i[/*Geuritevtv When this Race died, To* fjj$i Axtfxtotii; ii pvfiu iV»» far] xfion ffHXvGoTttpy "Oj* Qv^dorvw, &Q t Hrjlod. Oper. I. of (3 ) of thefe Men, after they were removed from this earthly Life, were made the Infpe&ors of Human Affairs, and as they di/penjed good Things to Men, they were called Demons. O- ther Writers have made Demons the Difpenfers of b evil Things as well as good ; the Plagues and Terrors of Mankind, and the Authors of much Evil to them. Secondly, Homer makes Minerva, after fhe had advifed Achilles to lay afide his Anger againft Agamemnon, —He makes Minerva, I fay, retire to Heaven to the Palace of 'Jupi- ter c to the other Demons, or Gods. And who they were is plain, viz. Apollo, Vulcan, &c. The Scholiajl fays, that d he calls the Gods, Demons, either as knowing all Things, or dif tributing all Things [both good and bad] to Men-, and he like wife obferves, that Hejiod calls thofe Demons (as Proclus likewife e had obferved) ts$ Ik t& £jm ^eTccr&Weis, Such as are removed from this Life. ** Ho&pac, to abtweit ret ttxvtx, »j uttpifyw tu ccyciGc^ xj kuxo, to^ «v- dpawroi;. Proclus in Hefiod. ov 7rufoc to JW^ovac iim> ••• uX>.(* ^xfa, to foif/tumiv, o7Tip t?t QoSiT&cii xj ixc, ovoa,et£i&ctt. Eufeb. Pise. Ev. 1. 2. c. c. Iliad. I. v. 222. Ipfi putatis eos effe Deos quos nos daemonas fcimus. Tertul. ad Scapu!. '** &Ctlf//OVCC$ KClXi? TVS ©SS$, VlTOl fatoUWmc* \uj~i>C,0k «VU £ i^ftii^ xpiVTuv etuToi aery, m oti, j^itt^tcci u f 'iter's Son by Juno, Minerva was the Daugh- ter, fome fay, of Jupiter ; Others of Nep- tune. Mars was the Son of Jupiter : and Hebe his Daughter. And thus we may trace the Origin of others who are called Demons. Fourthly, This Notion of Demons, that they were the Souls of fuch as once had lived upon Earth, is fo univerfally allowed by Jews and Chriftians as well as by Heathens, that fcarce will any one difpute it. Jujlin Martyr fays f The Gods of the Heathen are Demons : and more expreffly ftill he calls them % The Souls of the deceafed. And defining what he meant by Demoniacks, he fays, h They, who are fixed by the Souls of deceafed Perfons, are fuch as all Men agree in calling Demoni- f Aca/AGvicc uTiv 01 do) ruv stay. Juftin Mar. c. Tryph. p. 310. 8 ^tvyjx.1 ctTraQct'iMTWJ. Apol. 2. rry^. , .r.a/.5rt 7r*>r*$. Ibid. aCivS* (5 ) acks. Jofephus calls them i the Souls of wick- ed Men. We find it thus a common Notion that Demons, and the Souls of departed Men, were imagined to be the fame : But whether they had any Powers committed to them over Mankind, notwithftanding it is fo frequently afferted, yet I do not find it any where fatif- fa&orily proved ; Nor do I think that any one could prove y that Jupiter, or Apollo, or Nep- tune, or any of the Good Men of the Golden Age, after they were departed this Life, ( and much lefs wicked Men,) had any ftridl and proper Powers over the Race of Mankind. It is one Thing to afj'ert fuch a Notion -, it is another to make it good : and they that at- tempt it, muft prove with Certainty, that the Heathen Gods and Goddeffes, Neptune, Hecate, Ceres, Apollo, &c. were the real Au- thors of fuch Adlions as were imputed to them. However, Whether Demons were the Souls of Good or Bad Men, or whether it can or cannot be proved that they had Power over Mankind, yet Fifthly, The Notion generally, if not univerfally, prevailed, that thofe who were called Gods and Demons, were the Authors 1 Axif&ovix, rxZrcc vetwam i^iv owhunw wJu*cct». Tofeph. dc Hello Jud. 1. 7 . c. 23, and ( M and true Caufes of extraordinary Diftempers amongft Mankind. Thus Homer, in a very remarkable Manner imputes to a Demon, the Cafe of a Man who lay k under a Dijiemper, in great Pain, for a long while wafting -, a hateful Demon having entered him. And it was l Apollo that fent the Plague upon the Grecian Army. And hence Celjus very juftly obferves, that m in thoje T'imes they at- tributed Difeaies to the Anger of the immortal Gods, and were wont to defre their AJjiftance to cure them. It muft be obferved in the Lajl Place, That when any particular Dijiemper had extraordinary and out of the way Symptoms attending it ; fuch as violent Diftortions, or Agitations, or fuch Sort of Affe&ions as they could not account for, They imputed fuch Difeafes dire&ly to their Demons. E. g. The Epilepjy, or Falling Sick- nefs^ (which JE/culapius fays, was conceived juji betwixt the Time of the Old and New Moon^ as Serenus Samonicus tells us, k ..,,.. 'JEv vua-ii) xurxt Kpxnf t^Xyiec xuym &ryo\> t)jjco/^£/©-' ) 5-yyipcc; Jj el t%pcct 0Ui/Auv. Odyf. E. 1 ■ <>?£©- 'AjtoAA^/ ■ tZlT t7FtlT UXOtVlV&t Via)*, ttp $* ?ov zyxt VvpMs yip TTpeurov i~{t)r.iTo, Kj Kwctq etpyXc BccXX , uiu at 7rvp*i pskvmv tutiovro S-cCfjuticti. Iliad. A, m Morbos turn ad iram dcorum immortalium relatos effe, et jib iifdem opem pofci folitam, Ce/fut Prof. Ipfc ( 7 ) Ipfe Deus memorat dubias per tempora Lunae Conceptum) The Epilepjy, I fay, was looked upon as a Sacred Dijeaje, and was fuppofed to have its Origin immediately from fome or other of the Gods, according as its Symptoms were ftronger, or lefs fo ; and thence it was called Lues deifica, and Morbus facer. Hippocrates has treated at large of this Dif- temper, and has endeavoured to mew, that there was nothing in it that n peculiarly impli- ed that any divine Being was the Cauje of it ; or that there was any Thing elfe in it but what was natural to Man. In the Introduction to the Treatife upon this Difeafe, he tells us what it was that induced him to write upon this Subject : viz. That there were a Pack of Empiricks and Quacks and f rolling Fellows, who pretended to have a more than ordinary Regard for the Gods, and who, covering their cwn Ignorance with the Veil of Deity, decla- red this Difeaje to proceed from That as the Caufe ; and therefore pretended to make ufe of Expiations, Charms, and magick Tricks to cure it. The divine Old man could not bear the Thought of fuch Cheats and Impoftors ; n Of* y*r,KfTi re $uei otiTw kuta, *lM# t* ei*8pcivrwot, HippOC. de Morbo kcro. and (8) and therefore wrote his Book to (hew, that really and in the Truth of Things, Their ■ Notions ami Practice was impious and wick- ed^ however fpecious it might Jeem, or full of Honour to the Gods : nay, though they pretended Jo much Piety and Regard for them, yet their very Piety was Wickednefs, and even Atheifm, He then proceeds to fhew that This was a mere natural Diforder, and to be refolved into the natural Courfe of. Things, as other Dif- tempers were ; and that it ought by no means to be imputed to any Gods, or GoddeJJes, or Heroes, Thofe artful Cheats, who made fuch Pre- tences purely to get a Lively hood, afcribed to fome God or other this Diftemper, according as the Symptoms were, t If fay they, the di (ordered Perfons imitate a Goat, if they grind their Teeth, if their 7'ight Sides are con- vuljed, then The Mother of the Gods is the Cauje of the Diforder. If the Patient Jpeaks ° 'Eyjoiyz « xtpi IvTioiiut, obyJtHTi Xoyw; 7roisii&ut, aqciovrcti, ctX^at, sr if i d~vositiictc, usc&hXov, >c cdq 01 $£ol chc iur{. Ta n ivtriGts *? StTev avTav, £crsc Mqrtipi* Sicov j, o xohX-J.rAc, tktI ylvij xzzo t»55 yotrtt {ZwfyfBpoia-iv, *E»w5Va irpatr- xnj i> TTpacruvounT)- vy Oi teTrrorsptv y^ TrvKvoncov ciov cpvidtq, 'AjtoA- >.uv Nolo*©-- van eft uco* Tiri* t%a OkojTpcf, >£ (piufyic, 'i%a, 'Ekxtk wv«» foifotifai xj 'Hpuuv tyooSx. Ibid. JI:arper ( 9 ) Jharper and jlronger than ordinary, they com- pare him to a Horfe, and fay that Neptune is the Caufe. If he does not retain his Excre- ments, which often happens to thofe who are vi- olently affcffed with this Difeafe, they derive this Cafe from Hecate Enodia. If the Party fpeaks flirilly and quick, as Birds, then Apollo Nomius is the Caufe : If he foams at his Mouth, and kicks with his Feet, Mars is the ,Caufe. And indeed, wherever there is excefjive Dread and Fear of Night, and People are be- fide themfelves, and jump out of Bed, and are vehemently terrified, and are for running out of Doors, they fay thefe are Snares which He- cate lays for them, and that the Heroes have taken PofJ'efJion of them. But though Hippocrates fpeaks with great Indignation againft thefe Fellows, who made ufe of Charms and jugli?tg ^Tricks to impofe on People, and to drive out thefe Demons, I find Aretteus fpeaks more mildly, i Some think, fays he, that this Difeafe comes upon thofe who are Sinners againfl The Moon, and therefore they call it The Sacred Difeafe. Ci- thers think, that it has its Name from other Pretences -, either the Greatnefs of the Evil, for whatever is great, is called Sacred ; or elfe ysKtv izpw x.ix.Xy}crx.%(ri Tyi rruCyv . ' Atci$ y$ o\' u)\>m$ xqcQctG-iac,- >j jjjiyi6^ tS KUKiSt lean *f> to fblycf >j ivi» Ssol tui idvw. Juft. Mart. c. Trypho. pjio. ' ^v^cti uxoQxioiTav. Jufi. Mart. Apol. 2. Toj xxxbfv/ju $ct*- y*o»tx rrotJipa* iV»» wOpaxur 7?vw[Axtx. Jofeph. de Bcllo Jud. I. 7. C. 23. 1 Koricci u9«tr»Tos, B-tei */U/£Jiot©", cvx i« ^nTC? Pyth. Ail- re.i Cirm. 9 Mihsd i^oi gfjfr, Proclus in Hcfiod. macks* ( ») macks. We fhall meet with Inftances here- after, of Perfons who were thus named from the fuppofed Caufe of their Diftempers. It is not the Defign of this Enquiry, to enter into an Examination, whether the Souls of departed Men (be they good or bad) have any real Power to inflift Difeafes upon us ; or whether they are in Fa£l appointed as Guards to us ; or whether they can do us either good or evil Offices. My Bufinefs is only to confider what the Notions of the Antients were : and it plainly appears that they imagined (but never proved,) thefe Demons to be invilible Beings, en- dued with fpiritual Powers, and living in the Air, and attending conftantly upon particular Perfons, and doing them much Good or Evil. w 'They infliB, fays Tertullian, upon Men's Boc Difeafes ; and are the peculiar Authors of Jbmt Sorts of very grievous Mifchances ; but as to the Soul, they are the Authors of Mens going fuddenly and extraordinarily befides them/elves. The Subtlety and Finenefs of their Make ena- bles them to enter into both the Body and Soul of Men. By Means of their being Spirits, they w Corporibus quidem et vaiemdines infiigunt, et aliquos cafus acerbos; animae vero repentinos et* extraordinarios per vim cx- ceffus. Suppetit illis ad utramque Subfb.ntiam hominis adeun- dam fubtilitas et tenuitas fua. Mul mm fpiritaKbus viribus licet ut invifibiles et infenfibiles in efreclu potias «ju*m in acla fuo appareant. TertuI, Jpolog. c. 22, C 2 h&vt ( Mj> have great Powers, Jo that they can a5l i though they are invifible and uncapable of being felt ; and you mujl judge by the Effect upon Men, rather than by their Act, which is i?tfcnjible. Having now a clear Account of what was meant by Demons, We may advance a Step further in our Enquiry ; and if it appears to be impoffible to be proved, that Neptune, or Mars, or Hecate, &c. have fuch Powers as were ufually imputed to them ; or if it can be proved, that many of the Heathen Deities to whom Diflempers were attributed, were nothing but mere imaginary Beings, who never did in Fact exifl at all) then it follows, that in the former Cafe, no Evi- dence can be given, that thofe Demons to whom a Difeafe was imputed were really the Caufe of it 5 and in the latter Cafe, that that Being to whom the Diflemper was attributedj was abfolutely not the Caufe. In both Cafes, a mere Hypothefis is maintained ; and therefore if we meet with any Diflemper imputed to Demons, or to the Gods, among the Antients, we have nothing to do but to examine what fuch Diflemper is, what the Symptoms of it were, and how the Perfons under it were af- fected ; fince we know that whatever was the Caufe, it was but an Hypothefis that 2>- mons were the Caufe of it. And if we find that there is nothing in it but what may be the Effect of mere natural Diforder in an hu- man ( «3 ) man Body, it is abfurd to introduce * a Deity into the Affair. Thus, e. g. The Epilep/y was imputed, as is evident from the Citation from Hippocrates, to Ceres y or Apollo, or Mars, or Neptune, or Hecate y &c. Hippocrates does not indeed attempt to prove that there were no Jiich Beings as thefe ; but he (hews very judicioufly, that in that Diftemper, there was nothing but what might arife from natural Caufes, without the Inter- pofition of the Gods. And fo if any one were now to confute the Notion of the God Apollo 's caufing the Epilepjy, he would fhew with Eafe, that Apollo was no God ; that his pretended Power was what could not be pro- ved • and confequently that He, who could not be proved t/> have Power, could not be proved to be the Cauje of fuch or fuch Difor- ders. For though any one fhould contend that the Soul of Apollo, &c. didexijl after his Death, yet it will not follow, that He had any Power over Mankind, or that He was the Caufe of any Diforder Upon Earth. Call therefore the Epilepfy the Sacred Difeafe, or the Lues dei- jica ; yet thefe Names imply no more than the Hypothecs by which fome attempted to account for the Diforder, and not the true and x 'Q.Magnoque exasftuat igne. Spumea tunc primum rabies vefana per ora Effluit, et gemitus, et anhelo clara meatu, Murmura. ■ Lucan. Lib- 5. 1 To ihftnashc, ujcivtulw 7rc\Xv,v \y,w Orxv *f» irtoq u$ to [/j sAc'/f 7roXv$ Atytiv ro ujt^Xov thc, yjipwoTxc, xoiii. Eurip. Bacch. u A tempore Prophetia?, Facultates Prophetae funt obfopitae, fenfus ejus cefiant, et anima occupata eft in apprehenfione fua, indicatquc hominibus quid viderit, vel audiverit, fine ulia ope- ratione voluntatis et arbitrii ejus proprii circa id quod videt vel propherat. Vid. Lib. Cozri. p. 413. w Ota TTYcetTiriv t[*[AccviK. Eurip. Bacch,. tural ( 25 ) tural Diforder, Phrenfy, Melancholy, &c. were alienated in their Minds, were faid to prophejy. It will appear prefently what Saul's Diftemper was ; and this Circumftance of his Prophejying, or acting as a mad Man, will be a considerable Argument in Point. I obferve 2dly, The Cure of him was by a known Me- thod. Let thy Servants Jeek out a cunning Player on a Harp And he Jhall play with his Hand, and thou foalt be well. ^dly, The Cure was to be effected, and it was con- stantly effected, by Mufick and by That alone, Had it been to be cured by Prayer, or any thing that was devotional, Saul's Servants would have defired a Prophet, or a Priejl, not a Mufician, to be fent for. Ajhly, When Da- vid played upon the Harp, Saul was refrefh- ed, and was well, and the Evil Spirit depart- ed from him. When therefore the Evil Spi- rit was upon him, Saul was in a State oppofite to what is here called Refre/hment, and being well. Now the original Word x fignifies to Breathe, or draw one's Breath comfortably and well. The Septuagint tranflate the Verfe thus, i Sam. xvi. 14, An Evil Spirit from the Lord 1 fuffocated him : And when David played, he refreJJjed him. And Jofephus tells * fin refpirare % relaxation ejfe, Motum y}eiAec$ i77i(piyovTct. artiTcc* xura> frcoa-i)) rx dxiyjcmx x^ rx~ pctrloh 7ron7v vzTig xiCpxXw irxvTx •tyU/&uv. Antiq. Jud. Lib. 6. c ' 10. a To oui/jjoviov IQoqijZh fC, cwJiTclpxrli. Ibid. c. 14. b <&6cvov iCj (M'trO^. Ibid. c. 11* And when Jonathan interceded with Saul for Da Days, difpoffeffed by this Elea- zar. The Root which did this wondrous Feat, is that, I fuppofe, which he mentions in the Seventh Book of the Jewi/h Wars, the Story of which is flill more ridiculous than the Account of pulling out the Demon through the Noje of the Perfon that was pofTefTed. * T!pov touc, p'ttn t5 Jkitbovi^opfytz ret dbcKroXiov] s%ovt66 Vzso tvJ T , &' iu$'j$ tS ccvfyo)?7% fJt/VK&r' zle, ecurev *V#- haQsiv a^Kis. fizki {/J/.®* £& 7Tii * (a \ >/ (\ ' » ■• •' Jv /t=\ > tv \ " STiVU f/jtXfOV Sf/jTTpO&iV TTOTyMOV TT/WipiC, Oi4.T^>>, *i 77 odo'J iTTT GOV , 3C, T J* oxiiAovici) TrpotTiTurliv t£icvn t« u,na»7FH ruur ccvctrciyett, ttj wc.pot,%uv ixiyvwxi to7$ opZxiv, on KXTscAi}.6i7n tov stvOpcMFw. Jofeph. Antiq. Lib. 8. c. 2. However (32 ) However I'll relate it fince it concerns De- mom. " k There is a Valley on the North of " Macharus, in which is a Place called Baa- ras, which bears a Root of the fame Name ; It is of a flame Colour, and about Evening time it mines very bright. It is not eafily caught by them that would willingly ga- ther it ; but it withdraws itfelf, and does not flay, unlefs one pours the Urine of a Wo- man, or menftruous Blood upon it. And " even then it is certain Death to them that £ fia>.0(VjjOi<, A««S?» UVTr,V, G&K WXt jy^s/po'T© , aXb.' l~c?i'jyu, k. hi XfOTipov l' uxmrriivfiW' oc^ckitoh at x.a6' STi^GV TpJ/TO* UKUOlllUZ. CC. Ifl TOiCtTOi. %'JY.X'jO XXTXV XOTW riJs p'-C^S ^ox^txtoi . sit' \\ xI>tyi<, krjj^- trt kvvx % juutMV ru crvuvTi trweuc&xdtvt cptAV}rxvT&, %u*a i«wsr3- J puOi'ac,. B-fKCKH o' ioti-jc, 6 ki>u¥, aix* "< • A ' yXP XX?.XfOf.X CXlf/jCViX, TOCJTX Oi ~OVtyUV ffi* eCVV^&'TTUV XViVf/jXTX, rei both that of Eleazar, and this of the Hoot BaaraSy yet Jofephus plainly thought that there were properly Demoniacks, or Perfons into whom the Souls of wicked Men entered. He gives us no Symptoms of the Diforders thefe Men had : but only that they were kil- led if they had not Help, and that Eleazar pulled out the Demon through the Nofe of the Perfon to whom he applied this Root. I can- not but think Jofephus $ Demoniack to be the fame with the Cerritus of Serenus Samonicus, whom m dreadful Smells would often cure. Serenus is fpeaking of a Cafe where through 1 So the Cynocephale, or Ofyritis in Egypt, is prefent Death to Kim that pulls it up, and is excellent good againft all Witch- craft. Plin. lib xxx. c. 2. f 1 Cerritum fepe horrendi medicantur Odores. Seren. Samon. F forne ( 34 ) *fome Fault of the Brain a raving Madnefs arofe : and as the Cerriti were Mad men, and cured by Jlrong Smells, juft as fofephuss, Demoni- acks, it is very probable they were both under the fame Sort of Diforders. It will always be afked, How Jofephus knew, that thefe Per- fons had in them the Souls of wicked Men deceafed ? How he knew that thefe wicked Spirits killed Men ? What has the Smell of a Root to do with wicked Spirits ? Or how can that expel them ? To fay, that he Jaw the Fac7 done 5 and to add that he faw the Demon over- turn a Bafon of Water, at his going out of a Man, is only affirming one incredible Thing in order to prove another. For what Evi- dence is there that this was done by a De- mon ? It is agreed that the Philofophers of Old talked much of thefe Spirits, or Demons ; but how did they know that thefe Demons were the Spirits of Evil Men ? He might fay perhaps, becaufe the Perfon that was difor- dered, was agitated, and thrown down, and fujfered much Mi/chief But thefe Effects might have nothing more in them than what was natural and ordinary, as I have already (hewn. Leaving therefore thefe Inftances of JewiJJj Exorci/ls, and the Charms which So- lomon is faid to have left, Thofe idle romantick Tales of jofephus, which mew how eafily he n Ex vitio Cerebri Phrenejis furiofa movetur Amiflaiquc refer t f widen amentia vires. was (35 ) was impofed on himfelf, or how ready he was to impofe on others -, I proceed in the next Place to confi- der what the New Tejlament Writers have faid upon the Subjedt of Demoniacks. And in order to mew what was meant, we muft compare the feveral Relations together ; and when we meet with plain and eafy Ac- counts of things, we muft make them the Standards or Tefts by which we ought to un- derftand the more difficult Places ; and not vice verfa, interpret eafy Texts by thofe which are intricate and hard. It muft be remem- bered likewife, that Demon in none of the Inftances already produced, fignifies what we in Englijh call Devil, but always is applied to ° the departed Souls of Dead Men. And laftly, that Epilepfy and Madnefs were pecu- liar Diforders attributed to the Gods. Thefe Things being already proved, it is neceflary to obferve, that when out Saviour began to preach, he went about all Galilee, preaching the Gofpel of the Kingdom, and heal- ing all Manner of Sickne/s, and all Manner of Difeafe among the People, and his FAME went throughout Syria - y and there followed him great Multitudes of People from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerufalem, and l*wr*>». Juft. Mart. 2 Apol. F z from (36) from Judea, and from beyond Jordan, Matt. iv» 23 — 25. From hence it appears that He was much known ; and that the Doctrines he preached were likewife known ; and what he was imagined to be, was well known in all thofe Parts. This was fo notorious, that they brought unto him all fick People that were ta- ken with divers Difeafes and Torments ; and thofe which were poffeffed with Devils [De- mons] and thofe which were Lunatic, and thoje which had the Palfy. Perhaps this might bet- ter be tranflated, even thofe who were pof Je/fed, &c. for thefe are the particular and eminent Inftances of Perfons who had Difea- fes and Torments. What thefe Perfons pofjeffed with Devils [or Demons] were, is now to be confidered. St. John, c. x. 20, gives us an Account of a Controverfy amongft the Jews on Occa- fion of fome Things which our Saviour had faid. In this Debate, many J aid he hath a Devil, and is mad. Others Jdid, thefe are not the Words of him that hath a Devil : can a Devil open the Eyes of the blind f Madnefs is here imputed to our Saviour -, and the imagi- nary Caufe is, he hath a Devil. Thefe were fo connected together in their Minds, that Both Sides reafoned in the fame Manner : and both Sides took for granted that That particular Diforder proceeded from fome Evil Spirit that pofleffed him, They therefore that thought (37) thought he fpoke the Words of Sobriety, re- plied, can he that is under the Influence of a wicked Spirit, i. e. a Mad man, either fay or do fuch Things as this Man does ? It is exactly in the fame Senfe that the Jews anfwered our Saviour, John vii. 20, when he charged them with going about to kill him,- — — They faid, Thou haft a Devil. The Meaning of which was Thou art mad, who goeth about to kill thee ? He charged them with an AQ. which they difclaimed ; and they immediately replied, that he had a De- vil; ufmg the Caufe, the imaginary Caufe, for a vifible Effecft, which they conceived natural- ly to flow from it. Again ; when John came neither eating nor drinking, they fay, He hath a Devil, Matt, xi, 18. i. e. When he appeared in that auftere ri- gid Manner, living in the Wildernefs, and preaching ftridt Repentance as he did, and u- iing fevere Mortification, they looked upon him to be mad. To name one Inflance more. Our Saviour having told the Jews, John viii. 48 — 52, that they were not of God, they faid unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and haft a Devil ? Jefus anfwer- ed, I have not a Devil, but I honour my Fa- ther, If a Man keep my Saying, he fhall never fee Death. Then faid the Jews unto him, now we know, that thou haft a Devil. Abra- ham is dead, and the Prophets, and thou fayefl, CI ( 38) If a Man keep my Saying, he Jhall never taji of Death. The Meaning of all this is very plain : " Do we not fay very juftly, that you " treat us juft as the Samaritans do, with Ran- " cour and Malice j and that you are really €t madr He replies, " I am not mad, but cc know what I fay and mean ; my Defign is to honour my Father, and with a View of promoting this good Defign I tell you, He that obeys what I fay Jloall live for ever!* They inftantly reply, " Now it is evident you are mad: Abraham is dead, and the Prophets ; and yet you tell us that he that obeys your Doctrines mail live for ever : Whom tnakeft thou thy felff Had not St. John, in the Paffage firft ci- ted, explained fo particularly what was meant by having a Devil, ( or Demon, for fo it is al- ways to be read) we mould probably have un- derstood thefe Places of Madnefs, or of a difor- dered Underftancling : Becaufe fo many Inftan- ces might be produced out of heathen Authors, where thofe who were called Cerriti or Lar- vati, or Lymphatici, and were fuppofed to be affe&ed by, or to be under the Direction or Influence of Demons, were all in their Degree mad. But as the Words are explained in the Gofpel itfelf, it is eafy to fee upon w r hat Grounds the Jews fiid to our Saviour, Thou haft a Devil. They had neither feen nor heard any Demon in bim t nor in John the Baptijl i ( 39 ) Baptijl , and yet inftantly they charge them with having one. Whence did this proceed ? Or why do they fay a Devil, rather than any thing elfe? They faw indeed, what they thought to be Madnefs, and nothing elfe. From this vifible Effect then they prefently imagined a Demon (or Devil) to be the Cauje\ and therefore charged him with what they did not fee ', arguing from the Effect to the Caufe. And therefore when Jofephus, or O- thers, call fuch or fuch Perfons Demoniacks y they may do it merely from certain Symptoms of which they fuppofed Demons to be the Caufe, though no Evidence of fuch Demons appeared. And indeed it was cujiomary for the Jews to attribute to Evil Spirits certain great Diforders, which either diftorted the Bo- dy, or occafioned Phrenfy, or DiflraBion of the Mind: as Dr. Lightfoot has well obferved.? The Paffages already produced, which make the having a Devil and Madnefs to be the fame thing, will help us to underftand fome others, which at firft Sight may appear more intricate. Thus for Inftance ; in St. Matthew , c. xvii. 1 5, there came a certain Man to our Lord, who kneeled down and faid, Lord have Mercy upon my Son, for he is lunatick, a?id P Judasis ufitatiffimum erat morbos quofdam graviores, eos praefertim quibus vel diftortum eil corpus, vel mens turbata, et ; .agitata Phrenefi, malis Sp:rmbu3 attribuere, Lightfoot Her, Heb. Matt. xvii. 15. fore ( 40 ) fore vexed : for oft-times he falleth into the Fire, and oft into the Water. The other E- vangelifts give us a mere particular Account of this young Man's Cafe. St. Mark, c. ix. 17, 18, makes the Man to fay to our Savi- our / have brought unto thee my Son, which hath a dumb Spirit ; and wherejbever he taketh him> he teareth him, and he foameth, and gnafheth with his Teeth, and pineth away. When the young Man was brought to our Lord, v. 20, the Spirit tare him, and he fell on the Ground, and wallowed, foaming. In St. Luke, the Cafe is reprefented thus, c. ix. 39. A Spirit taketh him, and he fud- denly crieth out, [or fhrieks] and it teareth him that he foameth again, and bruifing him, hardly departeth from him. This Man was plainly, what Juftin Martyr defcribes thofe which were ^Jeized by Demons to be, r thrown upon the Ground; and he is plainly a Demoni- ack, for in curing him Jefus rebuked the De- vil, Matt. xvii. 18. From the Symptoms he had -foxing into the Fire, or Water, tear- ing himfeif gnafl:i?ig with his 'Teeth, foaming, wallowing on the Ground, being bruifed, and then the Fit leaving him, his Cafe was Epi- leptick. Celjus obferves of fuch Perfons, f The 9 AeK^ev.j.V.TTii, '■l>-j%x7q ^Tz&ccvovrav Xtty&u*o[fy-ct. Juft. Mart, r 'r»,Tra^©i. Ibid. ApoJ. 2. f Homo fubito concidir, ex ore Spumse moventur, homi- 11cm confumit. Ceffus Lib. 3. c. 23. Man 4i ) Man all of a fudden falls down, foams at the Mouth, and when the Dijlemper is ?iew upon him, it makes him pine away. Hippocrates has given us the Symptoms of the Epilepjy more accurate- ly. * " He becomes uncapable of fpeaking, cc and is fuffbcated, and Foam runs out of the " Mouth, his Teeth gnafh, the Hands are cc clojejljut, the Eyes are dijlorted, they under- cc Jland nothing : — he falls down, he kicks with " his Feet. After this particular Account of the Symptoms, he explains the natural Caufe of each ; and fays u Thus is this Dijlemper to young People -, He adds, * When the Dijbrder is of long ftanding, it is not curable. This is a direct Expofition of the Cafe before us, and fhews the Man to be plainly Epileptic. You will fay perhaps then, that Madnefs is not the fame as having a Devil, but Epilep- jy, which is a different Diftemper. But the Circumftances will clear up this Point. As ijl, It is obferved that this Diftemper had been long upon him. How long, fays our Sa- viour, is it ago fmce this came unto him f And he J aid, Of a Child, Mark ix. 21. zdly, I * 'A^y®-" yivsrat, y^, ot^fc, <£y. t» fo^fKT^ Cs/.pizi, \tj., gvy, tri w(Tluj&' ytviren. Ibid. G mult ( 42 ) muft obferve from Hippocrates, x Melancho lick Perjbns are "very often wont to be Epilep- tic, and Epileptic Perfons Melancholick. Each of thefe Diflempers prevail, as the Dijbr- der inclines to either Body or Mind : If to the Body, they are Epileptic ; if to the Mind, they are Melancholick. ^dly, It muft be ad- ded from the fame Author, that where the Epilepfy * has grown np with a Perfon from his Childhood, (as was the exprefs Cafe of the Perfon before us ) the Cure is very difficult, ^thly, St. Matthew expreffly calls him a Ln- natic. He is Lunatic and fore vexed. 5thly> I cannot but obferve that Alexander Trallia- mis gives us an Account of a Cure of the Epilepfy, which he learnt in Hetruria from a Country/nan, who cutting, fays he, wild Rue in a Field, his Fellow Servant, ctXyvicLxos a>v ima-tv, being a Lunatic, was feized with a Fit of Epilepfy. Alex. 'Trail. Lib. 1. Exactly in St. Matthews Language. Thefe Things being confidered, it appears that this Young man was Epileptic : His Epi- lepfy had brought him to be Melancholick^ which is the natural Turn of the Diftemper; and his Melancholy had made him mad. * Ol fitiXxy^oXixoi x^ i7rO.17TTix.ok ita£x i<, to era/Act tWAjjTrrct ; t\ at fT* tw 2>ldvow iMXayx.0X1x.0l. Hippoc. de Morbis popular. Lib. 6. y Ot*i *&jn wtuottt (Tvv/.vliTcti -m*~«,?TciXXcify(; *ctXt7rtj yi'viTctt. From (43 ) From hence St. Matthew, in his Account, ex- preffly calls him Lunatic. The other Two Evangelifts take Notice, the One of the dumb Spirit which he had, the Other, of the Spi- rit, but fay not a Word of his Madnefs, which was implied in the Term, Spirit : And then they defcribe at large the Symptoms of the Epilepfy. St. Matthew defcribes the Epileptic Fits, as foon as he had faid that the Young man was Lunatic : The two other Evangelifts defcribe the Epileptic Fits, as foon as they had faid that he had a Spirit, or a dumb Spirit. Therefore Lunatic and Demo-> niack> or having a Spirit y or a Devil, muft be the fame. I am fenfible how difficult it is to account for every Expreffion on thefe Occafions, where we often know not the exact Ideas to which fome particular Words were applied. We muft be often left to Uncertainty and Con- jecture, and he that gue/Jes, not irrationally^ ought to be excufed if he varies from com- mon Sentiments, when common Sentiments are not at all intelligible. In the Proceft of the Hiftory of this Young man, it appears that the Difciples of our Lord could not cure him. The Father of him tells our Saviour, / fpake to thy Difciples that they Jhould cafl him out, and they could not, Mark ix. 1 8, or as St. Matthew has it, I brought him to thy DifcipleSy and they could not cure him. Our G 2 Saviour ( 44 ) Saviour curing him Jo eafily, his Difciples af- terwards afked him privately, or apart, Why could not we cajl him out ? His Anfwer, as it lies in St. Mark, is only thus This Kind ran come forth by nothing, but by Prayer and Fajiing, c, ix. 29. But in St. Matthew, the Anfwer is much larger and fuller, and from thence perhaps we may be able to conjecture at the Meaning of thefe Words. Jefus [aid unto them, becaufe of your Unbelief. For ve~ rily I fay unto you, if ye have Faith as a Grain of Muflard-Jeed, ye Jloall fay unto this- Mountain, Remove hence unto yonder Place, and it Jhall remove, and nothing Jhall be un~ pofible for you. Howbeit, this Kind goeth not out but by Prayer and Failing. I obfer- ved before, that this was an Epileptic Cafe \ and it was an Epileptic Diforder of long flancimg : and confequently either incurable, or very hard to be cured, by any Means of Art, The Determination of the Old Phylitians is, 1 That neither Broths, nor even Meats that are light and eafy of Digeftion, nor Flefh of any Sort, and particularly Hogs Flejh, is not good for this Sort of People. You are not to give Juch any Food at all till the third Day after the % Cibum poft diem tcrtium dare. Neque forbhiones his -. 1: ulioqui molles et fhciles cibi, necue caro> minimeque fuilU -ronve'iit, et uhi tertio die cibus aatus eft intermirtere quar- tum, et invicem alrerum quemqu-j donee quatuordecim dies ranfeant. Celfiu Lib. 3. c. ;;. Fit, ( 45 ) Fit ; and when he has taken fome Suftenance, on the third Day, you mufi leave it off the fourth, and jo on every other Day, -//// fourteen Days are pajl. When great Exercife is prefcribed, yet ftill the Rule is a Let him have but little Victuals -, or let him abftain al- together from Flefh. I know not whether this may help us to folve the prefent Difficulty. The Difciples afk why they could not cure this young man. Our Saviour's Anfwer to them is, " Becaufe of " your Unbelief. For had you Faith equal to " the Advantages you have, you fhould be cc able to do the moft difficult Things, nay €€ nothing which is neceffary to gain Credit to " your Authority or Doctrine, fhall be im- " poffible." This contains a full Anfwer to their Queftion : and what follows, about the Neceffity of Fajli?tg and Prayer, may not re- a Paulum cibi afTumat. Ibid. Kpjftjy 7TXVTS>i.6)$ KX.X.OV i^lV CCTTi^itBxi ■ - oXiyoV Xiit/j-sCt.VZTa, x± oXiyuKic,. It is good to abjiain from Flefh entirely. But if he dcjires fome let him take but little, and feldom. Again, Tee. ci y^iu. TrcipaiTsi'&c&i yjixfi rzteici$ cc^ecXXxy^. He ought to abftairt from Flefh till he is quite cured. And then follow a great man/ Cautions about what the Epileptic ought to eat and drink. Alex and. Trallianus. Lib. I. - — —oil's; oXiyo7?o(TM, tevy.x, te^rx- Xx%c{,vm iCpQav, oy.o to read h ^poo-i^ei vv\^i[ct y in conjiant Fajling, juft as all the Phyfitians were wont in this Cafe to prefcribe. If this were the true Reading in St. Mark, St. Matthew muff: be corrected in the fame Manner, fince it is agreed, that the Verfe was not at all originally in St. Matthew, but inferted into his Gofpel from Mark, as Dr. Mills has rightly obferved. If this be the Cafe, the Meaning of the Words is " You could not cure " this Man becaufe of your Unbelief: But yet you fee how eafy this Diftemper is re- moved -, though it be a Diftemper, which when of long Continuance, is allowed by all to be hard to be cured, and for which is ufually prefcribed a long Courfe of Failing." This indeed would folve the Difficulty ; but as no various Reading will countenance the Emendation, it may perhaps be thought to be cutting the Knot. I am apt to think, that the Phrafe, by Fajl- ing and Prayer, is proverbially ufed, and im- plies great Difficulty only. For as neither Failing nor Prayer were here ufed on this Occafion by either our Saviour, or the diftem- pered ( 48 pered Perfon, tlie Words muft be taken not in too ftridt a Senfe. I conceive therefore that our Lord defigned to oppofe to the ufual Length of Time and Difficulty of Cure, the Speed and Eafe with which he had removed this Diftemper; <£ This is the Diftemper that " All People make fo great Difficulty in cu~ in other Places : Had they therefore had Faith, they might have cured this Diftemper. This plainly fhews, that in this Place, the Words are not to be taken too rigidly ; but as when it is faid one cannot obtain a Thing, nee prece, nee pretio, no more is meant, than that one in vain attempts to get it ; So here This Kind goeth not out but by Prayer and Fajting, no more is in- tended than, that this Diforder is very hardly, or naturally impoffible, to be removed. But this I refer to the Reader's Judgment \ and Avail readily fubmit to better Information. ' There is another Inftance of a Demoniaek, Mark v. I. (St. Matthew fays there were Two of them, c. viii. 28.) which will require a particular Difcuflion. Immediately there met htm out of the Tombs a Man with A n unclean Spirit, ( 49 ) Spirit, who had his Dwelling among the 'Tombs y and no Man could bind him, no not with Chains, becaufe that he had been often bound with Fetters and Chains, and the Chains had been plucked afunder by him, and the Fetters broken in Pieces, neither could any Man tame him. And always Night and Day he was in the Mountains, and in the Tombs, crying, and cutting himjelf with Stones. St. Matthew fays there were Two that met him, exceeding fierce, fo that no Man might pafs by that way, c. viii. 28. St. Luke's Account is thus, c. viii. 27 — 29. There met him one which had Devils a long Time, and ware no Cloths, neither abode in any Houje but in the Tombs. The unclean Spirit oftentimes had caught him, and he was kept bound with Chains, and in Fetters ; and he brake the Bands, and was dri- ven of the Devil into the Wildernefs. Mark and Luke agree in this, that when our Saviour alked Him [the Man] his Name, H e anfwered, Legion : The Reafon of this Anfwer is in St. Mark, for we are many ; in St. Luke, the Reafon is, becaufe many Devils were entered into him. Laftly, When the Man was cured, the People found him a in his right Mind, fay both Mark, c. v, 15. and Luke c. viii. 3 5. H From ( 5°) From thefe Accounts of this unhappy Man, we muft obferve if, Here was a Perfon, not in his right Mind; running about naked; plucking afun- der his Chains or Fetters ; no one could tame him 5 living in the Mountains like a wild Man 5 roaring out ; cutting himfelf ; fierce ; miichievous to Paflengers. Thefe are all or- dinary Symptoms of Lunacy ', or Madnefs, if the Perfon be fuffered to ramble out in a ra- ving Condition. idly, It is faid, no Man could bind or tame him. Hence it appears that his Cafe was Madnefs, and not Epileptick, fince Epilepticks are not wont to be bound with Chains. idly, This was a Perfon with an unclean Spirit, Mark v. 2. and he is, before his Cure, conftantly treated by our Saviour, and by Mark and Luke, as poflefled by One only Spi- rit. Come out, thou unclean Spirit, v. 8. He was pojjeffed with a Devil, v. 15, 16. And fo St. Luke. He commanded the unclean Spirit to come out of the Man, for oftentimes 1 t had caught him, c. viii. 29. Our Saviour then faying in the Angular, Come out Thou unclean Spirit, at the Time he cured him • and not in the Plural, Ye un- clean Spirits, notwithftanding the Man had iaid he had a Legion in him, it follows that this Account of many Devils was nothing clfc but the Man's Imagination, and not the Truth (5* r Truth of Things -, For to call out one Devi/, when a Legion was in him, was really do- ing no Service to the Perfon afflicted. \thly, In St. Mark and Luke, where we have the Cafe of this Man at large defcribed, we hear of no more than One unclean Spirit, till Jefus afked the Man his Name. Now as to have a Devil and to be mad is the fame thing, this Man was confidered merely as a Madman. And fo all that follows is confid- ent. Our Saviour alks the Man his Name : His Anfwer was that of a mere Madman, that his Name was Legion, for many Devils were entered into him. tfhly, Taking him for a Madman, could any thing be more natural than what pafled. He addrefles our Saviour openly, and without any Fear or Care -, calling him the Son of God, and proclaiming him what he was. What have I to do with thee, Jefus thou Son of God moft high ? It was eafy for him to know Jefus, fince his Fame was fpread in all thofe Parts ; and that made him addrefs him in the Manner he did. And it was as natural for him, conlidering him as a Jew, in his mad Fit to afk that the Devils which were in him might be permitted to enter into the Herd of Swine which he faw juft before him. The Sight of them would naturally put the odd Image into his Head : And when Jefus, is faid to permit them, or give them Leave -, H z or (52) or in St. Matthew's Language to fay Go. All this is no more than not concerning himfelf with the fantaftic Humour of a Mad- man, but humouring him whilft he cured him. But the main Difficulty is ftill behind. They, i. e. the Devils, when they were come out, went into the Herd of Swine, and be- hold ! the whole Herd of Swine ran violently down a Jleep Place into the Sea, and were drowned, Matt. viii. 32. All the Three Evan- gelists agree in telling us, that the Devils en- tered the Swine, But yet we mull obferve, that all this Legion of Devils was nothing but the Madman $> Talk. If therefore by any Ac- cident the Swine ran down the Precipice, whilft the Man or Men were under Cure, whether drove down, or frighted down by the Madmen, This would fully anfwer all the Story. For as to the Requeft itfelf, That was nothing but the mad Difcourfe of one difor- dered in his Senfes : Juft as I my felf met with a Woman who told me of Numbers of Devils in her; and confiftent with that Principle, fhe told me what This or That particular Devil faid; and what they defired to be done ; and me afked me, if I did not hear or fee the Devils. But fuppofing this Conjecture, that the Mad- man drove or frighted the Swine down a fteep Place into the Sea, will not fufficiently account for the Expreffions of the Evangelifts, I con- ceive (53 ) ceive that there can be no greater Difficulty in this Cafe, than there is in one Man's Dif- temper paffing into another Man. The Mad- nefs therefore of this Man may be conceived to pafs into the Swine, juft in the fame Manner as the Leprofy of one Man could be transferred into another. The Leprofy of Naaman was to cleave to Gehazi, and to his Seed for ever, 2 Kings v, 27. Which way foever this is to be accounted for, I ap- prehend that by the fame Method the In- ftance before us may be refolved without any Difficulty, the like Effect being imputable to a like Caufe. I fhall have a further Occafion to confider fome other Circumstances of this Story by and by. In the Interim, I cannot but be furprized at a Calculation lately made of how many Devils entered into each Hog. Had Mr. IVooljion, in his Defign to ex- pofe Chriftianity to Contempt and Ridicule, calculated in fuch a Manner ; I dare fay, that thofe who were fo zealous to inflict Punifh- ments upon the Man for his Banter, would have pitched upon this very Inftance, as one of the moft flagrant of all. I know not whether there is a fingle In- ftance of a Demoniack, which may not fairly and juftly be explained by Epilepfy, or Mad- nefs. The Cafe of the Pythonefs, Acts xvi. 16 — 18, is that of a Perfon that pretended to tell Fortunes 5 and engaged the Attention of the (54) the People, by fpeaking inwardly. This was called a Spirit of Divination ; and when flie was difcovered, flie was difabled from playing this Trick any longer, by St. Paul's faying to her, / command thee to come out of her. No more was, or could be meant, than to put a Stop to the Trick the Woman ufed. She was not a Demoniack in the Senfe of thole that are mentioned in the Gofpels ; no more than the Woman whom St. Luke men- tions c. xiii. ii — 1 6, who is faid to have had a Spirit of Infrmity eighteen Tears, and to be bound by Satan fo long. She was never repu- ted a Demoniack ; but only to be fo bent in her Body, as not to be able to lift herfelf up. A Spirit of Infirmity is nothing but an infirm Difpofition or Habit ; , in the Jewifli Phrafeolo- gy : and the Chriftian Writers are full of the fame Manner of Expreffions, applying to eve- ry Vice, and every Paffion, and every Dif- pofition, the Name of Spirit. And as to the other Expreffion, Satan hath bound her, -That Word would have been ufed, what- ever was the true Caufe of this Indifpofition, or whatever was the Obftruftion to her Health. Satan is nothing elfe but Adverfary, and is to be underftood according to the Subject to which it is applied. Thus Matt. xvi. 23, Our Saviour fays to St. Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an Offence unto me, i. e. You are an Adverfary to the Means by which God ( 55 ) God intends to erect his Kingdom, and you talk as fuch. Peter here is called Satan, from his oppofing the Means of the Chriftian Difpenfation. And fo to be bound of Satan, when applied to an Infirmity , means no more than that which was an Adverfary to Health, be it what it would. The Woman here, feems to be a devout, religious, good, Wo- man : She was in the Synagogue before her Cure ; and as foon as fhe was cured, fhe glo- rified God, Our Saviour bears this Teftimo- ny to her, that She was a Daughter of A- braham ; by which he meant to commend her for her Faith, and good Difpofition of Mind. Why then fhould we imagine the Devil, or the Prince of Devils, to have been in her fo many Years ? Might not one have Grounds to think that he would have perverted her Mind, and not her Body, or have diftorted her Soul, and not have made her Carcafe crooked? That it was cuftomary for the Jews to ap- ply the Term, Satan, to any JLnemy, is plain from 2 Chron. xxi. i. compared with the 2 Sam. xxiv. I. In the former it is faid Satan food up again]} Ifrael, and provoked David to ?iumber Ifrael. In the latter it is faid The Aiiger of the Lord was kindled againft Ifrael, and H e moved David againjl them, to Jay, Go nwnber Ifrael. Not that God moved David to do as he did; for then there had been no Fault : but it was fome- bodv ( 5& ) body that was an Enemy of the I/raelites in the Event. And fo 2 Sam. xix. 22. David fays to Abif!:a y What have I to do with you , j£ &/Z.T 0/ Tferujah, /&?/ ^ jhould be Satan /a jew ? i. e. that ye fhould be fuch deadly Ene- mies to me. So here in the Cafe of this in- firm Woman, Satan had bound her : whatever was the Caufe of her Infirmity, whether it proceeded from a natural Caufe, or from fome malicious Blow, or any other mifchievous Ac- cident, which in the Event proved fo fatal to her, the Jews would fay, that Satan bound her. Judceis ufitatijjimum erat morbos quibus dijlortum eft corpus malis Spiritibus attribuere. Lightfoot on Matt. xvii. 15. This Cafe then was mere Infirmity : But every Inftance of Perfons called Demoniacks are Inftances of Epilepfy, or of Madnefs. Thus, A5fs viii. 7. The People attended to Philip, who caft out unclean Spirits crying with aloud Voice - 9 i. e. he cured Men that were raving. And fo Matt. ix. 3 2, 3 3 . They brought unto him a dumb man, pofTeffed with a Devil: and when the Devil was caft out, the dumb fpake. Again, Matt. xii. 22. They brought unto him One poffeffed with a Devil, blind and dumb, and he healed him, infomuch that the blind and dumb both Jpake and jaw. The Pofflfiion being the fame as being mad, the Circumftances which attend- ed it mew how the Man was affected. E. g* in the Cafe juft mentioned, the Madman was a blind ( 57) blind Man, and dumb, either through natural Infirmity, or elfe fullen through his Diftem- per. And if at any Time a determinate Number of Devils are faid to have polTefled any Perfon, e. g. Mary Magdalene, out of whom went Seven Devils, Luke viii. 2. Mark xvi. 9. — The Meaning is, that flie had affirm- ed in her Melancholy, that me had fo many Devils in her, juft as the Madman faid that he had a Legion of Devils in him. This will eafily mew us the Meaning of what is faid in the Ac7s, c. xix. 13 — 16, concerning the va- gabond Jews who took upon them to call over them which had evil Spirits the Name of the Lord Jefus, faying, We adjure you by Jefus whom Paul preacheth. And the Evil Spirit anjwered and faid, Jefus / know, and Paul 1" know, but who are ye ? And the Man in who?n the Evil Spirit was, leapt on them, and over- came them, and prevailed againjl them, Jo thai they fed out of that Houje naked and wound- ed. The mad man fell upon them, and tore their Cloaths off their Backs, and wounded them. Thefe Vagabond exorcifis pretended by certain Charms to cure this Diforder. They finding that the Apoftles, endued with fu- pernatural Powers from on high, did in the Name of Jefus eafily and inftantaneoufly cure any Difeafe ; They, I fay, likewife pretended to this Power ; and being able by their Charms, or Exorcifms, to do nothing, I they ( 53 ) _ they differed iuftly the Demerit of their Rafh- nefs and Folly. It will be worth our while on this Occasi- on to coniider a little the Practices of thefe vagabond Jews, thefe ftroliir.g Cheats. St. Luke here defcribes them as b Strollers, taking upon them to expel Devils by the Name of the. Lord Je/us. This was a new Trick they had taken up : for the ufual Practice among them had been to do it in the Name of the God of A- hraham, and the God of Ifaac, and the God of Jacob. When fuflin Martyr, and Origen, fpeak of Jews and Gypjies driving away De- vils, they do it as if there was found to be a lingular Force or Charm in thofe Words. c If you exorcifc, lays Jufin againft Trypho, in the Name of any of your Kings, or Jujl ?nen, or Prophets, or Patriarchs, none of the Devils [or Demons] will obey you : But ifi?ideed any of you exorcife by the God of Abraham, and the God of Ifaac, and the God of Jacob, p?~o- babh he will obew However it is obfervable. J y i d that thefe Exorcifts did not dare to reft the Bvent upon the Charm they ufed - y but they c Yjc- KUTet jmcmto$ ^oUbXi^- Ttm tFUc fff/tlt yr-'£6J> r, Oir.uL,c.\ v, ~;o

r-u- j K TCCtTttatflQUl t+.&-< VLOiTq, &;£* VSTa- vy.', .-trircit \tn> ran o*..i/*w>m ce.?./. i. uzx. i'cccx.^a tu; b[//&v xutcC • :: coat. Tryph p 311. ~«», Jbi'i. had (59) had Recourfe to Art : they uied Chains to fe- cure, as well as ftrong Sce?its to expel the Demon out of, the Demoniack. Origen feems to impute the whole Cure to the mere Sound of the Words which thefe Strollers ufed ; and He is of Opinion that the Sounds The God of Abraham rightly fpoken, were effectual to drive away Devils. I fay rightly fpoken : For the Jewifo Strollers and the Gyp/ies, were not to ufe the Greek Words, nor did they in their Charms : But they took Care to pronounce Hebrew Words, the better to impofe upon the ignorant People, d The Egyptians, fays he, who did not know who Abraham was. xet ufed the Words the God of Abraham ; and fo they did, Ij'aac and Jacob and Ifrael - y and imputed to, and promi/ed great Wonders from thole Hebrew Sounds , and made it a Part of their Secret. Some- times the Jews faid in their Charms, e The God of Ifrael, the God of the Hebrews, the God that drowned the Ki??g of the Egyptians, and the Egyptians, in the Red Sea : And this a IlO/lAof TCt)f i~XC6VT61V CTXIUUMXC, yjCtHTX\. CV TUC AOfOJC M.J7-X; Tti x S-£C5 A^xxfX/ cxx. 1~:^xu>ko: 01 Tt$ tfiv o A*pzxu*. Tx a ccurk >.sx.TiW y^ yrspt rS Icxux, £ 5T*p» t£ Ixk&iZ, ;£ ~*pi ri W:u.*A t ceruse ouioXoyXf/u&ac, Evpxtx ovrx oio^xtx 77^X>m'/J6 t«s A.y^r ,a, i7rxy,i~A>,e>[/jivoic, dvipyuxv twx cUViTeeprat f/sx&a/xci. Oi;g. C Cell. 1 I. p. 1^7. e O $-£65 t£ IcrpatiA, >£. o 3"£C5 ran Efcpajryy, xox>&yj<.xvLioti'&' kcctx ozifAoyaa. J bid. 1. 4. p. 184. I 2 was ( 6o ) was of mighty Influence againft Demons, as Origen tells us, Book 4. p. 184. One may well wonder, whence it is that fuch impudent Vagabonds v/ith nothing but hard Names in their Mouths, fhould be able to gull and impofe on fo many as they did. But one would more wonder that Men of Learning, fuch as Origen was, fhould contend for the Power and Efficacy of fuch Sounds upon real Diftempers. The Sons of Sceva might pretend to caft out evil Spirits by a new Charm as they thought - y and they might pretend to vye with St. Paid, in the miraculous Cure of diftempered Perfons, in the Name of 'J ejus. But for Men of Senfe to endeavour to account for thefe Practices of Cheats, I mean for Won- ders and prodigious Cures done, by Sounds, and Charms of Words, and fuch Sort of magical Operation, is, methinks, to promote the Cheat, and to encourage the World to confult In- chanters, and Witches, and Wizards, and Ne- cromancers, notwithftanding it is faid fo exprefHy, that they which do fuch Things are an Ahoinination to the Lord, Deut. xviii. 12. The Place where thefe Sons of Sceva pretend- ed to caft out Devils by the Name of J ejus, viz. Rphefus, puts me in Mind of the Ephefian Letters which Plutarch in his Sympofiacs fays, f the Magicians commanded Juch as were pojjej- f 'Oi Viccyoi T8<; ^xif^ov^cfjoiva^ KiXzvucri rcc Z Terpcc^, Actfxy afjLinv$, Aujw. They are juft fuch Cant Words as now our ftrol- ling Gypiies ufe: by'Aoxi they meant Darknefs, KctTctcx,* Light, by Ai'£, He; AoLfxvd^nv^ fignifi- ed the Sim, and Amov, True; as for Terpen^ it is not explained. This will fhew fufficiently, what Eufebius has obferved in his Praparatio Evan- gelica, Lib. 3. c, 1. That thefe Impoftors when they did any thing, h made life of certain Charms with unintelligible, inarticulate, and barbarous Sounds. It is eafy from the Inftances produced to underftand any other Cafe which the New Teftament Writers mention. Their Demo- niacks are much the fame with the Cerriti, or Larvati, or Lymphatici, of the antient Romans, or with thofe whofe Diforders are mentioned by Hippocrates, as coming from the Gods. Not that any of the Antients could S Evince, ypcc[Jt/[//oiTc6, w [Aiv xuXcti, v^cv <^« 7TfocriQi(rccv riisq uz-ccTtavis y^ etXXa,. arr^w xj QxfaptKvis \mi\wu>>^ Euf. Prae. Evan. 1 3. c. I. prove, ( 62 ) prove, that thofe whom they called Demoni- acks, or Cerriti, or Larvati, were really pof- feded by the Souls of G?m, or Apollo, &c. or by the Larva. Thefe Terms might imply an Hypothefis originally, in order to account for certain Diforders -, but they do not imply the Truth of Things. And when once Words are applied to fuch or fuch Diforders, every Man that fpeaks of fuch Cafes muft ufe the tecni- cal Terms, and cannot with any Juftice be deemed to approve the Hypothefis, becaufe he fpeaks as Cuftom has made it necefTary. But againft this way of interpreting the Scripture, it is obje&ed Firft, that the Scriptures and Eccleliaftical Writers make a conftant and a plain Diftinc- tion betwixt thefe two things, the curing of Difeafes, and the cafting out Devils. Thus Matt. iv. 24, They brought to him alljick Peo- ple that were taken with diver fe Difeafes, and thofe which were pofjeffed with Devils ; and thofe which were Lunatick, and thofe that had the Palfy. So likewife, Matt. x. 1. He gave to the Difciples Power againft unclean Spirits io cajl them oat, and to heal all Manner of Sickncfs and Difeafes. And Mark i. 34. Our Saviour beheld many that were lick of diver fe Dijeafes, and cajl out many Devils. And thus too Luke iv. 40, 41. All they that had any fick with diverfe Di /cafes brought them un-. to him ; and he laid his Hands on every one of them ( 6 3 them and healed them, and Devils alfo came out of many crying out a?id faying, Thou art Chrijl the Son of God. To all this the An- fvver is obvious, That what is ufually called PoJfeJJton of De- vils, is no more to be diftinguifhed from Dif- eafe, or Sicknefs, than the Palfy is, which in the very firft Citation from St. Matthew is put in the fame Manner as Lunacy is, and is contradiftinguifhed from Difeafes. In truth, the proper Rendring is, He cured all that were taken with diverfe Difeafes, even Demoniacks, Lunaticks, and Paralyticks. In the other Paffages the Senfe is very clear : He gave the Difciples Power over unclean Spirits, and not only that Power, but likewife to heal all other Diftempers. As to Himfelf, our Saviour cu- red the fick, and likewife all Sorts of Luna- cy. Lunacy or Madnefs is a Difeafe which appears in different Shapes : l Some are merry, fome are fad, feme are eafily kept within Bounds, and are only mad in their Words ; others are furious and outragious, and of thefe fome only offend in ufing Violence, others apply Arts, and look and a£i as if they were in their Senfes 1 Alii hilares, alii trifles {lint, alii facilius continentur, et in- tra verba defipiunt, alii infurgunt, et violenter quaedam manu faciunt, atque ex his iplis alii nihil nifi impetu peccant, alii eti- am artes adhibent fummamque fpeciem fanitatis in captandis ma- lorum operum occafionibus prsebent, fed exitu deprehenduntur. Ctlfui lib. 5. c. 18. only ( 64 ) onh to catch an Opportunity of doing Mi/chief: Hie Difference betwixt them is difcovered by the Event ; as Celfus has rightly obferved. It is very hard to cure this Diftemper by natural Means ; and fo it is to cure the Palfy : They who are afflicted with it k feldom are brought to be well again, and generally drag on a mife- rable Life, lofmg their Memories : Sometimes it is acute in particular Members -, often it is a long Dijeafe - y commonly it is an incurable me. Celfus lib. 3. c. 27. The Meaning there- fore of thefe Paffages is, That our Saviour healed all Sorts of lick Perfons; even thofe that were mod difficult to cure. If it be faid, that the Scriptures not only make a Diftinction betwixt curing Difeafes, and cajling out Devils ; but likewife in this Paflage of St. Matthew betwixt thofe that were poftffed with Devils, and thofe that were Lunaticks. I might anfwer, That "Theophyladl did not read in his Copy thofe Words, And thofe which were poffef- fed with Devils : And it is plain they are wanting in fome MSS. v. Mills in he. In fome Copies which have the Words And thofe which were poffeffed with Devils — ; — the following ones And thofe which were Lu- k Raro ad fanitttcm perveniunt, et plerumquc mifcrum fpiri- tum trahunt, memoria quoquc aniiiia. In partibus nonnun- quam acutus ; fope longus; fcrc inianabilis cit morbus. Ibid. 1. 3. c. 27. naticks (65 ) natich are omitted. But fay that the common Reading is the true one, it amounts to no more than this, That our Saviour cured all Sorts of Madnejs, whencefoever it arofe, whether it were from Melanchply, or from any other Caufe. It is objected, Secondly, " The Difference betwixt Demo- " niacks and Lunaticks is evident from the Circumftances relating to the Devils to be, or that a&ually were, call out. e. g. Chrifl fuffered not the Devils to fpeak, becauje they knew him to be the Chrift, Mark i. 34. Luke iv. 41. They faid, Thou art the Chrift, the Son of God : They expoftulate with Chrift, faying, What have we to do " with thee ? Art thou come to torment us be- " fore the Time ? and pray that he would not " torment them : They afk his Leave to en- " ter into the Swine ; and being entered, they hurried them into the Sea ; and beg that they may not be fent out of the Country ; They acknowledge that their Name was Legion. Now to make all thefe Sayings the Effedts of a Difeafe, or to conceive that Chrift [poke thus to a Difeafe y is too great it ci cc cc i( cc cc cc cc cc cc cc " an Evidence of one that is himfelf Difea- " fed." As this is the principal Objeftion, I muft be more particular in my Anfwer. And Firft, It is faid that Chrift fuffered not the Devils to fpeak becaufe they knew him to be the Chrifl, The plain Meaning of thefe Texts is, K that ( 66 ) that he checked the Demoniacks whom he cu^ red, juft as he did likewife his immediate Dif- ciplcs and Followers, if at any time they pub- lickly and openly declared him to be the Chrift. It would be foreign to the prefent Pnrpofe to confider the Reafon of this Con- duct in our Saviour ; and it has been fully and fatisfa&orily fhewn by Others. When a pof- fejj'ed Perfon, i. e. a Lunatkk x declared Jefus to be the Chrift, and with an Unguardednefs ufual to fuch Men faid, what might expofe him to Danger, and even Death, before his Time w T as come, it was right to rebuke them, and not to fuffer them to talk in that Manner, Again, 'Tis faid, Jefus rebuked the Devils, Luke iv. 41. Now to conceive that he Jpoke to a Di/ea/e, is abfurd. The Anfwer is very obvious ; fince the fame Manner of Expreffion, nay the fame Word, g?re- •njutyre, is applied to a Di/eaje but two Verfes be- fore, which is here applied to Devils, i. e. Madnefs. He rebuked the Fever in Peter's Wife's Mother, is no harder to be understood, than He rebuked Madneji, the one being as much a Difeafe as the other. If by rebuking Devils, or Demons, be meant, His not fuffering them to fiiy Who he was, This has already been confidered. But I muft add, that the Romans confidered Fever , as a certain Being to which they x built Altars Inrvetni flat in Marie Feb' is. Cicero de legibus. 'Va^xH- .. It^pcvj luvri. Ckmcvs Protnpt. 'Cjs iv p«pj| jr^i»S P*f*i* Jrrimh in Epifr. 1. i.e. 19. and ( 67 ) and facrificed. In this Cafe, to rebuke & Fe- ver is exactly the fame with rebuking a Devil. Each was in reality nothing but a Difeafe , and yet each was confidered, and treated as if it were a Per/on. It is faid, That the Devils cryed out, "Thou art the Chriji the Son of God. Anf. If the Man that was poffeffed, or mad y made fuch Declarations in Confequence of his Diftem- per, it may I think in the fame Propriety be attributed to the Diftemper, as when St. Paul fays, Rom. vii. 17, 20. It is no more I that do it y but Sin that dwelleth in me. The Madmen fpoke what Fame had fpread : For the Fame of Jefus very foon went throughout all Syria, and great Multitudes of People followed him from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and jrom Jerufalem, and fro?n Judea, and from beyond Jordan. Matt. iv. 24, 25. Now as this Imprudence, in faying what our Saviour's Circurnftances would not admit, was the Effect of Diftemper in thefe mad men, and the Diftemper was im- puted to De?nons, it was not unnatural to forbid thefe Demons, i. e. the Men who were difordered, to publifh what was fo unfit and improper to be publifhed. Wherever Difeafes are treated as Perjons, or Virtues or Vices are confidered as fuch, it is always ufiaal to fpeak to them in perjonal Characters. Thus, not to re- peat what I juft now obferved about the Goddefs Fever, The Goddefs Fides had a Temple built to K 2 her$ (68) her ; and fee how me is addrefled in Plautus's Aulularia, Adt IV. Sc. 2. Eitclio fays, m< Take heed, O Faith, and do not fhew any one that my Gold is there. And Strobilus hearing him, fays, O Faith, Do not you be more faithful to him than to me, &c. I mall presently take Notice of an Inftance, where That is dire&ly imputed to a Devil, which could belong only to the Man that was difordered. It is added in the Objection, That the Devils expojlulated with Chrift, faying, Let zis alone, What have we to do with thee, thou Jefus of Nazareth : Art thou come to deflroy US? I know thee who thou art, the Holy one cf God, Luke iv. 33, 34. Mark i. 23 — 26. At another Time, They cried out faying, What have we to do with thee, Jefus thou Son of God ? Art thou come hither to torment us before the Time ? Matt. viii. 29. In the lirft of thefe Places, I cannot but take Notice of a very extraordinary Change of m Euclia. Tu modo cave cuiquam indicaffis, aurum meum eft ifthic, Fides. ■ Verum id te quaefo ut prohibeffis, Fides. Vide, Fides, etiam atque etiam nunc, falvam ut aulam abs te auferam. Tuae Fidei concredidi aurum : in tuo luco et fano modo eft fitum. Strob. ■ ■ Fides, Cave tu illi iidelis, quaefo, potius fueris, quam mihi. ■ ■ per fcru tabor, ft inveniam ufpiam Aurum, dum hie eft occupatus : fed ft repperero, O Fides, MuJfi congialem plenam faciam tibi fideliam. Plaut. Aulul Aft. iv. Sc. 2. Ptrfins, ( 69 ) Perfons. The Man which had A Spirit of an unclean Devil, fays, Let us alone, What have We to do with thee ? Art thou come to deflroy U s f I know thee who thou art. And Jefus rebuked H i m, faying, hold Thy Peace. Would any but a mad man have reafoned thus? Had he nothing to do with the Holy one of God, who was already fo famous for his curing all Manner of Difeafes ? Or why is it faid, Art thou come to deflroy Us, fince the Man had but One unclean Spirit ? If it be faid, that the Word Us, relates to the Man, and the unclean Spirit, in what Senfe did the Holy one of God come to deflroy the Man ? I add 2. That the Evangelifts fometimes impute that to the Caufe of a Difeafe which is proper and peculiar only to the Man who is diftem- pered : They impute that to Devils which the Man alone could do. And therefore if it be faid in fome Places, that Devils expoftu- lated with Chrift, That may be underftood of the Man expoftulating ; jult as when that is imputed to Devils which does not, or can- not, belong to them. e. g. St. Mark fays, c. iii. 1 1. Unclean Spirits when they saw him, Fell down before him, and cried, faying, Thou art the Son of God. Unclean Spirits law him, and fell down! No. The Perfons who had the Diforders imputed to unclean Spirits did fo. Jufl in the fame Manner as Devils (?o) Devils fall down before him, did they cry out or expoftulate with Chrift - y i. e. The Perfong v, ho were fo or fo affected did fo. It was a Remark made at leaft as long ago as the Author of the Queftions and Anjwers to the Orthodox ', ufually annexed to Jujiin Mar- ty r, * That the Scripture attributes to the De~ moniatk the Works of the Demon. The Re- verie of this is as true. That the Scriptures attribute to Demons the A6ts of the Demoni- ack: which fhews, that in thefe Cafes, we are not to regard the Letter, but the real and exact Meaning of the Sacred Writers. To account fully for all the Difficulties in the Other PafTage, Matt. viii. 29, and the correfponding Places in the Other Evangelifts^ is fomcthing more hard. It has been already obferved, that when the Man faid, that a Legion of Devils was in him, This was nothing but the Anfwer of a Madman to our Saviour that afked him his Name. It is generally fup- pofcd that in this Story, it was the Devils which cryed out, Art thou come hither to torment us before the Time. But there is no Neceffity for this ConftrucYion ; and it is plain that both St. Mark and St. Luke expreff- ly afcribe this Declaration to the Man himfelf. St. Mark's Words are, ch. v. 6, 7, When [the X. et Pvcip. ad Orthod. Qux. 41. Man] ( *i ) Man] He faw Jefus afar off, he ran and worJJjipped him, and cryed out with a loud Voice , and faid — — i" adjure thee that thou torment me not. St. Luke expreffes himfelf in the very fame Manner — — When He Jaw Jefus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud Voice faid, What have I to do with thee 1 befeech thee torment me not, Luke viii. 28. St. Matthew relates this of Two Men , and therefore confidently with his Narration, he fays -Art thou co?7ie hitter to torment U s. The Reafon of the Man's, or Men's, making this Requeft, feems to be, that they remembred the ill Ufage they had formerly met with, when they were bound with Chains and Fetters : and confiftent with that Notion, they beg of Chrifr. that he would not, iScto-otv/crccf, torment, or vex them. Bzvol- vio-oli, which we interpret to torment, fignifies not only to torment in the way of Punifh- ment, or to extort the Truth, but is ufed in general in any way to vex, or put to trouble ; and figuratively it is ufed in Cafes where it fignifies no more than trying any thing as with or by a Touchftone. In this place the Senfe is plain; The Men who had felt the Pain and Anguifh arifing from being fetter d and chain'd, defire that Jejus would not put them to that Torment again. There is another Difficulty in Relation to this Story; and that is, It is faid that the Devils ( 72 ) Devils bcfought him, that he would not command them to go into the Deep, Luke viii. 31. St Mark fays, He, that is, the Man, hefought him much that He [Jefus] would not fend them away out of the Country, ch. v. 10. In fome Copies of St. Mark it is that He would not fend him, i.e. the unclean Spirit, out of the Country. The Lunatick had faid that his Name was Legion ; that he had many Devils in him , and he had defired that thofe things which he cal- led Devils, might enter into the Herd of Swine. Thefe were Inftances of exceffive Madnefs, and that the Diforder was in a high Degree upon him. The Requeft here made was another Inftance of the fame Kind, that Chrift would not command them to go into the great Abyfs. Had he been in a right Mind at this Time, would he have defired the Company of fuch malicious Beings near him- felf, or near his Neighbours ? Or would he not have defired them to be fent into the deep, or any where elfe rather than continue in his Country ? The Hiftory of this Cure therefore feems to me to be thus. When This Man, who was not in his right Mind, faw Jefus, he ran and worshipped him : Jefus upon this commanded the Diforder to ceafe : Before this ErFecl: was produced, or whilft the Madman was before our Saviour, He requefted that Je- fus would not command the Devils (which were^ as he faid, many that were entred intd him^ ( n J him) to go into the Deep., and feeing the Swine there, he befought him that he would fuffer the Devils to go into Them. This was all the Effect of high Madnefs ; and natural upon that Suppofition : It was as natural for fuch a Man, or Men, to run amongft the Herd and drive them down the Precipice; And when this Mifehief was thus done by the Madmen, could any thing, after they were brought to a right Mind, be more natural, than for them to defire to be taken along with "J ejus, when he left that Country ? Another Difficulty in relation to this Cure is, That, Matt. viii. 29, The Madmen fay to Chrift, Art thou come hither to torment U s before the time? When it is alked^ What 'Time? the common Anfwer is, Before the time of the Day of Judgment, until which the Evil Angels are referved i?i Chains wider Darknejs. 2 Pet. ii. 4. Jude 6. I am apt tcr think, that this Paflage may more juftly and confidently be accounted for thus. When the Men faw our Saviour, ( known fufficient- ly thereabouts, and famed for curing all Dif- orders) they cried out, Art thou come 2h hi- ther, viz. into the Country of the Gergejenes, tog} Koupii, ante tempus, i. e. unfeafonably, fooner than was expecled or defired, to vex us t Or it may be, Art thou come , ° thus } after ppoA/poy, Tpa xxips. Hejycb. p Qfe, QvTtoc, : s/g t£tov rev rporov, Hsftch* this ( 74 ) this manner, untimely, to torment us? In this Senfe ^o» Kcupx will be oppofed to h jtaipS, or Itc\ x.cLipv r or d$ ncupov, which fignify op- portunely, or feajbnably 3 and will be the fame as 'zs^cepo?, or ax&lpoos, untimely, unfeajonably. But this I fubmit, as I do whatever I have faid on this Subject, to the Judgment of the candid Reader, who will take the trouble of examining and confidering all the Circum- ftances of this Cure, which on all imaginable Schemes mull be allowed to be attended with fome Difficulties. A Third Objection is taken from hence, That Chrift fometimes puts Queftions to thefe Demons, afking their Names : Sometimes he commands them to be Jilent : And fometimes to come out of a Man, and enter no more into him. v. Mark i. 25. Luke iv. 31. Mark ix. 2 5- 1 The Anfwer to thcfe Difficulties is eafily collected from what has been already faid. e. g. He did not afk the Devil, but the difor- dered Man, his Name : When the Man faw Jcfus, He cryed aloud And Jefus faid un- to Him, what is Thy Name. When in St. Luke it is (aid, Devils came out of ma- ny\ crying out and faying, Thou art Chrijl the Son of God; and he rebuking them, fuffer- ed them not to fpeak, or to fay that they knew him to he the Chrijt, The Meaning is, He rebuked the Perfons who had fuch Difor- ders (75 ) ders upon them, when he cured them ; nor would he fuffer them to publifh openly that he was the Chriji, When it is faid, that Devils were commanded to come out of a Man, it is the fame Sort of Language with rebuking a Fe- ver : which if any one fhould take too rigidly, it would imply the Fever likewife to be an intel- ligent Being, or a Goddefs as the Romans made it. The Meaning therefore of fuch Expreflions is no more than, " Be thou cured-, or be free from " this Diforder." Thefe Diforders being fup- pofed, poflibly, to arife immediately from De- mons refiding in, and working upon the Body, it was natural enough to fpeak as to them, and to command them : Whereas when now thofe Cafes are looked upon as proceeding from dif- ferent Caufes, the Language muft neceflarily be changed, and it muft found harfh to our Ears. When the Gods were fuppofed to in- habit any Statue, the People made no Scruple of addreffing them as in that Statue j they fpoke to them in that ; and worfhipped them in that ; and implored their Aid from that ; and Cuftom made it eafy and familiar to them to do fo. But to Us the Language and the No- tion being rare, we think it harfh to talk of rebuking a Fever, or to fpeak to Demons, when we know that the Diforder is owing to quite a different Caufe. L 2 A Fourth A Fourth Objection is, that theft Demonic acks were of fuch Strength, that no Chains ox Fetters could bind them. Mark v. 3. Nor is it poffible for Difeafes to fear to be deftroyed, or fent out of the Country ', or into the Abyfs, by Chrift, fince this is an Abfurdity that ftrikes one at the firft Sight. It is eafy to anfwer to this that thefe Ex- prefiions, no Man could bind him, no not with Fetters, — can mean no more than this, that the difordered Perfon had been often bound with Fetters and Chains, and he had often broke loofe. There needs no {training of Words to anfwer this > And as to the other Part of the Objection, it is founded upon miftaking the Texts, as has been fliewn. I know not by what Authority the Author of the Quejlions a?id Anfwer s to the Orthodox afferts, that m the Demon did not enable the Man to break his Chains and Fetters, but the Demon himfelf broke them. This is owing to an Hypothefis, which has been (hewn fufficir ently to be groundlefs. But the haft Objection appears to have fome Weight in it, viz. Why would jfefus counte- nance fuch a Notion as this, if there were really no fuch things as Demons, nor Perfons pofieffed 9 'Ou reo (rarf/jctTi ■xxpi^iv o oxifjj&v mv ^uvxfjuw ?rpo$ to otivx&xt cxipuv tTfi£t xj elifffXTi roe, Ma-px xj txc, aXvcu^ it xj i Sui* '/txj4'i t£ ^xlfJboyd^ Tec *jpy«e. Qucft. Ct Refp, ad Orthodoxos. Refp. 41, by ( 77 ) by them ? Why would he not rid Men of fuch pernicious Opinions, and plainly tell them, that thefe PqffeJJtons were nothing elfe but Lunacy or Epilepfy, or whatever other Name the Diforder had ? To this I anfwer, that no Man conceives the Defign of the facred Writings to be to corredl the Miftakes of Men in Phyfick, more than it is in Aftronomy, or any other Art : No nor is it its Defign to guard againfl wrong Notions of God himfelf. It fpeaks of God in the Language of the Vulgar, in a figurative man- ner, and fuppofes all Men to have fuch com- mon reafonable Notions of him, as not to underftand literally what is faid of his Hands and Ears and Eyes. It fpeaks of the Motion of the Sun, and the Reft of the Earth ; and yet it is now univerfally known that that is a ground- lefs Hypothefis. And fo here \ It was the mira- culous Cure which our Saviour did, the Cure of all Sorts of Diftempers, whatever they were, and how long foever they had continu- ed, which was the thing by which he evinced what he was : But as to the Caufe of fuch DiC. orders, it was of no Confequence to his De- fign to explain them. This was what indeed the Philofophers of oldexpedled: They fee k after Wifdom, fays St. Paul y i Cor. i. 22. But what was foreign to our Saviour's Purpofe he very wifely avoided^ content with what would prove (78) prove him to be Chrijt the Power and the Wif- dom of God. And now to refume the Questions propo- fed at firft, the Anfwer to them is very eafy. How comes it to pais that we read of fo ma- ny Perfons juft at the particular Time of our Saviour's Appearance under the Power of De- vils ? Anfwer. We meet with no more at that Time, than we meet with now \ or than were in Being at all Times equally, and will be al- ways, when their Cafe is rightly underftood. ^ Whence is it that we fo rarely meet with Accounts of the fame Diforders amongft Men, either before •> or after, the Times of our Saviour ? A. The Instances produced of Perfons fup^ pfed to be poffefled by the Gods, fhew that there were always fuch like Cafes in the World. The Philofophy of the Antients was entirely groundlefs in thefe Matters -, and now their Language, founded on their Hy- pothefes, is made the Foundation of the pre- sent Confufion in Men's Minds. 5^, Whence was it that God permitted fo much Power to fuch unclean Spirits, who feem to delight in doing Mifchief ? A. God did not permit in Fact any fuch Power as is imagined to unclean Spirits : nor was there any Initance of unclean Spirits ha- ving ( 79 ) ving fuch Power over the Bodies of Men, when the Cafe comes to be examined thoroughly. ^ What then were thofe PoJJejfions which are fo frequent in the New Teftament ? A. They appear all to be fuch Cafes of Madnefs, or of Epilepfy, as all the Antients agreed in imputing to their Gods, or Demons. The New Teftament Writers made ufe of the Terms and Language ufual in their Times : And as the Hypothefes they then had in Phi* lofophy equally ferved the Purpofe of our Sa- viour in his great Defigns, as the very exadteft Truth would have done, it had been to no Purpofe for him to have engaged in Difputes, or to have oppofed the received Notions. His Caufe would not have been in a better Way ; nor would the Caufe of the One God in Op- pofition to Idolatry ; or of Religion and Vir- tue in Oppofition to Vice, have been better promoted, by refuting the Demonology then received, than by ufing the common ordinary Language: it was enough that our Saviour {hewed a Power over all that was before Him, and cured the Difeafes with a Word, which to every body elfe were incurable* FINIS. : ^ A N ■4/ ESSAY Towards Vindicating the LITERAL SENSE O F T H E DEMONIACKS, IN THE New Teftament; In anfwer to a late Enquiry into the ^y Meaning of them. *OjS 'E$-eapxv tov (TOLJctvav ug dV OlOfJUCC &9t f//EV i\u 7« TIOC^VTIFH (TCt)(J!/Ct\<&> OiiVXfAia'V TOtOTtTtXt TO TUV OUtU.0 ' - vxv ovefjux, xAxvcvYlav xl 7>t^bferv'd in fuch, [ to be uftd : tot Thele fecoadary Sen&s men m be ittowc ht not to exebde or pre-'u- dice the primarv or Intei| ; on are • uded, and which .indeed they greatly confirm -\- . * C: - ■ -"■ " - ' .... ... Bi:cbo baccharoon didniic, i\z z. Cerere ■ Cmltftmt Z -f- Thus alfc b Aotbc ~ :f the r C T. ( 18 ) Thus alfo Larvatus was ufed for a Madman, But from whence arofe this Senfe ? H. Steph. in his The/aunts, tells us, from Fejtus, Larva- tus, mente mot us y quasi a larvis exterritus. This fhould feem to imply, that there had been Inftances of Perfons really fo affrighted. And I hope I fhall not be thought fuperftitious, if I think it probable there were fucn. For if the Larva? were indeed, what the Author of the Enquiry, p. 16. owns they were imagined to be, " mifchievous and wicked Spirits " then they were fomething more than Speclres, and there is no Difficulty in believing, that they might terrify and torment Men. And I am confirmed in this Suppofition, by obferving, how nearly the Account we have, p. 18. from Apukius, of " the ordinary Notion concern- " ing thefe Larva*" correfponds with the Scripture Account of evil Spirits *. Are thofe faid to be puniJJjed on Account of their ill Defcrts in Life ? So St. Peter fpeaks of thefe, 2 i±,p. 11. 4. Qecg ctyyiXocv dfAcLpTinrclvrav xk sQc-icctTc. Are they punijhed with a fort of Banijhment, always rambling about ? Exactly the fame is the Account of the Devil, Jobi. 7. 1 Pet v. 8. Were they vain Terrors to good Men, but to evil Men noxious ? It would he needlefs to cite particular Texts to juflify this * Propter adverfa vita: merita, nullis bonis fedibus, incerta* vagatione, fcuquodam exiJio punitur, inane terriculamentum bo- nis hominibus, cxterum malis noxium, hunc plerique Larvam peihibenc. Jlpuleim de Dsos Socratit, 4 Compa- ( 19 ) Comparifon. — — The whole Character of evil Spirits in Scripture makes it good. We fee then, how probable it is, that the Larvce were imagined to be, what they really were ; that they were not mere Speclres, but actual Beings, whofe Nature prompted them to do Mifchief, and who might be permitted, in fome Meafure, by the Supreme Being, to do it. Nor can it be any Objection to this, that they were known by thefe Names 5 that their Natures might be a little mifunderftood ; or that they gave Occafion to a real Diftemper's being called after them. As to the vvp4)o}JJ7rToi, or Lymphatici, which are mentioned in the Enquiry, p. 19. I find great Difference about the origin of the Word. We faw that Calepin made them the fame with the Ceriti. Hejychius's Interpretation is, Per- fons pofj'efsd with the Nymphce, and Prophejying wider their actual Influence S: Others derive it from the poetical Stories of the Nymphs, and from fome, who were reprefented as feized by Madnefs, for having feen them com- ing out of the Water *f\ Others make it only a moft particular fort of Madnefs, when Men have fuch a Terror of the Water upon them, that they can't forbear plunging into it §. And it has \ Dicitur vj(a$i£v furore corripi ob vifam Numphas effigiem, feu fpeciem e fonte. H. Stepb. Lex. § Alii autem Lymphatos dici exiftimant eos, qui metu ec hor- rore quodam aquae afficiuntur, adeo utfefsepe in earn przecipitent : Quos Graci v■ li it fhould be here objected, that Charms have been ufed to ( 21 ) We have now gone through, what this Au- thor has urged about the Notion the Greeks and Romans had of Demons, and their Poffej/ions. And, I hope, it has been made appear, that the Objections he has brought, do not deftroy our Belief of fuch, or force us to think all Cafes of this Nature mentioned by them to be no more than Natural Diforders. Nay, I hope, it has been (hewn to be probable, that evil Spi- rits exercifed fome Power over the Bodies, as well as the Minds ; of Men, among them, and in thofe Times. The Certainty of this I might now proceed to (hew from the Testimonies of fome of their wifeft Men, who can't be thought to have wanted Sagacity enough to have (etn through the Opinion of the Vulgar, if it had been all a Miftake. But this will fall more properly under a future Head. At prefent I will only mention one publick Inftance, which I can't but be furprized the Author of the En- quiry has neglected to take notice of; and this is that of the Heathen Oracles. The univerlal Regard paid to thefe is as well known as any Fact whatever. 'Tis impoffible to imagine, that the Accounts are all falfe, or that here was nothing more than natural Diforders : And that the Perfons who delivered them were really pofejjed, or proper Demoniacks, I think > to cure Difeafes, I anfwer, in the Words of Grotius, in Mat. xii. 22. A dsemonibus ad morbos rnos tranfiit '. Nor is there any other good Account to be given of their Original. And perhaps thefe Difeafes mught be then imputed to evil Spirits. See alio Dr. Freina's Hilt, of Phyf. V. f. p. 122, 123. there (22 ) there is no room to doubt. The antient Fa- thers often rank them with fuch, and ipeak of them as actuated by Devils. Thus Jujlin Martyr having mentioned feveral Kinds of Necromancy and Divination, adds, and Perfons Seized and thrown down by the Souls of dead Men, who are called by all Aa,i[jLovioAy7rTct Demoniach, and Madmen, and what you call the Oracles of Amphilochus, and Do dona, and Delphi, &c. * So St. Cyprian faid of evil Spi- rits, thcfe are they who infpire the Breajls of the Prophets, who are the Authors of Oracles, who creeping into Men's Bodies, raifefecret 'Ter- rors in their Minds, dijlort their Limbs, deflroy their Health, and caiife Diflempers \. Arno- bius, having mentioned our Lord's Power in curing Difeafes, in a pious ftrain of Rhetoric, asks, Was He one of us, the Prefence and Sight of whom the Devils which had entered into hu- man Bodies could not bear, but frightened with a new Power, yielded their PofeJJion ? — Whofe Name once heard puts the evil Spirits to fight, flences the Prophets, and makes the Diviners * Ntw>fJuaAuui (Xttv yxp, k} xl uaixQ&o'pvv izxi^ui inoxliv- tritfy kJ ^Z^ ¥ ci'fyvxUan Khia-aq, Kj cl Xtycptvoi * KctfA,- QeticfAtioi, *j pi^la/xi'M ectG^axot, «s JaifAoueXijVlifS kJ fAtXlvefxitcvi^o^x, t£ Au- hmm % *^ UvGSs, K3 oa-x xMxtoixZtx i& Apol. 2. Vid. Ladtan. de Orig. Error. 1. 2. c. 16. f Hi Spiritus Afflatu fuo varum pe&cra infpirant — Oracula efficiunt Irrcpente5etiam in corporibus occuhe mentes terrent, membra diftorquent, valctudincm frangunt, morbos laceffunt. DcJdolor. Vanit. Ed. Ox. p. 14. joolijh ? ( 2 3 ) foolijh * ? Laftantius follows his Mailer in the fame Sentiment. Let there be Jet before us one y who, it is certain, is pofejfed by a Demon, and the Delphic Prieji or Prophet, we Jhall fee them both in the fame manner terrified at the Name of God -, and Apollo will with the fame hajle de- part out of his Prophet, as the Spirit will out of the Demoniack -f\ Eufebius is my next Witnefs. In his Praparat. Evangelic, we find one Chapter with this Infcription, That the Heathen Prophecies a?td Oracles proceed from evil Spirits \\. St. Augujlin's Teftimony (hall clofe this Account. He tells us, that among o- ther Things, Apu\ciusal/o refers to the Demons the Divinations of the Augurs, Soothfayers, Pro- phets, and Dreams §. . We fee here the Senfe of the primitive 'Church concerning the Gentile Oracles, that the Fathers fpoke of thefe as of diabolical PoJfeJJions, attribut- ed them, as well as other Demoniacks, to the * Unus fuit e nobis, cujus pnefentiam, cujus vifum, gens ilia nequibat ferre merforum in viiceribus Daemonum, conterritaq; vi nova membrorum pofleffione cedebat ? 5 — Cujus nomen auditum fugat noxios Spiritus ? Imponit filentium vatibus? Ha- rufpices inconfultos reddit ? Arnob. adv. Gent. L. I . p. 26. f Si conftituatur in medio & is, quem conftat incurfum Dae- monis perpeti, & Delphici Apollinis Vates, eodem modo Dei nomen horrebunt ; & tarn celeriter excedet de Vate fuo Apollo, quam ex homine Spiritus ille Dasmoniacus. Lafi. de vera Sapi- ent. L. IV. Ed. Spark, p. 399. (I L. V. C. 4. (Iff* T4s? fGTOvqfW* JkifAQtm UVUi TU IffCtpot TC~$ tOmci $. Inter caetera etiam dicit [Apuleius] ad eos [Daemones] per- tinere divinationes Augurum, Arufpicum, Vatum, atq; Som- morum. Aug. de Civ. Dei, L. 8. c. 16. Vid. Minuc. FeL Qftav. Ed. Lugd. Bat. p. 30, &c. fame ( 24 ) ^iime evil Spirits, and declared, thatagainft both Cafes, the lame Means were equally fuccefsful. Whatever Miftakes therefore there might be in other Inftances, tho' I fee no Reafon to fuppofe fuch in all ; thefe appear to be fuch, as can't well be denied, without deftroying the Faith of Hiftory, in general. If it mould be afked, for what Reafon God permitted the Devils to have this Power then ? I know not enough of his Divine Counfels to anfwer this, nor am I at all concerned that I am not able to anfwer it. If plain Facts are to be denied, becaufe we are ignorant of the Reafons, why they were per- mitted to happen, we (hall, I believe, be obli- ged to deny almoft every Thing we hear, or fee. I now follow the Author of the Enquiry, and proceed, as he does, P. 20, to " confider ^ £ the Jews" and firft, the Inftance of Saul ; which he dwells upon fome time, and offers fe- veral Confiderations to prove it to be nothing but deep Melancholy. Now here it may be faid, with Probability, that we are not obliged to believe any PoffeJJion, in the Cafe, and that the Hiltorv feems to intend no more, than that, the evil Spirit, by ordinary Inftigations, ftirVed up the Mind of Saul to Envy, Malice, and Fury*. Thefe are the chief Effects we find mentioned of his coming upon, or affault- ing, him 5 and thefe, we know, denote fome- * In this manner it is faid, that Satan entered into Judas. Luke xxii. 3. Job. xiii. 2, 27. thing ( 25 ) thing very different from our Notion of his fei~ zing, oxpoffieffing any human Body. Or, by an evil Spirit may be meant nothing elfe, but the Temper and Affections of his Mind. Thus, we read of the Spirit ofWifdom andUn- derjianding: And, as this may properly enough be called a good Spirit, fo we may as properly fpeak of the Spirit of Sadne/s, or Fear, or Rage, under the Notion of an evil one*. In this Senfe, the Inftance of Saul is very far from being pa- rallel to the Demoniacks of the Gcfpel. The Language here may be thought not to point out to us any Thing more than common, which can never be faid of thofe, with the leaft Juftice. Since whatever the real Cafe of thefe was, they are plainly, and ftrongly reprefented, as actua- ted by Devils. I mention thefe Interpretations, out of regard to fome learned Men, who chufe in one of thefe Ways to avoid the Difficulty. But as I think this not fo formidable, and as the literal Senfe appears moft agreeable to the whole Hiftory, I mall, with the generality of Commentators, and, as it is faid, with all the ancient Chriftian Writers, fuppofe Saul to have been a real De~ moniack-y and accordingly go on to reprefent what I take to be the true Account of this Mat- ter, and then to vindicate it from the Objections of the Enquiry* * Poflibly the Jews might mean fomewhat like this, when they called all kinds of Melancholy, an foil Spirit. D Among (26) Among fome other Predictions, which Sa- muel made to Saul on his firft anointing him to the Kingdom, we read, i Sam. x. 5, 6. that he mould meet a Company of Prophets coming down from the High Place, with a Pfaltery, and a Tabret, and a Pipe, and an Harp before them ; and that the Spirit of the Lordfould come upon him, and that he mould prophefy with them, and mould be turned into another Man. Whatever might be the particular Confequences of this Spirit,, whether Wifdom, or Courage, or Goodnefs ; it appears pad Difpute, that it defended from above \ and was fupernaturally deri- ved upon him. We find in thegthandiothVer- fes, that this Prophecy was fulfilled. And we have Reafon to believe, (yid. ch. xi. v. 6.) that this Spirit did not abide continually with him, but came to his Support and Affiftance, on fuch proper Occafions, as called for it. However, it was not long before he difobeyed God, and forfeited His Favour : And then we read, (ch. xvi. v. 14.) th'dt tie Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil Spirit from the Lord troubled him. The Antithefts in thefe Words is very obfervable; the one part tends greatly to illuftrate the other. As, by the Spirit of the Lord, which he had forfeited, we muft under- ftand fome extraordinary Influences and Com- munications 5 fo, by the evil Spirit, as oppofed to that, what can be meant, but fome uncom- mon AfTault of the fpiritual Enemy? Let us next obfervc the different Effects of thefe. The 3 Fruits C 27] Fruits of the Spirit of God are Love, Joy> Chearfulnefs, and Confidence, Thole of the Spi- rit of Darknefs, are Envy, Wrath, Terrors, and Fears. Thus God fuffered Satan to poffefs Saul, afflicting him with divers Difeafes and Torments, fuch as Melancholy, Diffraction, &c. and driving him to the greateft Exceffes of Rage and Diforder. All the Relief he could get, in thefe deplorable Circumftances, was from Mufick, which often gave him Eafe and Refrefnment, and made the evil Spirit depart from him-, till his Envy brought him again. Vid. ch. xviii. ver. 10, 11, 12. Ch. xix. v. 9. -f- This, on a diligent Examination of the whole, I take to be the true State of this Story. We fee now how Saul was affected. Nothing in- deed more than natural Diforders appear. But thefe the Scriptures afcribe, not to his natural Conftitution, but to an evil Spirit from th& Lord, by His Permiffion, * troubling, cr # ter- rifying, or *feizing, or * jlr angling him. It may be queftioned, whether this his Melancholy gave occafion to the evil Spirit to enter into ic$*to*. Jofeph, Antiq. L. 6. c. 13. * In thefe feveral Ways the ancient Interpreters have ex- pounded this PafTage. Vulg. exagitabat cut?t, Cif arripuerit. Chaldee Paraph, terrified. Syfiack, vexed, and invaded. So the Arabick, LXX cstmvcv, Jofephus, nnypxt "turu kJ *p«/yaA*{ iviQipaAot. And how agreeable thefe Actions are to the Nature of fuch wicked Spirits, appears from Eufebius's derivation of the Word hf^oiv ; ©^a to hwcttuv, oxtp syi /V^GaD, the Author of Joy and Chearfulnefs, departing jrom htm ; or, whe- ther it was, with the other Diforders, ^ nrft rai- fed and occafioned by the evil Spirit. But, whether there was any toil Spirit concerned in the Affair, for my part, I can make no doubt. The laft of thofe Suppofitions is, I think, moft confonant to the facred Text, which makes all the Diforders of Saul confequential to the evil Spirit's coming upon him. And, as was obferved before, 'tis very eafy to imagine, that the Devil may be permitted by God, to exercife a Power of infliding common Difeafes on the Bodies of Men. Let us now confider what the Author ot the Enquiry urges againft this Interpretation. Saul, P 22, is faid to prophefi, i.e. " to z& as a «< Madman, acTingas the Fates, or Prophets, « are ufually defcribed by the Ancients. " All this I own, and yet, according to what has been faid, he might, ftri&ly fpeaking, have been a Demoniac^ And tho' Fates came to fignify Madmen, yet it alfo retained its original Mean- ing, and fignined Prophets too, both good and bad, in the ttueft Senfe. And, from a Sentence of Euripides quoted, P. 24, we find the Hea- thens had a Notion of a fort of Madnefs, occa- * m Dieu permit, qu'il fut agite par un mauvais Efprit, qui <« fe fervant de la mauvaife Uifpofition des humeurs de ce • Prince, & de (a melancholic, Tagitoit et l'obfedoit." Cornet pi:i. in Saul. fioned (29) fioned by Divine Inspiration, SeS irvoeti(ri ip^ar vug. And to this only, not to all Madnefs, in general, he attributes " a good deal of a pro- " phetick Faculty. " His Words are thefe, Madnefs has much of a prophet ick Power ; for when a powerful God enters into the Bod)\ he makes the Madman foretell what is to come *. The Gentleman's 2d Obfervation is, cc that " the Cure of [Saul] was by a known Method/' Here I apprehend the great Objection lies. He afks afterwards, P. 26. " What relation has " the Sound of a Harp to the Expullion of Spi- " rits?" And much the fame, P. 29. Tho' there be no direct or immediate Connection be- tween thefe, yet we may eafily conceive, how one might, in a great meafure, be affected by the other. If we fuppofe Saul's Melancholy and Diforders inflicted by the evil Spirit ; Hill thefe are the fame in kind with other Cafes of this Nature, tho' they were different, with regard to their Original. And natural Diforders, from whomfoever they proceed, may be lerfened, (and Said does not appear to have been perfectly cu- red) by natural Methods. As therefore " a fkil- " ful Muflcian will always comfort and refrefh " the [melancholy] Patient:" Saul's Servants might eafily chink of this Remedy ; and Mufck might naturally raife his Spirits, and chear his * To (juurtuffiq fjua.v\t3trn* 7roX)sr,v i%u ' Eurfp. Bacch. Peart, ( 3° ) Heart, and in fome degree chafe away thofe Fears, and that Sadnefs, which the evil Spirit had raifed within him. 2dly> * If we imagine Saul's Melancholy prior to his Poffejjion, and that the Devil made ufe of the ill Temper of his Blood and Spirits to afflict him ; then, 'tis not difficult to be conceived, that what contributed any wife to drive away fuch Diforder, and to enliven and glad the Heart, as Mujick undeniably does, muft, in fuch proportion, contribute to difappoint the great Enemy of Men's Happinefs, and to relieve them from thefe his Torments. Since it is ac- tually depriving him of the Means, if I may fo fpeak, by which he torments them. But, Laftly, what difficulty is there in imagining, that Mujick might be propofed to Saul, as one way of inviting the Spirit of the Lord to come upon him again, and to drive out the evil Spi- rit, which had been fuffered to trouble him ? Tho' this be not exprefly mentioned in the Text, yet neither is it there excluded : Nor * Mufica naturaliter pellit melancholiam, qua Daemon ute- batur ad cruciandum Saulem. Nullus enim humor hoc oppor- tunior eit Diabclo, ut homines vexet, tentet, incitetq; ad mce- rorcm, invidiam, iram, de fpe rati one rn. Qunre eo utitur Dae- mon (qui per caufas naturales agit) ad homines adigendum in an- gores, fcrupulos, odia, caedes. A Lapid. apud Synopf. Critic, in i Saw. xvi. i 6. Hac ergo melancholica difpofitione ut gaudet Daemon, ita, ea fublata, per accidens & indire&e vel abigitur, vel impeditur. Ibid. Mufica quidem nihil poteft in Diemonem direile, cum Spiriijjs fit, poteitta men per accidens, quia mitigatis affeclibus, per quos in animos noflros Diabolus fe infmuat, etiam ipfe pelKtur. X- Bocharl. ibid. does ( 3i ) does it feem at all improbable. That the Pro- phets, among the Jews, then ufed this Method is paft Difpute. Saul himfelf appears firft to have experienced the good Effects of this, and might therefore be not unwilling to try it a fecond Time. Eli/ha, having been ruffled* by the Prefence of a wicked King of Ifrae! y takes the fame Way of calming his Mind, and of fit- ting it for the Reception of the Divine Influ- ences. Bring me, laid he, 2 Kings iii. 15. a MinJireL And it ca7ne to pajs when the Min- flrel played, that the Hand of the Lord came up- on him. Indeed, it is hard to believe, that ever the Spirit of God came upon Saul as before: But this is no Proof, that neither he, nor his Ser- vants had fome fuch Hopes, and View. And tho' it did not pleafe God to grant him any more extraordinary Favours, yet he might let the Method have its natural Force and Power ; or if this was neceffary, enjoin the Devil for a Time to leave him. Or thofe about Saul might defign no more than the prefent Relief of their Mailer ; and at the fame Time think, that, what was fo well known to be an Inflrument of inviting a good Spirit into Men, might prove as effectual in driving out a bad one. There is nothing in any of thefe Suppofitions, but what is very conceivable. On either of them, the Objection of the unfitnefs of Mufick * to caft * Chryfofiome calls David** Harp, Axt&c'w Qvythyrmov. Ed. Par. 1636. Tom. p. 4,1. out ( 32 ) out an evil Spirit, appears fufficiently anfwer- ed. And therefore I (hall venture to put down Sauk as he is defcribed by the only ancient Hiftories we have of his Life, the Scripture and Jo/phus, for one true and undoubted In- stance of real PqjJeJJion. The Author of the Enquiry y P. 30, &c. next confiders the Charms, which Jofphus mentions ; and which indeed he has great room to ridicule and expofe. But ftill this is not e- nough to difprove the Fadl in queftion, the re- ality of PcJfe[jlons among the Jews *. Nay, I think this is rather hereby confirmed. For if there had been no fuch Poff'cjfions, 'tis unac- countable, whence the general Belief of them arofe : And if there had been no fuch general Belief, we can never imagine, that thofe Charms would have been inven'ed, or have been ufed, among them. Whereas, on the other hand, we need no longer wonder : Su- ferftithn y as has been obferved, will account for every Thing of this Nature. It is not there- fore neceflary to the Vindication of Demcniacks, that we fhould allow every Remedy that was pra&iied again ft them: But it is difficult to fay, how thefe came to be ever thought on, on any other Scheme, than the Supposition of fuch Demoniacks, * " The Targutn on Pf. xci. 6 " where the LXX is aV. Acapnia n/io-»^f«»a, *' numbers Troops of Demons, mong thofe " who uiflid Plagues, and Death upon Men." Witby on Luke xiii. 16. How- ( 33 ) However, Jofephus is not the only Author* who gives us an Account of thefe, and of the Jewtfh Manners of exorcifing them. We have Relations of both as ferious, as his appears to be ludicrous, yujiin Martyr feems to have made * no doubt that the Devils might be fiib- jedt to thofe among them, who would caft them out, in the Name of the God of A'ora-* ham, and the God of Ijaac, and the God of Jacob. *f This we have confirnYd by Irenceus, whofe Teftimony is fo ftrong, that I beg leave to fet it down at length. All things are Jub- jedl to the Name of the Supreme, Omnipo- tent Being: By calling upon whom, even before our Lord's coming, Men were delivered from the mojl evil Spirits, from every Kind ef Demons, and from all Apojlacy : Not that any earthly Spirits or Devils had ever feen Him $ but knowing Him to be God over all, they trem- bled at his Name. — For this Reafon, the Jews, even to this Day, put the Devils to flight by this * The Word "a-aq in the following Citation does not neceffarily imply Doubtfulnefs in Juftin. H. Stephens in his Lexicon having obferved, that in Arijlotle and others, inter dutn adhiheri locis ubi alioaui de re minime dubid agitur. And accordingly Grotius ren- ders tkr*t, qjoting this very Place, by Credo, in Mat. xii. 27. •j- 'Eocv at Karen izr#/}og o»cf/jCf?i<^ run GJote i/xJv yilivvipfawvy ij ficcd- 1uy*), x^ © £ £ la-xetK, *) OiS IcckuG, ''iZflS i7ro]xy^}, ^f«- pivot *|«p*i£a£ ^vf/jtcc fjuoHTi *$ k.cc]x^i oix.nl Wn-o'lw /3«^£t£«A tKoi^nrctv t tcoVy p*>Mv TMt QiX&Kvs aVls ; Vid, Grot, in Mattb, x'u. 27. Sons ( 35 ) Sons of the J,ews is fignified either the ufual ex- orcifis of that Nation, or the Apo files, who were born of their Race. Jf the exorcifls y who call out Devils by Invocation of God, then our Lord, by a prudent ^ueftion y forces them to confef, that His Cures werethe work of the Holy Ghoft. For y Jays He y if when your Sons cafl out Devils , you afcribe this, not to Devils y but to God, why may not the fame Works, when performed by me, be imputed to the fame Caufe *f\? We fee then, that our Lord fuppofed the Reality of fome fuch Cures among the Jews y and fpake of them, as he fpake of his own, § without the leaft Intimation, that they were only pre- tended ones, or that they had no better Foun- dation, than the Prejudices of the Pharifees : Which I cannot think he would have done, if this had been the Cafe. But of this I purpofe to fpeak more hereafter. There is one feeming Objection againft this, which I find very ftrongly urged by a prefent very learned Prelate of our own Church, and which I therefore beg leave to fet down id bis LordfTiip's Words. f Filios Judaeorum, vel exorciftas gentis illius ex more fignifi- cat, vel Apoilolos ex eorum ftripe generatos. Si exorcittes, qui ad invocationem Dei ejiciebant Dsemones, coartat interrog tione prudenti, ut confiteantur Spiritus Sancli effe opus. Quod ii ex- puliio Dasmonum, inquit, in filiis veitris Deo non Dscmonibus deputatur, quare in me idem opus non eandem habeat Caufain ? Hieron. Com. in Mat. c. xii. v. 27. Vid. Wbitby, in locum. § Hac voce quid magis portend it, quam in eo ejicere fe, in quo etfilii eorum ? In virtute icilicet Creatoris. Tertu/. After ( 36) § After he had mentioned " the Accounts, (C given by the feveral Evangelijls of the extreme Surprize of the Jews y that were Eye-witne£- fes of the feveral Difpoffeffions of evil Spirits by our Lord \ which Ajlonijhment of them is not capable of any natural Explication, on Suppofition that the Difpoffeffion of De- vils was an unufual Pradtice among the Jews in our Saviour's Time, independently of his Authority."— His Lordjhip goes on to obferve, it is not eafy for any one that pays a due c is cc cc cc cc cc cc iC cc cc CC cc fx,ve<; t non quovis modo ivfanientes, fed impuro- rum fpirituum vi rnajore correptos, atq; agitatos, quales erant quos Grasci tvpQo?*^*;, Latini Lcv-vatos, Ceritos, Lympbaticos vocabant. In Mattb. iv. 24. they [4i 1 i they were undoubtedly wrong in the particular Application to our Saviour ; yet I fee no Reafon, why they were not right in the general Senti- ment, that Madnefs might be imputed to a De- vil. . But here you will fay, the Notion of ha- ving a Devil is explained by the following Words, and is mad. I anfwer, that it could not be the Intention of thofe, who fpoke them, to explain them fo, who are acknowledged to have believed a real Po/JeJJton. Neither could this be the Deiign of the Evangeli/l, who had the fame Prejudice, and that, fo far from be- ing removed by our Lord, that it was confirm- ed by him. Nor indeed do the Words imply fo much. Nay, from this very Text, a late learned and excellent Critick has thought, that to have a Devil, and to be mad, were two di- ftinB Cafes, with both which the Jews charged our Lo?~d % But mould we allow the utmoft that can be collected from hence, that every Demoniack was mad, the Notion of real Pof- fejjions would remain the fame. Madftjs may be here reprefented as one Attendant, or Sign, or Effect of fuch Poj[cJjion\ but it will not there- fore follow, that it was the whole of it -f. Both facred and prophane Writers fpeak of Madnefs * Mr. Tiuellii Critical Examination, Sec. Part I ft. P. 97. -j- To fjt,xivio!% igitur pro efFectu potiris in ^iforder, and nothing more ||. To confirm what I have faid, I fhall add the Words of an Author of great Learning and Judgment. " The Truth is, that the Jews reckoned this one fort of Madnefs, and the worft fort , but they diftinguifhed between this, and what we properly call Madnefs, a- rifing from fome Diftemper of the Body: So that tho' they called all Perfons poffeffed by the Devil, by the Name of Madmen, yet " thev did not £ atyn^ws cv xx n io%ri rm tCj ci %\oC\v& 7rvsv/Jtjx]i unccpwAi — ■ UiTtfjum. Hift. Eccl. L. V. c. 16. See Stillinpfleefs Anfwer to Q"JTh P- 63, &c. F 2 " Thou ( 4-4 ) * c Thou art poffejfed with a lying Spirit? who goefh, &c. To Ma-th. xi. 18. When John came neither eating nor drinking^ they Jay, he hath a Devil. I anfwer, »1i vV« ry fkipoyos tie, ra c iy,\'->- •>'- || There is another Interpretation of the Word *%i%* to be ieen jnGrotitt* and Dr. Whitby, which is, that he was faint. But this feem.s not to agree with theO'rcumitances of the Slory fo cc cc CC cc cc cc j/x<2» is oppofed to v&.'tyo*~wj. Vide Hammond on Mark iii. 21. I can't emit the Reafon Erafmus gives heis for the common Senfe, " Id ell agnatorum, [ut comprehenderenc eum~| fi quia commota: mentis eife coeperit. fore ( 46 ) fore 'tis hard to conceive, that they meant to fay no more, than that yon are really mad, when they laid, thou hafl a Devil. I therefore fhall beg leave to offer another Paraphrafe, more confiftent with their Sentiments. ci Can we ct be juftly blamed for laying on you thefe Re- (Jcj]ed with fome evil Spirit, who . puihes you on thus to dishonour God, and to build up his own Glory, by the Means of yours? The former Accufation our Lord thought it not worth his while to reply to 5 but as this laft might prejudice the Belief of his Miffion, he not only denies, but confutes it, by anfwering them, that neither his own, nor Satan's, but God's Honour alone was His End and Aim ; and therefore, fays He, you difconour me, by this Charge. However, notwithstanding this, I will not leave off teaching you, that keeping my Saying is the only Means to bring you to Life and Happi- nefs, to prevent your jre'mg eternal Death ; Vcr. 51. The Jercs, mifunderftanding this Speech, and relenting more Chrifi's making himfdf fupcrior to Abraham and the Pro- fids, who had all died, with greater Con- fidence /a«, and mod fit to be made the Standards of Interpre- tation, which are related at large, with the greateit Number of Ciicumitances. Whereas thefe are the fhonelt. more ( 49 ) more Courage to examine fome others, which he produces, and thinks ought to be explained by thefe. And the firft that occurs, is Matth. xvii. 15. the Cafe of the Lttnatick, which is handled in the Enquiry, p. 39- — r-48. But it is, I think, univerfally agreed, that this was Epileptick, and fome confiderable Criticks deny that there was any Madnefs in it * : Which makes me wonder that this Gentleman fhould, on the Strength of the Englifh Word Lunatick, and the Ambigui- ty of the Greek (rtX>7)nxgo(/.ti/us vertunt vulgo Lunaticos : fed alia morbi fpecies defignatur, Epilepfia videlicet, five morbus comilialif. Caufae funt quae videntur peritiadere : Lunatici enim vulgo lie difti non hr.bent fymptomata ilia, qua? Mattb. xvii. 14. Epihpti i astern habent. Hi enim faepius in ignem cadunt, &c. Scultet. apud LeJgb Crit. Sacr. So alfo Dr. Hammond, in locum. G the << JC (C . Ma/us Damon frehendit eum, &' murmurave eumfacit. Vid. .Walton. Polyglot. ■4 'IaW fjuir «► $vriohoytiTu[A>x]t»e» (Tt/fJt/lcufAcc • . ij-bvs £i *i K7 tv Ivuyyt'Kiu ms-tuovltq, on to vto-qf/jx tSto aV» irvtv'fJuscTos axecSccpTe, dXccte, kJ xw^» iv roTq Trxfyxtriv dvTo Siupiircti t¥ttya'fAttovm—— r, A. Origin. Com. in Mattb. Ed. Huet. V. 1. p. 311. K Pravis Corporis noftri humoribus Dacmones fe immi- fcent, & Lunae quadras appofite fequuntur, ut addidti corporali fpbftantis, humorum nempe orgafmo, & apparatui morbifico, C si ] This therefore appears plainly to be an Epi- lepjy, occafionedby the Operation of an evil Spi- rit The Diftemper, in kind, was natural : Yet the Man was properly a Demoniack. It can then be no wonder, that this ihould anfwer fo exact- ly the Description the Phyficians have given of that Diftemper. Nor can it follow from hence, that this is all we are to underftand by Pof- fejfions. The Gentleman, Enquiry p. 34, is " fenfi- " ble how difficult it is to account for every " Expreffion on thefe Occafions," &c. and in- deed on his Hypothefis, he had Reafon to be apprehenfive of this. Take the common Sup- position, and there will be very little difficulty. Why therefore mould we indulge any forced and ftra.ned Conjt y c7ures y and only involve our- felves k^more Uncertainty ? This, I fear, will be the Cdnfequence, if we leave the literal Mean- ing, and follow him in his new Criticifms on Ver. 2 1 . Howbeit this kind goeth not out, but by Prayer and Fa/ling. This St. Mark exprefly reprefents as our Lord's Anfwer to that Quefti- on of His Difciples, why could not we caft him out ? And yet, becaufe St. Matthew mak^s this only one part of His Anfwer, and prefixes to it a Sentence, importing the Neceffity and Pre- valence of Faith, this Author imagines the An- multo facilius segrotos divexent, corpora contorqueant, & ani- morum falfa imagination in abfurda prxcipitent. Gulielm. Ader. de Morbh Evang. Enar. IV. Apud Critic. Sacr. Tom. 9. p. 3366. G 2 Jwer C 52 ] fwer flops here, and that, what . 44, feems to 4 think, (53 ) think, that this Fajiing was to be practifed by the Patient *. Elfe, to what end is he fo par- ticular in giving us the Determinations of the old Phyficians, that Fajiing is of Service in Epilep- tick Cafes ? Now let us confider, what we find urged a- gainft the common Interpretation, Enq. p. 46. " A miraculous Power was neceffary to cure " this Diforder in the Way which Jesus cured " it. Is a miraculous Power to be attained by £ r*s 'ham x^ &xfpi ru ^uryiu xj ruq ru; <*' Wn ? u xj if Su* yfxQ (59 ) Difficulty, there can be no Neceffity to allow it. However even here the Obje&ion returns. What mere Madmen do we hear of, who, hav- ing been often bound with Fetters, and Chains, have Strength enough as often to pluck afunder the Chains, and to break the Fetters in Pieces f It is natural to imagine, that if he had got loofe once or twice (as we have known a late Inftance of this in one not mad) by the Means of human Strength or Art : This could not have been often done; and it muft have put his Keepers, when once they had got him again, upon furer Means to have fecured him effectu- ally. The Enquirer, p. 50. lays a good deal of Strefs on the Obfervation, that the Man, into whom ma?iy Devils had entered, is fometimes reprefented, " as poflefled by one only Spirit/' But, for my own Part, I can't fee, what this has to do with the prefent Debate, or what real Ufe it can have. By the Evangelijls fpeaking fo indifcriminately, we muft fuppofe, that they did not imagine it a Point of fuch Confequence. Thefe Variations are, in them- felves, trifling ; and fuch, as few of the beft Writers are entirely free from *. As this is no Prejudice to the Miracle, which it was the Bu- finefs of the Go/pels to record and teftify 5 fo neither is it to-- the 'literal Sen fe of it, which it * We have many Inftances of this change of Number, in Dm. xii. H 2 is ( 60 ) is my Defign to vindicate and fupport. Our Queftion is not, whether one or more Devils were caft out ? But, whether there were any at all? But, from hence the Gentleman collects, " That this Account of many Devils was no- " thing elfe but the Man's Imagination, and " not the Truth of Things : For to call out t£ one Devil, when a Legion was in him, was re- " ally doing no fervice to the Perfon afflicted." Still I muft confefs my felf at a Lofs to under- ftand, what can be the Purpofe of this Re- mark, or what could induce him to make it. For was only one Devil called out? But, every one of the Evangelijls, when they record their being cajl out, fpeak of them in the Plural. And St. Mark v. 12. fays, all the Devils be- fought Him, &c. How then was " The Account " of man •; Devils, not the Truth of Things V y How could it have been more plainly fet down, even on Suppofition, that it had been the Truth of Things ? And I obferve farther, that this is fo far from being " nothing elfe but the Man's " Imagination," That St. Luke recites it, not as the Man's W ords, but as his own Reafon or Explication of the Name Legion. For thus we read in his Gofpel, viii. 30. And Jesus asked him, what is thy Name ? And hefaid Le- gion : Becaufe many Devils were entered into Him. In the 4th Obfervation, p. 51. There are two or three Miftakes, which have been evi- dently ( 6i.) (Jently confuted already. On the Strength therefore of what has been faid, I (hall venture to contradid them, and to affert, that " to " have a Devil and to be mad is" not that when they were going to be deprived of the Power of hurting Men's Bodies, they defire leave to damage them, in their PoJfeJJions? Befidesthe excellent Obfervations of Theophylaff on this Hiftory, and Dr. Hammond's Reafons for Chrift's not forbidding the Confequences, tend fo much to the Honour of God's Power, and Juftice, and Goodnefs; that they, of themfelves, mightily incline us to believe, that Senfe to be the true one, from which they are drawn "f*, We have alfo in this Page two Pafiages, which, I apprehend, are very unnatural and un- intelligible, if we take the afflicted Perfon to be nothing more than a Madman. The firft is, jiis worJJjipping Jesus, and faying, 'what have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God moft High ? I bejeech thee torment me not. Now thefe Words, if afcribed to an unclean Spirit are eafy and plain. The Devils knew him to be the Chriji. They knew him alfo to be come to deftroy them utterly -, and to have often dif- played His Power in cafling them out. This muft be granted, if we allow them no fuperior Knowledge to Men. But then how natural is it for Beings in thefe Circumflances, confcious of their Guilt, and feeing their Deftroyer, to be apprehenfive of Punifhment? And how well do thefe Words exprefs at once their Con- viction and Fear? Whereas if we put thefe in the Mouth of a mere Madman, there will be f See thefe in Whitby, on Mark v. 14. this (63 > this glaring Inconfiftency, that we fuppofe fuch a one, in the fame Breath, declare his Belief in the true Nature and Bulinefs of our Lord* and his utter Ignorance thereof. Which Con~ tradition 'tis very hard to imagine even a Mad- man guilty of. The firft Part, it is certain, betrays no Diforder : Nothing can be more confiftent and rational. What Authority or Warrant have we therefore to interpret the Words, which immediately follow, in fuch a Senie, as nothing but the moft exceffive Raving can juftify ? Do but take the whole of this Cafe. Our Lords Miracles had raifed a Fame of him. A Man, who had been long afflicted, and who had heard this Fame, and thence knew him to be the Chrijl, met Him, fell down at His Feet, worjhipped Him, declared his Knowledge, and Conviction, and yet in the fame Moment, faid, he had nothing to do with Him, and begged Him not to torment Him. Imagine this Affliction to have been Madnefs, if you will. Yet, this was not upon him, when he firft met our Saviour. Nor is here the leaft Intimation, that it afterwards fo Jiidde?ily feized him. He muft be fuppofed at firft to come with Hopes and a Defire of being cured : He is alfo fuppofed to have heard of our Lord's Cures. How could he therefore think of being tormented by Him ? How could he think, " he had nothing to do with " one, whom he had juft owned to be, " the holy One of God, who " was already fa famous for i His (6 4 ) His curing all manner of Difeafes.?" Enqi p. 69. Thefe are Difficulties attending this Suppon- tion ; and which I can't but think much harder than any, which follow the common Applica- tion. Others will appear by and by, when we fhall have Occafion to refume the Confidera- tion of this Text. No lefs hard to account for, if we reject the literal Interpretation, is our Lord's Anfwer, wherein He gives them leave to go. This is clear enough if underftood, -as fpoken to the Devils. No Objection can be raifed, but what may be eafily anfwered. But the Enquirer muft excule me, if I cannot think his Mean- ing fo free from it " All this." he tells us, p. 52. " is no more than. concerning Himfelf " with the fantaftick Humour of a Madman, " but humouring him, while he cured him." But, in my Opinion, this " is concerning " Himfelf with" it greatly. Befides, fuch a Comment has no Countenance from the Style of Scripture, nor from the Nature of the Cafe. Not from the Stile of Scripture, which affords us nothing parallel, which never reprefents our Lord as directing an Anfwer to no Body, but on- ly feeming to anfwer Beings not prefent, in order to humour a Madman, who conceived they were. - — Nor from the Nature of the Cafe ; there be- ing no End or Uie of His thus hu??iouri?ig him. This indeed, in the Application of natural Remedies, may be fometimcs neceflary to faci- litate, ( 65 ) • litate the Cure. But Miracles never ftand in need of any fuch to forward their Succefs. And there- fore we have no Reafon to believe our Lord did it here. But the Confequence fhews, that this Speech of our Lord's was not barely " humouring " the Man while he cured him," but that it had a real, a-manifeft, and moft furprizing Effect. I'he Devils went out of the Man, and entered into the Swine: and the Herd ran violently down a Jleep Place into the Lake, and were choaked. This the Gentleman owns, p. 52. to be " the main Difficulty." Let us fee how he gets over it. " All this Legion of Devils " was nothing but the Madman's talk." — We faw before, that St. Luke himfelf confirmed this talk, by affigning the Reafon of this Name: Becaufc many Devils were e?itered into kirn. And we have the Teftimony of our Author himfelf, that " all the three Evangelifts agree " in telling us, that the Devils entered the SwineT How then is this " nothing but the Madman § "talk?" To proceed: If therefore by any Accident the Swine ran down the Precipice, whilft the Man or Men, were under Cure, whether drove down, or frighted down by the Madmen, this would folly anfwer all the Story." No, moft cer- tainly it would, not. Whether or no to have a Devil, and to be Mad, mean the fame Thing; to have a Devil, and to be accidentally frighted, will never be allowed to do fo. For I then adnefs, from which the Man was delivered, which feized the Swine : Since the fame Devils, which went out of him, are faid to have entered into thefe. zdly, 'The Leprofy of Gehazi was plainly a Judgment upon him for his Covetoufhefs, which God was not only pleafed to permit , but dire&ly i?jfic~led. But, it would be ridiculous to imagine this of the Swine -, nor have we fufficient Warrant to fay any fiich Thing of the Owners of them. And our Lord, by two of the Evangelifts, is only faid to have, permitted, or given the Devils leave to enter into the Herd. Which implies nothing active in our Lord, as Grotius has ob- ferved. So that, we find thefe two Cafes very different. Nor will the Scripture Account of Gehazi 's Leprofy at all help us to " refolve the 54> he fays, " is that of a Perfon that -. •« Hrjjcbius, Suidas, and "PLayoiii-.us a^iee in this, that ryfbm 1$ hxpiivtot'p£cBf\(Xat" quirer ( 69 ) quirer had to change the Perfon, and to direcl: thefe Words of the Apoftle to her. ^.thly, The Charge itfelf, / command thee in the Name of Jesus Christ to come out of her, and the E- vent, he came out the fame Hour, is fo exactly the Language of the Go/pels, when Devi Is are faid to be caft out, that I think, we can't, with- out Violence, underitand them of any Thing elfe. The only difference is the addition of thofe Words, cv too oyo^i 'i^" And thus, we have " In- probably, to diftinguim her from the other Women of this Name, mentioned in the Gofpel. Whatever Difficulty may be then in this Place, we can't be thus helped out. But really there can be no more, than in the other Account of the Legion. And, as in this, Pof- fejfion is pointed out as plainly, as Words can defcribe it, I fee noReafon to look out for any figurative Conftruclion of that relating to Mary Magdalene : Efpecially, fince whatever Diffi- culty be in either Cafe, it may be attributed to our Ignorance of the Power of wicked Spirits^ and of their manner of afting. Of the vagabond Jews Exorcifts, and what is related, Acts xix. 13, &c. to have happened to them, this Gentleman gives this Conftrufti- on,p. 57. " The mad Man fell upon them, and cc tore their Clothes off their Backs, and " wounded them." But furely, that Anfwer, Jesus I know, and Paul I know -, but who are ye? is not the Anfwer of a Madman, but is per- fectly confident and rational. And I muft own it to be a Difficulty that flicks with me, that almoft every one of this fort of Madmen, mentioned * 7, c. In the Jcv;i/b Phrafeology, a great many, in ( 7« ) in Scripture, fhould, as it were, combine, in giving Honour to our Bleffed Lord, and in bearing Witnefs to His Power over them. This too often happens, to be accounted mere Chance, and it is certain, nothing could be more contrary to the Notion of Madnefs. Be- fides, this Speech is moft clearly put into the Mouth of the evil Spirit ; as diftinguifhed from the Perfon po fie [led with it. \\7tokpi3-\v $1 to wvtvpta, to TTovqpoVy «?re, — ^ iCpaAAcpctvog iw cvj- rxg o civ3-pu7ros> \v a p tv 7rvivp& tv irovtjpov, x, r, A. The Enquirer, p. 58. thinks ' it cc worth <£ while to confider a little the Practices of thefe " vagabond Jews." As I have before fpoken what I think of them, I propofe to be very fhort on this Point. It may be however proper to repeat my Opinion, that they were different from thofe Exorcifis who ufed the Name of the God of Abraham, and the God of Ifaac, and the God of Jacob, This does not appear to be any Trick. And this Gentleman very rightly tranflates Jiiflin Martyr fo, as to make their Succefs probable, \tovi£op&&z > xtbtvisci ret tQia-iet, y^x fA[Acc]u Tap? aV|«s xetlcthsyitt xj ovofjjs^JHf — Plut. Sympof. L. 7. qu&f. 5. ad fin. I have cc (81 ) I have now gone thro' what this Gentle- man has offered, by way of Objection to the literal Meaning of the Demoniacksy and to efta- blifh the Suppofition of their being either Epi- lepticks, or Madmen : I am now to propofe fuch Objections as occur againft this Scheme, and to eonfider what is faid, in the Enquiry, by way of reply to them. Firfty the Scripture and ecclefiaftical Wri- ters, make a conftant and a plain Diftincti- on between thefe two Things, the curing of DifeaJeSy and the cajling out Devils" Enq. p. 62. And does this Gentleman deny this ? And is it not, if it be true, a ftrong Proof that thefe two ought not to be confounded ? If we fuppofe them to have been really diftindt, how could the Scripture more fully reprefent them fo, than by this Method ? Were this only obferva- ble in one Inftance or two, there might per- haps have been room for fome Doubt: But the; Stile of the Holy Writings is in this cafe fo uni- form, as not reafonably to allow of any. ■ ■ ■■- Let us come to Particulars. Matth. iv. 24. 'They brought unto Him all fick People \ that were ta- ken with divers Difea fes and Torments, and thofe which were pojfejfed with Devils, and thofe which were Limatick, and thefe that had the Pal/yy &c. I mull firft take notice, that the Enquirer , in citing this Text, has omitted the Words,tf W 'Torments; whether thro' Carelefsnefs, or by Defign, I don't know. We have no Reafon to fufpect their being genuine. They H-tri L are ( 82 ) are only found wanting in two Copies, and thefe of no Character for Correctnefs. For, as to Theophylafili Dr. Mill tells us, he omitted them induftrioufly, and out of Regard to his particu- lar Opinion *. In which he was undoubtedly wrong. Had his Notion been never fo true, and he never fo ftrongly afllired of it, he nei- ther could have Authority, nor be at Liberty, to alter the Sacred Text. Enq. p. 63. " What is ufually called Poffefji- on of Devils, is no more to be diftinguiihed from Difeafe or Sicknefs, than the Palfy is, which is put in the fame manner as Lunacy is, and contradiftinguifhed from Difeafes. In Truth, the proper rendring is, he cured all that were taken with diverfe Difeafes, e- ven Demoniacks, Lunaticks, and Paraly- ticks." Let the excluded Words be here in- ferted, and we may venture to admit this ren- dring. Thefe particular Cafes muft then be thought the chief In fiances of the divers Dif- eafes and T'onnents. And therefore the Demo- niacks may be defigned to be included under thofe who were tormented, and may ftill be here diftinguiihed from the divers Difeafes. How- ever, which is more to our Purpofe to obferve, they are and mujl be diftinguiihed from thofe which were Lunatick -f*, and thofe that had the * Omifit Theophyl. de induftria, quod cttovtoifyfAsrtJs puta- rit oc^ua.u »V«, ut apparet ex commentario. Not. ad loc. ■f i. e. as Dr. Hammond has here paraphrafed it, " affected " with any Difeafe, on which the Changes of the Moon had in- '■ fiaence, whether Madnefs, or Falling-Sicknefs". 3 Palfy. cc cc cc PaJjy. To which we find two Anfwers, p. 64, 65. Neither of which I conceive fufficient. TheophylaB did not read in his Copy thofe Words, and thofe which were poffejjed with Devi/s." Mill fays, that he omitted them, as in his Opinion fuperfluous *. Here again, he was undoubtedly wrong. " It is plain, " they are wanting in fome MSS." Only in two — " In fome Copies, which have the " Words And thofe, which were poffeffed " with Devils, the following ones — And thofe " which were lunatick are omitted." I find in Dr. Mill but one, and this of no Note—" But " fay that the common Reading is the true one, "" it amounts to no more than this, that our " Saviour cured all forts of Madnefs, whenfo- " ever it arofe, whether it were from Melan- " choly, or from any other Caufe." If De- vils, or their Pofjefjion, be allowed to be a Caufe, this Interpretation perhaps might be ad- mitted. Other wife it appears to be making thofe Cafes one and the fame, which the Evan- gelifts have clearly and exprefly diftinguifhed : And I fee no Reafon, why the Par ah ticks might not as well be taken in too ; fince it has here no other Mark of Difference, than the Demoniacks. The Gentleman cites three other Texts, and obferves of them all " — The Senfe is very clear : * Miffo tfy&ttfAmfyiA/iriJS, ceu fuperfluo, quod lunaticos haberet Theophyl. pro Daemon iacis, ut'appaiet ex Com. Mi Hit Prole- gmn-. 1059. L 2 "He ft C 8 4 ] He gave the Difciples Power over unclean Spirits, and not only that Power, but likewife to heal all other Diftempers. As to Himfelf, " our Saviour cured the fick, and likewife all " forts of Lunacy." Let us now compare this Account with the Texts themfelves. The firft is Mat. x. 1 . He gave them Fewer againjl un- clean Spirits to caft them out, and to heal all manner of Sicknefs and Difeafes Here one would think unclean Spirits can't be interpreted of any Difeafe, when it is fo exprefly oppofed to all manner of them. But, as in citing the Jail: Text, the Enquirer left out two Words of Importance^ fo in his Expofition of this, he has added one, which the Text itfelf will not warrant. All manner of Sicknefs, he explains, all other Diftempers. This Word other is entirely his own. This Senfe therefore which depends upon it, may be faid to be His, but is not St. Matthew's. Mark i. 34. He healed many that were fick of divers Difeafes, and caft cut many Devils. And, Luke iv. 40, 4 1 . He laid his Hands on every one of them [fick with divers Difeafes] and healed them, and Devils also came out of many crying out, and faying, &c. We have cited the Gentleman's Interpretation of thefe, in which I cannot agree with him ; becaufe it is making the Evangelifls ufe a direct and abfolute Tau- tology. Madnefs is allowed to be a Difeafe, p. 63. Epilepfy is certainly one : If therefore thefe be all that is meant by Devils, there had been no ( «5 ) no Occafion, after the mention of our Lord's healing many that were feck of divers Difeafes, to have added, and cajt out many Devils, What Senfe is this, he cured many that were Jick of divers Difeajes, and likewife many that were lick of fome particular Difeafes, fiich as Lunacy ', &c ? Befides, St. Luke's Words are yet more em- phatical. We fee a different Way of fpeaking in his Relation of the Cure of Diftempers, and of the cafting out Devils. Of the former he only lays, t&epdirwcev dvrovg - y but thefe latter he fpeaks of perfonally, as adive Beings, and accordingly puts Words into their Mouths, sfcypXtTo Si k, ScufAovict L Ae- yovTu y x y r, A. Would a corredt Writer have faid this, if thefe had been no other than Dif eajes, and therefore included under the former Part of the Sentence * ? A fecond Objection this Gentleman fets down, p. 65. in the Words of Dr. Whitby, which he anfwers particularly -, and therefore it may not be amifs to fet down the whole of it, that the Strength of it may appear. " The fc Difference between Demcniacks and Luna- * Mr. dwells obferves that " the Greek z* ixxoftosraf, is fre- '* quently ufed of ejecting Devils, but never of Diftempers that '• are healed." Critic. Exam. Part I. p. 96. And J believe the Enquirer can't fhcw, that it is ufed of any Diforders, but thofe under Confideration. The fame may be faid, of ZUoate, Mat. yiii. 16. applied to Spirits, in Oppofition tb-l&pdfa'ftrtf', applied /call that ivere fick. So Ch. x. i. MarklW- l£» Thefe are alio clearly diftinguifhed, MarAxvi. 17, 18. \E« tu Ivluuctri pa A«- fAo'mct ixQahSa-i fat appa'trTeq %tv. 76, 77, of the Enquiry ; it is owned to have fome Weight in it ; and a Reply is there offered. This (hall be examined presently. It may be proper to (hew firft, in how ftrong a manner our Lor.d countenanced this Notion. He did not barely forbear to dis- prove it - y but He reafoned upon it ; and His Language on fome particular Occafions fhews, that He believed it. When His calling out De- vils was afcribed to Beelzebub, in His Anfwer, He argues on the Suppofition, that PoJfeJJions particularly belonged to this wicked Spirit, were his own proper Work, and contributed to fup- port his Power and Intereft. What is all this to mere Diftempers ? If it be faid, that this was an Argument ad Homines, I anfwer, that as this may be built on true Premiifes , fhould we grant it to be fuch, we can't hence conclude, that Christ difbelieved the Suppofition He ap- pears fo plainly to allow. But, if the Phari- sees did not deferve to be undeceived, would He have fuftered His Difciples alfo to continue in Error ? And yet, when He had a fair Oppor- tunity offered Him to remove this their Preju- dice, we find, He falls in with it, and confirms it. Luke x. 17, 18. When the Seventy re- turned with foy, faying, even the Devils are fubjedt to us, thro thy Name ; He anfwered them, J beheld Satan as Lightning fall from Heaven , and at the fame Time, He gave them Power to tread on all the Power of the Enemy. This is no Argument ad Hominem. It bears an ( IGI ) an evident Relation to their Suppofition, and feems fully to juftify it. As if our Lord had faid, " ye need not wonder at the Devil's being " fubjefi to you thro' My Name. The Time " is come, when their Reign on Earth muft " end, and their Tyranny be totally deftroy- " ed*" The Reply to this whole Reafoning is this, that " the Defign of the Sacred Writings" is not " to correct the Miftakes of Men in Phy- " Jick"— That they fpeak even of God cc in " the Language of the Vulgar," as having Eyes, and Hands, and Ears, that they fpeak of the Motion of the Sun, and the reft of the Earth; —-That the Hypothefis of Demojis ferved the Purpofe of our Saviour, and what was foreign to it He avoided, p. 77, 79. I anfwer, That neither of thofe Inftances are parallel to that we are examining. This is neither a Point purely indifferent, as one of them is, nor, like the other, is it fufficiently guarded from Mif- application. If the Scriptures fometimes fpeak of God as having Parts or PaJJions, the better to adapt the Difcourfe to our Capacities ; there can be no Danger of Mifunderftanding thefe ; fince it, in many other Places, fpeaks of Him as a Spirit, without any Shape or Likenefs whatever. Whereas the Suppofition of Poflefji- ons, if it bean Error, is, as we have feen, very often laid down in Scripture, but never once * Vid. Grot, Hammond, Whithy, &c, in \jqc. contra- ( 102 ) contradided therein. Neither is it g, Point of fuch IndifFerency, as the other Inflance of the reji of the Sim y &c. is. It is not merely a Phy- fcal Miftake, but one that naturally tends to very pernicious Confequences, and to lead Men into all manner of Superftitions. And therefore it feems to be highly agreeable to our Lord's Purpofe, to have rooted the Notion out of the Minds of His Followers. He came to dejiroy the Power of the Devil, and can we then ima- gine, that He would leave them under any un- due Apprehenfions of this Power ? Were not the Fears, nay, the Idolatry of the Heathen World, much occafioned and kept up by the Notion of thefe Pojfejjions ? And would not then " the Caufe of the one God, in Oppofiti- " on to " fuch Ci Idolatry have been better 3 biyuv, ciXh% trcct^tq ?*, ofjueoi; ccv\?i)J ftccpGctpifyv, v, «6tv ett ctvros y t cxai rt ^ o6tt i7rn*Qt¥ £j tov dtfyunw 3, ojpxa? i^Uyut, ti St jav nuorSsw, xj cCxuXSv, iltXduvu rtv Jkipovoi. Lucian in Philopfeud. Ed. Par. p. 333. f It may be feen in Eufeb. Pr#p. Evang. L. IV. c. 23. ficulty, ( 107 ) ficulty, as well as to put out of all Doubt the literal Meaning of the Scripture Demoniacks, I (hall only fet down a few Teftimonies, which feem moft clear and exprefs, out of the many*, which might be produced to this Purpofe. We begin with J 'ufiin Martyr, who, in his Dialogue with T'rypho, ufes this Argument -f~, as you may even now, ifyoupleafe, be eajily con- vinced by the things done before your Eyes ; For by this very Name of the Son of God, thefirfl- born oj every Creature, who was born of a Vir- gin, and was made a Man liable to Sufferings, and crucified under Pontius Pilate, by the Peo- ple of your Nation, and died, rofe again, and afcended into Heaven, [in His Name] every De- vil being adjured, is conquered, and obliged to fubmit.— And in another Place, this Author gives the following Reafon for praying to be prefervedyr0#z wicked and deceiving, orwander- * Whoever would fee more, may confult, Whitby s General Preface, to the Epiji. p. 26, &c. •f* 'Slq xj wv cm tujv wit' e'l^ty yivoybiiw p£ov v'f/jZc iriirQwett, lot* SAjjtj. Kark y> rS o\o'/WI©- * ix) HovTia HfaUm vito ra "hot,** Cfjuuv, x£ aVoflayo'/]®-', xj it\u,i;oL{\<& ix. vtxf&iv, xj awCa/]^ *»§ tov uqcLvov, 7toii JkifA/oviov ifyfKitp (fyov vticecrui, xj v7roTtttr)$ 'ifc^kia?, V7TCT0t)p UVTH TCtrOtVTTjV tabiKiV CC'JTuJ JvVCtfAWy U?t Kj rot ^oci^juonx yTolaVo-sepJ ru ovofActri etwra, xj t>j t« ytvof/uivx jraSa? uvtS eUovo^'iot. Jbtd. p. 247. ■ K«t vvv ifAtis el 7ri,sivoS\i<; liei rov sot,vye>>UAu> fV* Uov7i8 U^xm 'l»jt'i£ov1ca kxtx T» ovo- fjbtt]<&> Td {>*}<&• B-tSy H3 bpoXoyiT uvtoc. rot TPiay« xnt*[AXTX tlvXi fuipevtt;. Ad. Autol. Ed. Ox. 1. 2. p. 77. j O* fjutv yxf Sxipovuq i^xvva?s ve^axtq ( 109 ) prefs to this Purpofe than Ttertullian in his Apology, who appeals to the very Eyes and Ears of the Enemies of Christianity, and makes the following very remarkable Challenge. " Let there appear before your Judgment Seats one, who is certainly pojfejjed with a Devil ; that Spirit, being commanded by any Chrijlian to fpeak, will as truly confefs himfelf to be a cc Devil, as in other Places he falfely calls " himfelf a God. Even fo, let there be pro- monem confitebitur devero, quam alibi Deum de falfo. JEquc producatur aliquis ex iis, qui de Deo pati exiltimantur, qui aris inbalantes numen de nidQre concipiunt, qui ructando conantur, qui anhelando profantur Nifi fe Dasmones confeffi fuerint, Chriftiano mentiri non audentes, ibidem illius Chriftiani procaciffimi fanguinem fundite — Si altera parte vere Dei funt, cur tez Daemonia mentiuntur? An, ut nobis obfequantur? Jam ergo fubjecta Chriftianis divinitas veftra. Tertul. Jpologet. $ecl, 23. much (no) much the fame account in much more elegant Laiaguage. After he has largely defcribed the Nature and different Operations of impure Spirits and Devils, with regard to their Ora- cles, Prophets, &c. he goes on, " all this, as is known by mod, by feveral among your- felves, the very Devils confefs of themfelves, as often as we drive them out of Bodies by the Tortures and Force of our Words, and the Vehemence and Warmth of our Invo- cations Believe them, when they teftify themfelves to be Devils, and thus confefs the Truth. For being adjured by the true and only God, Mifery and Horror feizes them within the Bodies, [they poffefs] and they are either forced to depart out of them im- mediately, and at once, or by Degrees to leave them ; according as the Cure is for- warded by the Faith of the Patient, or the Favour of the Exorcift *." No lefs ftrong to this Purpofe is Origen, in his famous Dif- courfe again ft Celfus ; in Anfwer to whom, when he objedled againft thefe Cures of the Chrijlians, as made by Invocations of certain Demons y the Father fays, " that they do not * Hsec omnia fciunt plerique, pars veftrum, ipfos Dasmonas de femetipfis confiteri, quoties a nobis tormentis verborum, & orationis incendiis de corporibus exiguntur — Ipfis teftibus cffe eos Daemonas de fe verum confitentibus credite. Adjurati enim per Deum verum& folum, inviti, miferi, corporibus inhorrefcunt, et vel exiliunt ftatim, vel evanefcunt gradatim, prout fides patientis adjuvat, aut gratia curantis afpirat. Minuc. Fe/. Ofiav. Ed. Ludg. Batav. p. 30, 3 1 , " think ( *II ) c * think to prevail by [fuch] Invocations, but by ' /ju(vn hrvf^x- ivc-i, a.X'h'x ru ovdf/tccri rS 'IvoS, kxI ecWav ho'ym nimstu^Uui kutu tjj\ S-ikv yp«4>»jV Orig. COM. Cdf. 1. I. Ed. Cantab. p. 7. Vid. I.7. p. 334. ( H2 ) H ) Thus we fee, the Accounts of the belt Wri- ters of the three firft Centuries are very uniform in this Matter. How this Gentleman, in his fecond intended Enquiry will be able to get over, or to explain them, fo as to make them agreeable to his Scheme, I muft confefs, I am not able to imagine. The Difficulty is furely great : The Points attefted are open Faffs : There can be therefore no room for any Char- ges of Enthujiafm\ which does not relate to Fac7s, but Opinions. As little Reafon have we to fufpecl: any Mi/takes. The Cafes are repre- fented as very numerous : Their Enemies were called upon to examine into them : They were called upon, in Controverfial Writings, and in folerrin Apologies : The Truth of Chrijlianity was in a manner put upon it, as a certain and undoubted Teft : This Fact was of fuqh a Nature, as to be, in the higheft manner, re- flecting on the Heathen Religion, and dero- gatory to the Honour of their fancied Deities, If it could therefore have been dirproved, would not they, who were fo very zealous for thefe, have gladly taken hold on fuch an Occafion, to have vindicated them, and laid fo juft a Re- proach on Christians ? The prefent Bijhop of Lichfield calls the rint, fugiant : nam, ficut ipfe, cum inter homines ageret, uni- verfos Daemones verbo fugabat, hominumque mentes emotas, et malis incurfibus furiatas, in fenfus priftinos reponebat ; ita nunc fecta tores ejus eofdem fpiritus inquinatos de hominibus, et nomine magiftri fui, et figno paflionis excludunt. Id. de 'vera Sapient. L. IV. c. 27. f. 397. Apologies r *«5 1 Apologies of the antient Fathers u fbme of the " very beft of their Productions 4V' And in- deed, there was need enough of their being ex- act and correct in thefe. No lefs than the Lives and Safety of all the ChriJIians, or of many of them, depended thereon. Let us confider a fet of Men, holding a Faith contrary to the Profeffion of the Civil Govemours, who there- upon mifreprefented and reviled it ; and, when this would not do, attempted to ftop the Pro- grefs of it by Perfecution and Torments. Se- veral of thofe Sufferers, at once to vindicate their Religion and Characters, and to obtain an End of their Miferies, prefent folemn AddreiTes to the very Chief of their Enemies -, all of them agree in afferting a Fact, as common and well known \ dare the others to look into it, and make Trial of it ; put the Succefs of their Caufe upon it 5 and make a voluntary Offer of forfeiting their Lives, if it fhould fail.— And can we, in thefe Circumftances, think fuch a Fad: falfe ? Could Men ever {hew a fuller AiTu ranee of the Truth of any * ? But perhaps the Apologifis were themfelves fome of the Enqui- rer's Demo?iiacks, Madmen. No thefe very Works contradict fuch a Suppofition. They are written in the Spirit of Truth, Sobernefs, Calmnefs, and Decency. Befides the Event of fprne of them abundantly juftifies their Un- ■f Vindication, &c. V. I. p. 65. J Vid. Nicolii Conference, V. II. p. 147, 148. P 2 der- ( n6 ) derftandings, as well as the Truth of their Af fertions. Madmen, we may be fure, would not have been liftened to : And any Falfhood would have been far from doing Service, would certainly have aggravated the Malice of their Enemies, and given thefe a real handle to afflict them, ftill more. Whereas, many of thofe Apologies quenched the Violence of the Fire of Perfecution, and obtained Refcripts and Decrees in favour of Chriftianity. We may there- fore receive for undoubted Truths, whatever Facls they all advanced in this manner : We may depend upon their Care in making Affer- tions, the Falfhood of which they would foon have anfwer'd with their Lives. How long the Power of cajling out Devils continued in the Church, I cannot fay. There is Reafon to think, it remained after the other miraculous Gifts were ceafed. For, as Arch- BiJJjop billot fin obferved, " The Power of " cafting out Devils, which was moft com- mon (for every Chriflian had it) continued longeft ; and there was Reafon it mould con- tinue, fo long as the Devil reigned, and the Pagan Idolatry was kept up, to fhew that the Spirit of Chrift was fuperior to the Devil, and would finally overcome him, and over- throw his Kingdom ; — and this appeared, in that they were able in the Name of Chrift to caft him out, wherever he had taken Poffeflion, which God permitted to be very " frequent in thofe Times, for the more glori- cc cc cc the whole narration muft vanifh in fi- gure, or fink in condefcenfion to popular, er- roneous perfuafion. And this conclufion is like- wife fupposd to receive additional flipper t, from the inconfiftency with divine attributes, which it's patrons pretend to difcover, in the contrary opinion. But, the falfe criticifm and falfe reafoning of the whole fcheme will be expos'd, by proving, First, That the notion, ufually annex'd to Scupovts and Soupm*, in Evangelical hiftory, is confirm'd by the ufe of the fame words, in the writings of eminent heathens: Secondly, That thofe paflages of the Gofpel, wherein are exprefs'd the vehement malignity and power of the Beings fo call'd, ought to be underftood in the literal, obvious meaning of the expreffions : Thirdly, That by the literal expofition, here aflerted, the juftice, wifdom and goodnefs of God are fo far from being contradi&ed, as to be fignally difplay'd. And, First, the notion, ufually annex'd to Scupms and Swum*, in Evangelical hiftory, is confirm'd 6 The ufual interpretation confirm'd by the ufe of the fame words, in the writings of eminent heathens. I. In thefe writings, then, (and to theft our adverfaries appeal ) the terms, under con- fideration, are fometimes l equivalent to Sw or Q-eiav, when the grammatical number is the fame, and denote the divine Being, abfolutely fupreme. But, 2 they are molt commonly ap- ply'd, in the plural number, to reprefent create ed Beings, originally fuperior to man. Be- fides the paffages, wherein this notion of them is dire&ly requir'd, many others fupply fuch me- diums, as clearly fuggeft it. They are defcrib'd, for lflftance, as ' firft imployd in the creation of men , by divine appointment ; and after- wards, as guarding and conducting each in* i Plato in Politico p. 272. extr. edit. Steph. Hierocl. p. 2S0. edit.Cant. Diodor. Sic. I.3. p. 143. ed. R'hod. j*£lian. V. H. 1. 6. c. 12. adde J. Poll. 1. 1. c. 1. 2 Plato in Synv pof. p. 202. Iamblich. de Myft. iEgypt. feci:, 1 ji, c.22,30. edit. Oxon. Porphyr. Epift. ad Anebon. p. 1 & feq. fere fingulis. Iamblich. de Myft. iEgypt. feci:. 1. c. 3, 4, ?, 7. fedt.II. c.i,2. Max.Tyrius di(T. z6. p. 271 -4 -6* edit.Cant, Iamblich. de vitaPythag. 08. p. 28. & c.xi. p. 84. & C32. p. 177. edit. Kuft. Porphyr. de vita Pyth. p.39. ed. Kuft. 3 Plato in Timaeo, p. 41. -ibid. -42-69-71 -7?. Confer. Apul. p. 58? & 690. edit. Par. Plato in Politic. p.27i.extr. ibid. 274 -5. Idem de Republ. 1. 10. p. 617- 620. Idem in Phxdon.p.107. Porphyr. Ep. ad Aneb. p.penult. Hierocl. dividual ^aaimoneS &c. ajferted. 7 dividual of the race, from their ent'rance into this world ) 'til their departure out of it. The philofopherS, who plac'd them in thefe points of view, muft, in confequence of their own tenets, fuppofe thofe Beings to be indu'd with advantages of nature, which exalt them highly above the human fpecies. And l Plato, in particular, colledteth from the offices here affignd them, that, upon a comparifon with men, they muft be intitul'd to the fame pre- eminence, which the fliepherd is allow'd to have, when compard with the flocks, over which he prefides. In regard to this their fuperior order in the creation, as well as their important com- miffions , they are call'd z mw&pxjtfns too ^yi^ca SoUULOyt 3 ^Ist'PnpB'ftiVOVTB^ §101$ Wt 7fUp a\l§-pQ07TG0V % xcq ayS-pawis tit KSFfAU) 7TUC1V c/fttSe&f&TC? , HyHOl Thefe characters are too fublime, to be drawn for human ghofts. And, tho* they are ftaind with mixtures of error; yet, upon ap- plication of fuch corre&ives, as may be fairly admitted, they teftify a prevailing perfuafion of the exiftence and minifterial office of gooci angels. If they were not, indeed, copy'd from fome part of the facred originals ; yet, in a comparative view of them and the r texts fub- join'd, feveral traces of likenefs will be offer d to an attentive mind. Whenever, then, philofophers have fo far conformed 2 to poetic language, as to give the name Jaipom to the ghofts of men 5 it cannot c. 13,2.0. 6c fed. III. c.i 5. feci. VI. c. 3, 6. Confer. Diog. Laert. 1. 3. fegm.79. 1 Pfal. XXXIV. 7. XCI. 11,12. CIII.20. CIV. 4. Dan. X. 13. compare Tobir XII. 12 and foil. Matt. XVIII. 10. Luke I. 19,26 and foil. XVI. 22. A&. X. 3. Heb. I. 7, 14. Rev. V. 6. VIII. 3, 4. XVII. 1. % Vide Platon.'de Rep. 1. 2. p.377. In Hierocl. p. 38. the ghofts of men, *a*9-«$s >$ ifirj ngriM&titiq, are calPd }aipms% m htipntt tea} bnrwfwttc : and are immediately afterwards di- ftinguiih'd from the 01 tsei AAIMONES. from 0/AAIMONE2 <&c. afferted. 9 From hence be juftly collected, that they dit bwrid the natural difference between thofe Beings. Rather ftiou'd it be prefum'd, in or- der to maintain confiftency in their fentiments, that they thought the fduls of the good, upoii departure from the body, * were advanc'd to fuch a nearnefs of fimilitude with the molt Excellent creatures, as might juftify a commu- nity of their names. Thro 1 this cdflftru<5tioii of their words, they are reconcil'd to them- felves ; and their conceptions of things fpiri- tual become, in fome meafure, confonailt to the clearer difcdveries of revelation. For, by the Gofpel we are plainly taught, that the pious will be blefs'd with fo happy % a change, upon the fecond union of their conftituent parts, as to be thereby render'd * equal to the angels. Thus far truth and tradition confpire, in regard to the favorable notion, annex'd to Sou- pom and Scupivion 1 Vide Platon. Cratyl. p.398. & Max. Tyr. p.282. Con- fer. Procl. in Plat. Theolog. p. 64. edit. Hamb. 6c Plu- tarch, de orac. def. p. 415". Iamblich. de myft. JEgypt* Sect. II. c.2. In Hierbcles they are call'd IZAITEAOI and Jsoaaimones— p. 4 o. 2 1C0f.XV.51 and foil. 3 Luke XX. 3 d. MarkXILi?. B But, I o The ujual interpretation But, this is not the notion, which thoft terms mod frequently fignify. For, the more contemplative heathens, allowing the ' eflen- tial identity of the Beings fo call'd, have con- fider d them alfo as accidentally diftinguifh'd, by contrary qualities. And, as their writings import fome notices of the holy angels - y fo do they difcover an equal degree of knowledge in reference to the deprav'd. Thefe are de- fcrib'd therein, z as malevolent and maleficent Beings; delighting (or feeming, at leaft, de- lighted) in the indulgence of cruel inclina- tions ; in promoting wickednefs, impoftureand mifery amongft men. ' From the irreconcileable repugnancy be- tween moral goodnefs and a conftant difpofi- tion to fraud and wrong, * reafon taught phi- i Plutarch, de If. & Ofir. p. 360. Idem de orac. def. p. 417. Iamblich. de myft. ./Egypt. Seel:. II. c. 7. Porphyr. de abft. &c. 1.2. feci. 38. Confer. Chalcid. in Plat.Tim. p. 319. & feq. edit. Fabr. 2 Plutarch. T.2. p. 361. Porph. epift. ad Aneb. p. ?. by i*>'& «5t*7jjA« @^. Iamblich. de myft. JE- gypt. fed.III. c.31. SedtIV.c.7. Sed.X.c.7. 3 Plato de Repub. 1. 2. p. 3 79 & feq. Iamblich. de myft. -/Egypt, fedti IV. c. 6. Hierocl. p«>83- lofopher« of aaimones &c. afferted. 1 1 lofophers to infer, that this difpofition cannot be afcrib'd to the Deity. When the l fame authors, therefor, make the molt pernicious delufions, the favorite imployment of Seupovisz when they pronounce them the inventors and incouragers of fuch practices, as are moft in- jurious both to individuals and to communi- ties of men ; they muft, by neceflary confe- quence from their own reafoning about the Deity, be prefum'd to look upon $cupam 9 as extremely evil. And 2 Plutarch fuppofeth, that feveral inquifitive heathens (whom he citeth as confentient with Plato herein) were juftly led to this notion of thofe Beings, by various occurrences in the natural and moral world. Thefe occurrences exhibited the tokens of fuch power, as far exceeded human nature ; and of fuch wickednefs, as appear'd directly oppofite i Plato apud Plutarch. T. z. p.36^1. Idem in Phsedro p. 240. Confer, idem de Repub. 1.x. p. 364. 6c p. 378 —381— 2. Where, indeed, he ufeth the word &e«, yet ^alpsm^ 'tis probable, are to be underftood by it. For, thus Proclus in Platon. Theol. p.64 — ««k« *«/ rxs AAIMONAS, cl jgsr'a^'a* JW«f« ra» ©EQN eioi — 0EOY2 atsvPipfim (fcil. Plato) TnT&ctyji. Plutarch. «fe< ilfyp. p-474« 6c de orac. def. p.417,419. Por- phyr. de abft. &c. 1. 2. feci. 40, 41, 58. Iamblich. de myft. iEgypt. feci:. III. c, 13, 16, 31. Sect. IV. c. 7, 13. Liban. decl. 43. p. 906. edit. Morel. 2 Plutarch. T. 2. p. 360. 6c feq. — 6c loc. fupra modo eit. Confer. Salluft. Phil of. c.12. edit. Amftel. B 2 to iz The ufual interpretation to the divine. In fearch of fatisfa&ion about them, ' the theorifts, 'tis not improbable, had recourfe to the remains of antient tradition ; and by colle&ing it's fcatter'd raies, they were at length indued to conceive ideas of that middle fort of Beings, which had much more ability than man, to execute purpofes intire- Jy unworthy of God. Theft Beings (befides the defcription of them already given ) are re- markably chara&eriz'd, in the fame authors^ f as exiles from heaven and from the divine prefence — as ivand'ring thro* the air, about fea and land ; and * ftriving with fuch affiduity #nd fiercenefs, as giveth them a refemblance of favage animals, to delude men int<5 ruin, and actually making fbme of the fpecies their prey, I Plutarch, de orac. defe&u, p. 41 y, 416, 417. Confer; Plato de Repub. 1. 1- p. 379 6c feq. z Plutarch. T.i. p. 830. extr. & orac det. p.418 extr. &419. — & ibid, p.361. ZuxthttXtf H »£ <#**? If, for inftance, l wiv^a, axafapm may be transferr'd to the fignification of a bodily, na- tural diforder • **£jutf $$*& may ceafe to repre- fent a Divine Perfon. If mediatorial and pro- pitiatory a6ts are afcrib'd to a Savior of man- kind ; yet, thro' the Inquirers dexterity, the language, expreffive of tho'fe adts and that of- fice, may be (and hath actually been) refolv'd into mere conformity to the pradtices and fen« i Matt. X.i. & alibi. timents of aaimoneS &c. ajferted. 2 t timents of idolatrous nations ; amongft whom were Saviors, facrifices, and mediators, many. If, again, an Evangelift declareth the divine and human nature of Chrift, in faying, that the Word was made flejh-, an Artemonian eludes the proof by replying, that Word denoteth, in the original, only reafon or fpeech; and flejh, not the fubftance, but the accidents, or infirmities, of human nature. And, in reality, if the works of the prince of this world may be judg'd to reft upon no better foundation, than vulgar error; thofe alfo, by which the Prince of peace , and Redeemer of the world is diftin- gaifh'd, may, with equal eafe, be added to the number of imaginary characters. And, that fuch are the confequences of wantonly defert- ing the common purport of language, is too clearly provd by the wild, blafphemous reve- ries of the moft antient and later heretics. If, then, the ufual interpretation of Evan- gelical hiftory, concerning the malignity and power of devils, be not only not oppos'd, but even confirm'd, by external writers — if a ratio- nal, confident fenfe may be deduc'd from the ordinary acceptation of the original words — if the unneceflary application of an alkfiye, figu- rative ax The ufttal interpretation rative conftru&ion hath been inftrumental in impofing the moft monftrous and deteftable conceits upon writings, dictated by the Spirit of God - if thefe aflumptions are all, as they have all been prov'd to be, fo many truths; then, the laws of found judgment and found reafoning will evidently perfuade this conclu- iion - That the pafiages, wherein the cafe of demoniacs is defcrib'd, ought to be underftood according to the literal, obvious meaning of the expreffions. A pious concern, indeed, for the honour of the Deity, and a defign to correct an opinion, which is deem'd injurious to it, have been made the pretence for giving figure, in this cafe, a preference to the letter. But, allowing the patrons of figure the whole benefit of their piety, in the intention of their fchemes $ yet, the neceflity of forming and propofing them will totally difappear, when it is fliewn, Thirdly, That by the interpretation, here alfet'ted, the juftice, wifdom and goodnefs of God are fo far from being contradicted, as to be fignally difplay'd. III. Can, then, the juftice of God be re- concile (^aaimones &c. ajjerted. 23 concil'd with a permiffion, that Beings, whofe nature is fo contrary to His own, fhou'd exer- cife a power fo extenfive, and fo hurtful to the reft of His creatures ? Or, do'th not this divine attribute lead us rather to prefume, that they are reftraind from executing their evil purpofes; and condemn d to fuffer, inftead of caufing, mifery ? The difficulties, which thefe inquiries may be fancy'd to contain, are folv'd by obferving, that the mifapplication of power, whereby wicked fpirits continually attempt the promotion of natural as well as moral evil, is not agreeable, but dire&ly contrary, to origi- nal inftitution — that this contrariety is the re- fult of their voluntary depravation — that the reftraint of a&s, fuitable to this fupervening depravation, is not more requifite to the idea of tectorial juftice in the Deity, than the ef- fectual prevention of criminal folicitations and criminal conduit, which are often mutually ex- perience amongft men. To thefe obfervations it may be added, that, tho' the delay of punifhment, completely ade- quate to guilt, muft be own'd by every mor- tal, who is not an intire ftranger to himfelf, to be confident with divine juftice ; yet, the damnation of the rebellious fpirits even now jlum- b'reth %± The ufual interpretation breth not ; feing, together with the conti- nuance of their exiftence, their torture is al- io continue!. For, belides a tormenting con- fcioufnefs of abfolute exclufion from the in- valuable bleffings of grace and glory, they are likewife reprefented as pofitively feeling the feverity of their fentence. l Chains ofdark- nefs — a gloomy, painful, difconfolate ftate, out of which no expedient can extricate them, is already their allotment; whil'ft their com- plement of mifery is 2 refervd, 'til the judg- ment of the great day. After this decilive pe- riod, it feems intimated, that they fhall be in- tirely fwallow'd up with their own torments; tho', before it, liberty is allow'd them to exert their malice againft mankind. In regard to thefe, then, the great authors of evil, divine juftice may feem plac'd in a fatisfa&ory light. Nor is it lefs capable of vindication, in regard to the calamity of the poffefs'd. For, if, amongft thofe fignal fufferers, there were fome noto- rious finners, the charge of injuftice becometh, in refped: of thefe, immediately invalid. Or, even granting them a moral character, more confonant to their obligations; yet, were they ftill only parts of their Creator's works, which might be apply'd, according to His good plea- i 2 Pec. II. 4. Judetf, 2 Locis ck. fure, 0jf aaimones &c. ajjerted. 17 fure, in fubferviency to general advantage. Even ordinary failings might juftify the afflic- tive treatment, which was only of fhort dura- tion : nor is the interpofition of almighty power requir'd immediately, in behalf of the affiidted. Tlie hand of the Lord is not therefor Jhortenedy becaufe it is not continually ftretch'd forth againft every ad: or attempt of Satan. He weigheth all the circumftances of the op- prefs'd, and knoweth the proper feafons and proper methods (to men ufually unknown) of refcuing, aiding and rewarding the objecfts of His mercy. And, even during the feeming fuf. penfion of His providential care, His confbla- tions may be fecretly difpens'd, qualify the fe- verity of the torture indurd, and improve the fufferer's ability to bear it. But, it may be obferv'd ftill more dire&Iy and appofitely to the prefent purpofe,That the Jewifh nation, when the inftances of obfeffion more remarkably occurr'd amongft them, were peculiarly expos'd to vengeance. Their errors were grofs, numerous and pertinacioufly re- tain'd; and their corruption of manners was aggravated by impenitence and obduracy of heart. What ground, then, is here left to build complaint upon, if the great avenger of D unre- z6 The ufual interpretation unrelenting offenders permitted the bodies of fome to be feiz'd by Satan, who had before refign'd their fouls to be led captive by him ? And, even in the exercife of this chaftife- ment, divine wifdom (which is accuftom'd to bring good out of evil ) found means of in- creafing the luftre and amiablenefs of the truth and grace, which came by Jefus Chrift. For, the prophecy, that He Jhoud bruife the fer- penis head, was then to be publicly verify'd, by a correfponding event. And, tho' it's full and final accomplilhment was referr'd to a la- ter period; yet did the accornplifhment com- mence, and gradually open it-felf to Jew and Gentile, in His repeated triumphs over the enemy, whom He had undertaken to fubdue. Herein was offer' d to both an opportunity of conviction, x that the kingdom of God was come-, whil'ft they beheld the rulers of darhiefs conftrain'd to confefs, and obey, a fuperior, ir- refiftible power. In each eje&ion of them out of human bodies, an abfolute dominion over them was demonftrated, before a multitude of witneffes ; and, by the fame means, was pro- duc'd a moft fenfible argument of Chrift's pro- ceeding fuccefsfully to anfwer the end of His i Luke XL 10. Mart. XII. 28. mani- MQ of AMMONE2 <&c. afferted, 17 manifeftation in the flefh; whil'ft He thus e- vinc'd His ability to deftroy the works of the devil. Thefe fads, indeed, are therefor difputed, becaufe they appear to have been numerous. But, granting the number of the poffefs'd to have been unufually great, during the courfe of our Savior's miniftry -, yet, the inference, which this fuppofition recommendeth, is, That God, in the midjl of judgment , remembreth mercy ' and comforteth mankind with tokens of His love, whil'ft He teacheth them to revere His juftice. All other calamities, that are inciden- tal to us, have their refpe&ive feafons, provi- dentially determin'd: nor do'th our Creator's tendernefs towards His creatures allow His ju- dicial punilhments to prevail perpetually. And, when they have been with-held thro' a Ions? feries of years, men ought, 'tis true, in grati- tude, to acknowledg His clemency -, cannot, in reafon, maintain, that no fuch calamities had ever been felt, as might Jiave indanger'd their fafety. Inftead, then, of turning the remark- able examples of demoniacal obfeffion, during our Savior's life on earth, into an obje&ion againft the reality of the fadl ; impartiality of judgment requireth aflfent to the relation of D 2 the a8 The ufual interpretation the fad ; whilft piety calls for a reverential ac- knowledgment of divine goodnefs, in that ex- traordinary difpenfation. For, what is more declarative of divine good- nefs, than the fuppreffion of the fury and force of the apoftate fpirits, 'til that Perfon appear'd on earth, thro' whom their tyranny was to be vifibly chaftis'd, and, at length, abolifh'di* Ac- cording to this gracious appointment, the ma- lady was not fuffer'd to break out in it's ut- moft virulence, before the phyfician was ex- hibited to view, whofe command was fufficient to effed: a cure. Of the time, indeed, of His advent and it's confequences, the grand adverfary perhaps, thro' his acquaintance with prophecy, might be appriz'd. Senfible, there- for, that his kingdom was threaten'd with ap- proaching ruin, he might hereupon naturally colled:, and difcharge, his utmoft rage againft mankind; make his afiaults more frequently as well as vehemently, and the torments of the afTaulted more intenfe. And, in propor- tion to the violence T of the ftrong, muft rife l Matt. XII. 29. LukeXI.ai,2i, compar'd with If.XL. ic, where the words fcO* ptPD — feem moft properly ren- dcr\\~fiall come AGAINST THE POWERFUL — by THE powerful being meant • i%?$s t robujlm ille^ mention'd HI the GpfpeL See the learned Vitringa on the place. the ^aaimones &c. ajfferted. xp the idea of that goodnefs, which provided a ftronger than him - One, more mighty to fave, than he was to deftroy. Upon the whole — This event might be fa far conducive to the general benefit of men, and promotion of the great ends of Provi- dence, in the incarnation of the Son of God, as it is apt to create a more lively fenfe and dread of the dangerous attacks of Satan ; and to raife a grateful admiration of that friendly and powerful arm, which fo vifibly and effec- tually interpos'd, to repel and reprefs them totally. In the falutary influence deriv'd on the body, by the word and thro' the name of Chrift, His divine authority might clearly be difcernd; and a firm perfuafion thence col- le&ed, that His influence woud extend it-felf with equal efficacy, to the deliverance of the foul. And, from this perfuafion the tranfition is eafy to the neceffity of believing in Him and obeying His laws, in order to be qualify'd to partake of that great, com pleat falvation, of which He declar'd Himftlf, by many infaUi^ lie proofs, to be the author. In fine - By the tenor of the preceding re- flexions we may be inftru&ed, to fufpeft the arts 30 The ufual interpretation arts and defigns of pretenders to fuch difcove- ry, as the Inquirer hath propos'd. The ufe and intent of language forbid his interpreta- tion ; the ftream of antiquity is unfavorable to it. And tho* this floweth not unpolluted al- ways ; yet, impurities are not utterly infepar- able from it, provided affiftance herein be drawn (as it ought to be) from the facred fburces of revealed truth. The contrary me- thod of altering, or rather, corrupting Scrip- ture-notions, by the unexamin'd, or unduly ex- amin'd, evidences of pagan monuments, is e- qually J unreafonable and irreligious. But, this pra&ice is not peculiar to the Inquirer: nor is he alone in the fentiments, which he hath undertaken to defend. One venerable name he hath produc'd in favour of his caufe; and feveral others might have been cited with e- qual propriety, at leaft; becaufe equally, if not more diredtly, confentient with him. If he did not know, that z Pomponatius, } Vaninus, i UnreafonaHe — becaufe thereby, what is clear, plain and confiftent, is exchang'd for that, which is often ob- fcure, intricate, and full of contradiction : Irreligious — be- caufe it imports a preference of that, which is human, to that which is divine, 2 Tradt. de incantat. p. 10. & de immortal, animae p.i 3^. quern citat doctif. Deyling. Ob- ferv. facr. XXVIII. T. 2. 3 Dialog. 54. p. 406. 1 Hobbs, of AAmckEX &c. averted. 31 1 Hobbs, 2 Spinoza, and ? Bekker efpecially, had all patronis'd the fame opinion; he may perhaps, when he cometh to this knowledge congratulate himfelf upon the lucky coinci- dence of his own thoughts with the thoughts of men, diftinguifh'd by Angular penetration. If he was not a ftranger to their concurrence, their chara&ers might have juftify'd a fufpi- cion, at leaft, of the do&rin, and occafion'd a more accurate inquiry into the foundation of it, before it was efpous'd and publicly re- viv'd. But, difputes of irreligious tendency muft be kept up, in one or other form; and, when invention hath been exhaufted, in a va- riety of antifcriptural attempts ; old, fcattefd forces muft be rally'd, in order to maintain the ingagement. The obftinate, diverfify'd refiftance, indeed, to Gofpel truth, with which this age and na- tion are difgraced, may feem to argue, that this is the hour of it s enemies^ and of the power of darknefs: a power, which is then moft like- ly to be fatal, when it is induftrioufly and hardily ridiculd ; none being more expos'd to i Leviath. p c . 4. c. 45*. 1 Tra&at. theolog. polit. c.i. 3 Le monde enchante liv. 4. c. 8, 9. fall gx The tijual interpretation &c. fall by it, than thofe, who think they ftand in greateft fecurity from it. The believer regards it in a proper manner, when he maketh it an argument of Jobriety and vigilance — of the neceffity of recurring to a fuperior principle for aid againft it ; and of begging, that, thro' the interpofition of di- vine grace, he may find a way to efcape unin- jur'dj in the exigencies of trial. God grant us fuch ftrength and protection, as may fupport us in all dangers, and carry us thro' all temptations, for Jefus Chrift His fake - To whom, with the Father and the Holy Ghoft, be univerfal and eternal glory.- A N E S S A ON THE DEMONor DIVINATION F SOCRATES. 1 "H£7\f"V LONDON, PRINTED FOR T. PAYNE AND SON, k AT THE MEUSE-GATE. M.DCC.LXXXII. C s 3 ADVERTISEMENT. TO a work fo trifling as this is, a Preface would be ridiculous. What the author thought neceffary to fay of the nature and importance of the fubjeft is included in the Efiay itfelf, or in the Notes annexed. Suffice it here to fay, that the folution now offered of an ac- knowledged difficulty, was firft fuggefted by the words of Xenophon, and that fome years ago. Had the hypothefis been pre- viouily formed, and the interpretation of the palTages adduced afterwards ac- commodated to it, the refult might have a 3 been 16] been lefs worthy of attention : for what cannot a theorizer detort to his purpofe ? Subfeqnent reading and enquiry have confirmed the idea: and as the author has not difcovered, in any book that he has confulted, any further traces of it than thofe which will herein be produced, he conceives that it is in fome degree a new one. This is his reafon fororTeriner it to the public. J U »J *» R. N A R E S, ON THE DEMON or DIVINATION oF SOCRATES. TTZHETHER the admirable Socrates had or had not a fupernatural at- tendant, a prophetic Demon, by whofe warnings he was frequently afTifted ; whether he imagined himfelf to be fo at- tended, or wiihed only to imprefs that belief upon thofe about him-, or, laftly, whether a mifconftru&ion of his words, and an inattention to his ftyle of conver- fation, have not been the fole fupport of thefe extraordinary ideas ; are queftions B long •C * ] long debated, varioufly handled, and yet at this day confefTedly undecided (A). Several ancient treatifes, in which they are exprefsly difcufled, are (till extant-, nor are modern writers wanting who have de- voted their pens to the fame enquiry (B). Of thofe who, in all times, have inci- dentally touched upon the fubjecT:, a ca- talogue might ealily be drawn out to a formidable extent. Yet fo ftrangely op- pofed to each other, in this inftance, are hypothecs and evidence, probability and hiftorical faith, that, after all his read- ing, the mind of the enquirer ftill fluctu- ates in fufpence. It mult however be acknowledged, that the importance of the queftion is fufficient to juitify the diligence of in- veftigation beftowed upon it. We are accuftomed, not without reafon, to look up to Socrates with the higheft admira- tion. We behold him as one of thofe exalted characters, in the contemplation of which the good man feels an honefl pride, rejoicing, as a patriot in the great community [ 3 3 community of the world, in that excel- lence whereby the dignity of the fpecies is aflerted. Socrates was the fountain of the pureft philofophy of Greece ; and the brighter!: example of that morality, of which he was the ableft teacher. Of fuch a man the mod trivial anecdotes ac- quire a dignity ; but thofe in particular deferve a diligent difcuflion which are connected with his fpeculative opinions. A proper zeal for maintaining the con- fiftency of a character fo diftinguifhed, makes us very unwilling to defcend into the dilemma to which a free-thinking wit of our own times has endeavoured to re- duce the whole difpute. " As for the human foul, fays Voltaire (the author to whom I allude), Socrates had doubtkfs been informed of its nature, by his De- mon. There are indeed, he adds, fome perfons who maintain that a man, who boafted of a familiar genius, mud have been either a knave or a fool ; but thefe are too nice in their ideas." Melanges de Pbilof* et Uterat* — If Socrates was B 2 either C 4 ] cither of thefe, he was wonderfully fucccfsful in eftablifhing an opinion of himfelf diametrically contrary to both -, and the dilemma, if a juft one, will em- brace a confiderable company, all of whom have been thought worthy of a better fame ; for what, on fuch a fuppo- iition, can he thought of the numerous followers of this philofopher, who re- garded both his principles and his abili- ties with the trueft efteem, and the moft enthnfiaflic admiration ? — But I am wafting time and words on that which is beneath a refutation. The queftion, however, is of fuch a nature as to demand great caution in thofe who would refolve it, fince either to cut the knot entirely by difcrediting the whole narration, or to elude the pre/lure of it by forced explanation and unfatif- factory refinement, is alike to make the very pillars of hittorical evidence, and confound every rule of criticifm and in- terpretation. The learned Olearius law this, and was willing rather implicitly to believe f 5 ] believe the whole, than to hazard the confequences of denying it. The con- cluding words of his treatife are to this effect : " Non dubito ad fummum prq- babilitatis gradum provehi earn, qu^ Socrati v\tx magiflrum adhsefifie ge- nium exiftimat, fententiam. Quae fi ca- dat, magnorum inter veteres virorum autoritates, Socratis virtus & integritas, ipfa, paene dixerim omnis hiilorige fides ruinam ejus fubfequatur, neceffeenV' A queftion that involves fo much, can- not be unworthy of examination : and if in the courfe of this EMay it mould be (hewn, that though the hiftorical narra- tion of thefe things wants neither founda- tion nor fidelity, yet the wifdom and in- tegrity of Socrates may remain unim- peached, neither the writer nor the reader will, I hope, repent of the moments bellowed upon it. It will be convenient to clear our way to this enquiry by a very brief review of prior opinions concerning it. Thefe may be reduced to two general] heads ; no B 3 notice [ 6 ] notice being taken of thofe who difcredit the whole, nor of the curious hypothecs juft mentioned -, which, if it abound not with philofophy or candour, has .ftt lead that merit which the author unfortunately efteemed too highly, that of novelty (C). The remaining opinions are, as I faid, of two kinds only, i . The firlt is that of thofe who are inclined to give implicit credit to the hiltory as commonly underltood, and to allow that Socrates was actually attended by a familiar Demon ; an opinion founded upon the words of Plato, fupported upon the principles of his philofophy, by the fuperltition of his followers ; and too eafily admitted afterwards by the Pla- tonizing Christians, whofe notions of De- mons were nearly coincident with thofe of the Academic (D). 2. The fecond, and of late ye.:rs, for evident reafons, the molt in falhion, is that of thofe who en- deavour to explain away the meaning of the word Demon; who would perfuade themfelves and others that the reafon, pe- netration, or wifdotn of the philofopher, with C 7 3 with a certain felicity of conjecturing con- tingent events, is all that the expreffion implies. The Demonifts, if I may be allowed the expreffion, have been fun- di vided into two parties. For though the character of Socrates was, one fhould conceive, exalted enough to fecure even that of his familiar from fufpicion, there have not been wanting feme (E) who have included his Demon in the lift of malignant fpirits. To. give the reader, who may happen to be uninformed upon this curious iub- ye&c, an idea how ftrong the evidence for the literal or platonic acceptation of the hiftory has appeared, even to the mod ju- dicious and cautious critics, I need only mention, that Dr. Jortin (a man to whofe judgement and fagacity almoft every branch of literature has been indebted for illuftration) has confeffed himfelf "fo far a fanatic,' 9 as to incline to give it his affent, " though," he adds, with his ufual candid moderation, " without blaming thofe who are of another mind." Rem. on Eccl Hijl. vol. I. p. 95. B 4 But [ 8 ] But the admiflion of this opinion brings on too great a train of confe- quences not to produce fome hefitation ; and for the other, I can only fay that, if there be meaning in words, and crici- cifm be any thing berrer than an idle name of what has no exiftence, it is re- pugnant to the plained reafon, and on a multiplicity of accounts wholly inad* miilible. My own hypothecs will have fome objections to encounter, unlefs the two following propofitions be previoufly ad- mitted. But theie are, if I miftake not, too plain to occafion the flighted hefi- tation. i. That for the determination of any queilion concerning Socrates, whether it relate to his hiitory, or to his opinions, the authority of Xenophon is preferable to that of Plato. 2. That a Jingle inftance of error, or of fuperfliticn, is by no means incom- patible with the character even of the grcatefl and beft of men* The I 9 ] The former of thefe afiertions is al- lowed even by thofe who in practice have the le. ft applied it ; and is indeed too clear to require much iliuftration (r ). To every one not wholly ignorant of the Greek philofophy it is known, that of all the numerous followers of Socrates, Xe- nophon was he who confined himfeif in his writings mod religioufly to the principles of his mailer. But, not with Handing tbis^ it certainly has happened that the tefli- mony of Plato has in t .is que (lion been received with perrecl reliance (G), and Xenophon himfeif made to lpcak a lan- guage which neither his exprcffions nor his arguments will admit, in order to fa- vour the preconcepjions to which foine paifages of Plato's writings have given birth. Had the former been fllenj upon the fubjecl, or had he fpoken flight ly or obfcurely of it, necefiity would have ex- cufed the recurrence to his rival; though even then that evidence would have been liable to fume exceptions. But Xenophon, as will appear mod fully when [ « ivhen his words (hall have been confider- ed, has treated it profefiedly, with clear- nefs and flrength of expreffion j and no- thing can account for the mifconception or the difregard of his opinion, but the refiftiefs power of prejudice, and an idea too haftily adopted, that theie two great followers of Socrates could not difagree in the relation of a fact refpeding him. The Platonic writers being the firft who di feu (Ted the quell ion, the fad: has been chiefly feen through the medium of their reprefentations, and the tincture of Pla- tonifm has remained upon it to this day. For the proof of my fecond propofi- tion, it would be rcquifite to dwell upon the failings of thofe men whofe excel- lencies are mod univerfally acknow- ledged. The talk, though invidious and unpleafant, would be in no great degree- laborious. A catalogue of the great men who have fuffered their imaginations to be feduced by the follies of judicial aflrology, would alone be of confiderable extent. We have -the confeflion of one defervedlv C it ] defervedly eminent, under his own hand, tq allure us, that he was among that number (H). But of all thole againfl whom a fimilar accufation may be made good, Socrates is perhaps the moil excufe- able, as we dial 1 fee more fully in a fubfe- quent part of this eflay. If the above proportions mould appear too eafy and obvious to deferve the attention here be- stowed upon them, let it be remembered how capable the flighted prejudice is to obftruct the admiffion of truth. Tp dwell no longer upon prefatory matters, the folution here propofed to be given of this famous queftion is founded on a fact very often denied, and that upon the very principles againft which the latter of the above prcpofitions is is aimed, " That Socrates believed in the gods of his country, and was not free from the fuperflit ions connected with that belief; particularly thofe refpecllng omens and di- vination" This fa&, as well fupported by hiftorical evidence as any thing in the hiftory of Socrates, has been fo ob- fcured { " 3 fcureci by falfe hypothefes,and a miftaken zeal for the character of the philofopher, that it was near being confined to obli- vion ; but it could not efcape the pene- trating eye of the illuftrious Bifhop Sherlock •, -with whofe words upon the fubjedt I (hall be proud to ornament my page. " The apology which Socrates made for himfeif is preferved to us by two the ableft of his fcholars, and the bed writers of antiquity, Plato and Xenophon \ and from both their accounts it appears, that Socrates maintained and after ted before his judges, that he worjhiped the gods of his country, and that he facrificed, in private and in pub- lic, upon the allowed altars, and accord- ing to the rites and cuftoms of the city. After this public confeMlon, fo authen- tically reported by two fo able hands, there can be no doubt of his cafe. He was an idolater, and had not, by his great knowledge and ability, delivered himfeif from the practice of the fuperftition of his country." Then follows the noble contrail: C V ] contrafi between the conduct and fenti- ments of this philofopher, and ihofe of the apoflle Paul, one of the fined pieces of eloquence that ever flowed from the pen of a writer not infpired. To which is fubjoined the following anfwer to a probable cavil. " The manner in which Socrates died was the calmeft and the bravefl in the world, and excludes alt pretention to fay that he diffembled his opinion and practice before his judges,,, out of any fear or meannefs of fpirit; vices with which he was never taxed,, and of which he feems to have been incapable." —Sherlock, voL I. difc. 4. pari 2. Nor can I fee any better foundation for a fuppofition that he indulged himfelf in the double doctrine, which many other philofophers thought proper to maintain. He does not appear, like them, to have had any difiinction of cfoteric and exote- ric principles, of a religion for the wife, and another for the vulgar. The plain truth, which accounts for this, and every other difficulty in the hiflory of his re- ligion, C 14 ] ligion, is this : His theological {pecula- tions were altogether of a general kind; nor did he ever allow himfelf to defcend into the examination of minute particu- lars concerning matters which he thought beyond the comprehenfion of any human faculties. His ftrong reafon induced him to believe, and enabled him moft admirably to defend, the exiftence of an intelligent Providence. His education furnifhed him with the names and offices of numerous deities, whofe exiftence, though he could not nor ever tried to prove, he never once prefumed to dis- pute (I). Such enquiries he thought prefumptuous, and had no good opinion of their utility. The idle fables related of them he probably rejected as the fig- ments of inventive brains *, but thefe might be falfe without affecting the ex- iftence of thofe beings, of whofe interpofi- tion in the conduct of human affairs he feems not to have entertained the fmalleft doubt. This evidently appears from every hiftory of his life, and from every rcgifkr [ iS 1 regifter of his opinions. Such being his eftablimed principles, he was naturally led from thence to the belief in omens, dreams, oracles, and divinations, of every name and fpecies ; a belief which, as he took it up without any rigorous examina- tion, did doubtlefs, according to the inva- riable nature of fuch ideas, grow habitual and inveterate in his mind. In the firft: chapter of the memoirs written by Xeno- phon,the creed of Socrates is very exactly ilated $ in it, not the words, but the opi- nions of the fage, are delivered ; and I think it hardly poilible to read it through with attention, without being convinced that he had at lead as much faith in the religion of Athens, as in this eilay is at- tributed to him. The whole chapter is fo eafily read, and fo well worthy of a perufal, thatlfhal! extract but little for my prefent purpofe, choofing rather to refer my readers to Xenophon himfelf. " Concerning mat- ters of uncertain event, he fent his friends to enquire by divination whether or not they [ 16 ] they ought to be undertaken." — §. 6. Of this his practice, the writer of the account had the moil unequivocal knowledge, for he had experienced it in a caie of his own(K). "He thought that neither private families nor public bufmefs could properly be adminifiered without the aid of divination." — §.7. " Far from con- fining the knowledge of the gods to par- tial matters, as was done by fome, he thought them omnifcient and omnipre- fent-, and believed that on every fuitable occaficn in human life, they gave intima- tions to direct the conduct of men." — §. 19. If we want further proof, that Socrates was not above the common no- tions of divination, we may recollect that the occafion of his admirable difcourfe with Aridodemus on the exigence of the Gods, recorded in the fame book of memoirs, Was not only his neglect ot woi fhip, but his diiregard of the arts of divining. But why do I multiply autho- rities from a book abounding with them; a book lb certain to repay, in a multi- 2 plici.y [ H 1 plicity of ways, the attention of thofe who coniult it r Known it certainly is, in fome degree, to all who have advanced as far only as to the threfhold of academi- cal inftruction ; but fuch is it, that thofe who know it beft may derive fome ad- vantages from knowing it yet better ♦, the more it is confidered the more it will be admired, and the better will that heart be on which its fimple and elegant docu- ments are moft deeply engraven. The ftudy of the Life of Socrates will furnifh abundance of collateral evidence to the point here argued, and will tend to the fame good purpofes of morality. After what has been faid, it will apear no longer wonderful that Socrates, in his lateft days of life, mould be moved by an ambiguous dream to turn his thoughts to poetry, and addrefs an hymn to Apollo : —and that even his dying injunctions re- lated to the performance of a vow previ* ouily made to the falfe deity ^Efculapius; actions, in vain attempted to be ac- counted for on the notion of irony or C ridicule C 18 ] ridicule (L), yet too well fupported by hiftorical evidence not to be believed ; which therefore have embarrafTed, and ever will embarrafs, thofe who fuppofe him to have been ftiperior to every fpe- cies of fu perdition. Having proceeded fo far as this, I can hardly perfuade myfelf that my readers will not be before-hand with me in form- ing to themfelves the conjecture which I am about to offer; u That Socrates, by the exprej/ions ufually tinderftood to refer to his Demon, alluded only to Jbtne fpecies of divination perfectly analogous to the omens of his age and country j and it might at leaft pafs current as a probable hypothe- fis, could I give it no further fupport. But there is no need to abandon it in a ftate of fuch imperfection ; the exprefs teftimony of Xenophon is for it, and that teftimony fo amply illuftrated by the words of a fubfequent Greek writer and philofopher, that not the flighted doubt of its meaning can remain. " Socrates/' C 19 ] " Socrates," fays his beft and trued difciple, " was accufed of having intro- duced new deities ; an accufation which feems to me to have arifen chiefly from what was commonly reported as a faying of his, that the Deity • gave him intima- tions. But in fo faying, he introduced nothing more new than all others do that believe in divination ; who, when they employ auguries, and the like, to that purpofe, never fuppofe any knowledge of what is fought to refide in the bird, or whatever elfe it be that furnifhes the omen ; but that the gods, by the agency of thefe, declare it. The fame was the opinion of Socrates ; but they (not ex- prefling themfelves with accuracy) affirm themfelves to be advifed by the birds, &c. whereas he was always careful to re- fer the advice to that power whence he (and they alfo) conceived it really to pro ceed s therefore he faid that the Deity QA) * It fhould be recollected, that the Greek term fxifiotiov has an ambiguity, which in Englifli can- not be preferred . C 2 gave e * i gave him the fignal." In making this tianflation of the words of Xenophon, my endeavour has been rather to explain and illuftrate his meaning, and to ftate his argument clearly, than to adhere ex- actly to his exprefiions ; but that in fo doing I. have taken no unwarrantable li- berties, the original pafTage in the notes, which I would wifh every reader to con- fult, will fufficiently demonftrate(N) : in my opinion, unlefs- the argument pro- ceed upon the principles here attributed to it, there is neither found reafoning, nor any real defence of Socrates, contained in the pafTage. The refutation of the fame charge is repeated in the apology of Xenophon, in terms very fimilar to thofe here employed, but flill more ftrongly pointing to the conclufion which I deduce from them. " How is it," fays Socrates, " that I am guilty of intro- ducing new deities, in that I fay that the voice of the Divinity gives me notice what I (hall do } — All men, as well as myfelf, araof opinion, that the Divinity forefees the [ 21 ] the future, and to whom he pleafes fig- nifies it: but the difference between us is this •, they name the birds, the omens, &c. as the foretellers of what is to come : I call the fame thing the Divinity (or the Deity) ; and I think that, in fo faying, I fpeak more truly and more refpe&fully than thofe do who attribute to birds the power which belongs to the gods (O)." And fo far was this writer from annexing to the words in difpute any idea of a Demon, that in the very next paragraph he fubftitutes for them a god, and the gods, as expreffions perfectly equiva- lent. This furely is fufficiently ftrong ; but yet, to give it ftill greater weight, we find, in the elegant treatife of Plutarch upon the genius of Socrates (P), a pafTage fo (Irongly pointed to our purpofe, that a commentary, exprefsly written to il- luftrate it, could not more happily have performed that office. It is fair, how- ever, previoufly to remark, that the au- thor himfelf, if his opinion can be ga • C 3 thered [ 22 ] thercd from a dialogue in which the queftion receives no formal folution, ap- pears inclined to regard the Demon of Socrates as being actually one of thofe mediatorial agents fo confpicuous in the Platonic fyftem. In this dialogue a per- fonage, named Galaxidorus, is made to defend the very hypothefis here infifted upon, that probably the divination of of Socrates was a mere omen, and even one fo arbitrary and common as the acl: of fneezing (Q^). And for the mode of expreflion employed by the phiiofopher, he accounts exactly as Xenophon, when his words are rightly underftood, is founc} to have done ; but, fortunately for my argument, in terms ftill more explicit and decifive : u I turn," fays he, " to you, Polymnis, who exprefs a wonder that Socrates, a man, whofe peculiar merit it was, that, by unoftentatious fimplicity, he accommodated philofophy to the ufes of human life, fhould not have called this fign a fneeze or a found, if fnch it were, but in a ftyle of tragic pomp, the Deity. 4 On C *3 ] On the contrary, I rather fhould have wondered, if a man fo perfect as So- crates in the art of fpeaking, and in the due application of proper terms> had faid that the fneeze gave him the intimation, inflead of attributing it to the Deity. As if any one fhould fay that he was wounded by a dart, rather than with a dart, by the perfon who threw it, or that the weight of any thing is eftimated by the fcales, inftead of faying that it is performed with the fcales, by the man who weighs with them. For a work is not properly to be afcribed to an inftrument, but to him who poflefTes the inftrument, and ap- plies it to its proper office-, and the fign, in the prefent queftion, is the inftrument which that power employs from whom the intimation proceeds (R)." What is this but the very dtftindtion infifted upon by Xenophon ? that other perfons, though they believed the divination to proceed from the gods, commonly mentioned the birds, &c. as the authors of it, confound- ing the inftrument of divination with C 4 the [ M ] the real agents in it; whereas Socrates was careful to maintain the dignity of the gods, even in his expreflions, by afcribing the whole to them. What might be the very omen which Socrates confidered as inftrumental in the direction of his affairs, is not an im- portant enquiry, nor likely to meet with much fuccefs (S). Galaxidorus re- ports that it was the accidental fneezing of himfelf or friends, on one hand or on the other. That it was fomething fimilar in its nature, feems*- fupported by very flrong authority. The reporter of it in this place is made to fay, that he had it from a Megaric philofo* pher(T). PofTibly this was the opinion of that fedr. in general •, a feci: remarkable for its flrid and logical precifion in the yfe of words. We are told alfo that it was originally circulated by Terpfion, one of the few non-heretical Socratics, and one of thofe actually prefent at the death of that great man, as we learn from the Phocdp of Plato. Thus [ *$ ] Thus have we dated and fupported a very clear account ; namely, that the divinations of Socrates were perfectly ana- logous to thofe in common ufe at the time in which he lived ♦, but that he, from a fcrupulous exaclnefs in his expref- fions (and probably alfo with a defire to inculcate, as frequently as poffible, the notion of a conftantly active and fuper- intending Providence) chofe rather to refer his divination always to its primary and original caufe, the gods, than to their fecondary and unconlcious inftruments, the omens by which it was conveyed* In confequence of thefe ideas, he ap- propriated to the fubjecl: an expreflion which, firft the malice of his enemies, and fi nee the miftaken zeal of his* friends, have wrefted to his difad vantage, as if he had pretended to a communica- tion with fome attendant Demon ; than which nothing could be more remote from his ideas (U). It appears, indeed, that he conceived the particular fignal or omen by which he was directed to be fomething fcmething in a manner appropriated to himfelf; or at lead more accurately obferved and attended to by him than by others. But in this there is nothing repugnant to the common notions of prophetic warnings in his and every age, nor in the lead fubverfive of what has been here advanced. From this repre- fentation of the matter, it will appear that there is, in the hiftory of this extra- ordinary man, nothing which can coun- tenance the vague and romantic notion of attendant tutelar Demons (W); nor any thing which can in the lead invalidate our conceptions of his ftricl integrity and open difpofition : a conclufion, which every lover of philofophy will doubtlefs em- brace with pleafure, if the arguments and authorities which form the founda- tion of it be efteemed of fufficient ftrength. NOTES. t *7 J NOTES. (A) /^\N E of the lateft writers upon \^P this fubjedl, who may cer- tainly difpute the palm of diligence with mod of his predecefTors, has declared himfelf incapable of forming a decifion upon it. His words are thefe : " In ta'nfa itaque rei obfcuritate, et difficultatum ex utraque parte ancipiti et gravi numero, certi quid definire tan turn non impofll-- bile eft : nee fcrendum segre eft, fi cauti,et ad regulas fidei hiftoricse attenti ledtores hiftorise Socraticze, judicium prorfus fufpendant, et hoc unum pro- nuncient, — non liquere. Certe fi ulla hiflorte C 28 ] hiftoria veteris particula eft, quse quam incerta vetcrum facta et fata fint, quam- que dubiam vetus hiftoria legentibus fe offerat, demonftrat, hoc de genio So- cratis argumentum eft, unde quam necef- farius fit Pyrrhonifnrus hiftoricus, fobria ratione inftitutus, quilibet, nemine mo- nente, intelligit." And again : " Ma- lumus l7Ts%Hv y quam vel ex una vel altera parte audacius conjiciendo veritatis et ve- rifimilitudinis tranfmigrare limites : rati et hoc in veteri hiftoria prodeffe, ut nof- camus, qua? fciri nequeant." Brucker, Hijlor. Crit. Philof, par, II. lib. II. cap. II. § 9. Another gives it as his opinion that it cannot ever be fettled : " Sur une matiere fi obfcure, et fi eloignee de nous, & qui depuis fi long terns eft en contestation, il ne faut pas pretendre etablir rien de fi aiTeure qu'il ne refte toujours quelque doutes et quelque dif- ficulties a combattre." Charpentier y Vie de Socrate,p. 115. (B) Of the ancients, Plutarch, Maxi- mus Tyrius, and Apuleius, have treated exprefsly [ 29 ] exprefsly of the genius or demon of So- crates. Maximus has fet apart two dif- fertations for that purpofe. iElian has afligned a chapter to it in his various hiftory; which is however little more than a memorandum extracted from the Theages of Plato. Of the moderns, the chief who have treated it at large are Olearius, in a differtation inferted in tha beft editions of Stanley's Lives of the Philofophers ; M. Fraguier, in the fourth volume of the Memoirs of the French Academy ; or the Choix des Memoiree, vol. III. publifhed at London ; and Brucker, in his Critical Hiftory of Philo- fophy. All the compilers of the life of Socrates of courfe have touched upon this fubjeft, of whom the chief are M. Charpentier in France, and Mr. Gilbert Cooper in England. M. Rollin has given to it the fecond fection of ch. IV. b. IX. in his Ancient Hiftory, being there employed about the hiftory of this phi- lofopher. To give a catalogue of thofe authors who have occafionally delivered their [ 30 3 their fentiments upon this matter, would appear likeoftentation, and could not be of any great ufe. Thofe who wifh to be referred to them, will find that defire amply gratified by the learned authors of the modern difiertations above men- tioned. It ought not to be omitted that the Theages, and the Apology of Plato, are the parts of his works where informa- tion is chiefly to be fought. Mention is alfo made of the Socratic divination in the Euthyphron, the Theastetus, and per- haps elfewhcre. Cicero copies from Plato his account of it ; and from him we. learn that Antipater of Tarfus had made a large collection of the divinations of Socrates : but the work is loft. So ample reference will be made hereafter to the writings of Xenophon, that it is unnecefTary to fay any thing in this place of- his authority in the decifion of this queltion. (C) It is indeed mentioned by Ori- gen contra Celf. p. 280. (edit. Cantab.) that the whole account was by fome in his [ 3* 1 his days dilbelieved. But though thefc incredulous perfons are there treated as calumniators, I do not recoiled" -that they are faid to have accompanied their unbelief with a farcafm fo illiberal. (D) The Platonic notions of demons are pretty generally known. Thofe to whom any information upon that fubje& may happen to be neceflary, will meet with it abundantly in the XVth difTerta- tion of Maximus Tyrius (edit. Reilke), in which it is endeavoured to be proved, that fuch agents as demons are fuppofed to be, muft neceflarily cxift, to preferve the chain of beings unbroken. That the departed fouls of good men were fup- pofed to hold this rank and office, we learn in Plutarch's treatife, already cited, By the vifion of Timarchus the Chaero- nean, in the Cave of Trophonius, we are informed that fouls differ in their degree of union with the body 5 that fome are entirely immerfed in it 5 but that others have a pure part floating without, of more or lefs magnitude, which is unaf- fected C 32 ] fe&ed by the paflions : this is by men in general called wfc but by thofe who are rightly intruded, the demon. It is eafy to fee, through the veil of this allegory, an opinion very fimilar to that which fup- pofes the demon of Socrates to mean his understanding only. (E) Namely, Tertullian, Laclantius, and Minucius Felix. Fortunately, M. Dacier was certain that the contrary was true. Une marque certain que Socrate a ete v entablement conduit par un bon ge- nie, c'elt qu'il a ete toute fa vie pieufe, temperant et jufte •, qu'il a toujours pris le bon parti en tout, qu'il n'a jamais fait tort a perfonne, qu'il a toujours fait la guerre au vice, et combattu les fauffes religions , et qu'il a travaille toute fa vie a rendre les hommes plus gens de bien, et a leur faire connoitre la verite et la juftice. Toute la difficulte eft de fa voir comment ce genie fe faifoit entendre a lui, &c. Argument de VApologie^ &c. To this latter aflertion the learned author will perhaps find as many diffentient 5 readers [ 33 ] readers as to the former. But he appears to have been in a very pofitive temper of mind when he wrote the argument in queftion, for he tells us immediately after, H ecoit fans doute une infpiration." It may not be amifs to obierve, that M. Da- cier founded this implicitbelief, on a text of Scripture, which by no means leads to all that he would deduce from it, atleaft not necefTarily; namely, Math. XVIII. 10. fee Camero and Groiius on the place. Whitby fays, " I do not think that the opinion concerning one particular angel having the cuflody of one foul as his charge, hath any good foundation in the holy Scriptures." The paffage in the Acts, ch. XII. v. 15. certainly proves no more than that the perfons to whom the appearance of St. Peter was related, were prepofTefTed with that opinion. (F) Olearius fays, " Ne tamen quod unicoPlatonis teftimoniohactenus niti vi- detur, inter fabulas rejiciendum penitus efle aliquis exiftimet, cum et alia multa de Socrate credatur finxiiTe, & negleda So- D cratica C 34 ] cratica fimplicitate ad Pythagoricas rrag* 'joXoyictg, & /Egyptiorum commenta (quod acerbe in Epiftola ad /Eichinem repre- hendit Xenophon) fuerit proclivior. Ipjum qucque aud remits Xcnophonlcm, pur'icrl: doctrines Socratica feci at or em aq&rrimum" De Genio Sec. § 4. The pafTage above alluded to, in Xenophon's Epiftie, is this: to is xa/2v eifae Alyuifl* jjpoKrthp'MVj Xj TY,g Ylu^ccyoc^ TcpenmssSQ tc'Ilocc, U)V TO 7T.-p/T/0V PC, [A'/J \J.0.lUm : .7Tl XoOKpcffH YlXr/^zV tpC£ TVQMOttOOCi TCj G&fl QifclTYfe >.L7Y,g, Occafion will be taken, in a future note, to (hew, that the authority of Plato in this matter, is not fo very oppofite to the opinion which I attribute to Xenophon., as by vicious interpretation, and the fanav- ticifm of his followers, it has been majie. Olearius, with all his fhew of deference for Xenophon, adopts implicitly the Pla- tonic dogma. (G) In particular, it has been generally •fuppoied, upon the a (Tertian of Plato, that the fignal attendant unon Socrates acted £ 35 ] a&eddifFuafively alone, v-, C/V. de DivinA. § 4. whereas Xenophon introduces Eu- thydemus, faying to him, wg&rtfftaitiiff cot A T - %$ kcihv xj fed fepe ab ac- tion i bus revocabat, quia Salurnius. But a far more eminent inftance occurs to me, which I cannot prevail upon my fdf to wichrhold. The character of the great Varro for learning and abilities has been acknowledged in every age, 2nd requires no new encomium to let it oft. Who then would fuppofe, that this wife and acute chronologer, in an age when the Romans were beginning to rife above the follies of their popular theology, could have been weak enough to employ his friend Tarutiu?, to call the nativity not C 37 3 not" only of Romulus but of Rome itfelf? Yet that he did fo, we are authorised by Plutarch to afiert. Fit. Rcniul. % 12. He directed that it fnould be done bv a kind of analytic aftrologv, be- cauie, he laid, it rnufl belong to the fame art to predict future fortunes from known nativities, and to difcover nativities un- known from fortunes recorded by hiltory. The refult of this curious procefs was ad- mitted by this great man in his chrono- logical writing as a decided fact. Ci- cero, who was likewife intimate with Ta- rn tius, faw more clearly into the matter, and thus ridicules his fuperftitious enqui- - ry , " O vim maxumam erroris ! etiamhe urbis natalis dies ad lunam et ftellas pertinebat ? &c." BeBivih II. 47. In the fame chapter he fubjoins fome noto- rious inftances of the fallibility of thefe admirers of the Cbaldaic aftrology. The loth lection of Olearius's dirleftation will fupply more ctirious inftances of fu- ptrfiition in fofne who ought to have .bsv ? n wlfer. p 3 (i) w; T [ 3« ] (I) Why Socrates refrained from mi- nute enquiries upon theological fubjedls, Xenophon will inform us, who, in the Kpillle to JEfchines, fpeaks the very lan- guage of his mailer concerning it. 'Or* [xsv ydp toc Bhcc V7r=^ riy<&$, 'c&avji &i?.ov» KTri'xpy} Si i'2 Komjovt rtj$ Hhjvu^-ujs aviag vine approbation. Xcn. Anal. III. c. i. §5. Diog Laert. in Xen. § 4 & 5. It may ferve in fome meafure to ftrengthen the argument, if we confider that this bed difciple of Socrates is faid to have been hTtafelf evsvof/.svog re xcci vrat^ocy Tff^wre'/j^rulo av (M) Some time ago I collected, and have now by me, abundant proof that the words &wg, ol &so\ ro Qhcv, to iuiyimov, are, in the ufage of Xenophon f and many other writers, perfectly fyno- nymous. But the point is fo plain, that I cannot perfuade myfelf it can ever be controverted : I (hall therefore fpare myfelf the trouble of tranicribing thofe memorandums^ Let thofe who think otherwife look only as far as the begin- ning of the 8th fection of the chapter fo often quoted, and fee there in whatfenfe the word luipoviov was underflood by Xe- nophon. L. I. cap. 1. (N) The original paflage is as follows : The words in parenthefes in the tranflation are inferted for the fake of perfpicuity. C 41 ] ci KUl 1 ' 1 ' ' r ' \ ' n ■ Tic^ai. 2QKPATH2 AE hSDEP ErirNHSKEN, OTTOS EAETE. TO AAIMONION FA?E$H 2HMAINEIN. Memorabilia, lib. I. cafe I. § 2. &c. If any perfon doubt the aflertion about the argument, let him endeavour to pur it together according to the words of any modern tranflation whatever. Ac- cording; to the bed that our country has produced, it (lands, if I mifta'ke not, thus: " Socrates was faid to declare that his Genius gave him intimations of the future; but lq this he aiTerted nothing new. [ 42 ] new, nor departed from the general opinion •, for the generality imagine them* felves to be directed in their divinations by the gods> and he, by internal confciouf* nefs, which he chofe to call his genius." Which two things are as far as poflible from being the fame, unlefs my .notions of identity are Angularly incorrect Sub* ilitute my interpretation, and ail is plain: u they think themfelves to be directed by the gods, and be likewife ; in declar- ing which he ufually employed the phrafe, 70 impim? ; and from the ambi* guity of this, occafion was taken to form an accufation again ft him." (O) YL&ivd ys {j.Yjv ^ouyLOvia 'zzoog &v lyw HcrtyzpoiiAi Kzyuiv, on ©EOT ^h (pCOVYl (pcuvsjczi (TviiJLcciviicroc ,o, ri yprj zpoihv; — *AhXa, jj^vJoi *) to WfoaS&Ui yi TON ©EON TO JJL-XXOV, it TO i&pQ0TJfJt4jyV&V CO fakhr^ou, ^ TdTo ooo-7T$p tyoj fajju, xtoo Tzrdvjss £ hiy&rt ^ vopi£xcriy* dK7^ 61 jtsv olocvig re, £, QYiy^S, Xj vvi&iteg ts, £ jjuiv]&g cyopdgtsrtv Txg zTpooyjuaiwjctg Svat, eyco 5„ : TOTTO A.CCIUW10V K0lhJ*y KCCl Ot^lCil tSTOtig ONO* C 43 ] , ynv tHjif toi; q^vliiv ccyccjiS&ijoov ty^v TflN GEQN ouvoljj.iv* Xe?i, Apoh Socr. § I2v£sfe. On reviewing this paffage, I am not cer- tain whether it be not (till more plain in the original words than in my tranflation. It is worth remarking, that in the 8th feet ion of the fame apology, Socrates fpeaking of the fame matters, ufes cl ©Si in Head of to dcnuovicv, ^Q(Bi&£ oi ol Gtol (P) This treatife is perhaps one of the molt elegant models that time has fpared. Befides the difcourfes concerning So- crates, which are interefting and curious^ it contains a circumftantial and a very ftriking account of a mod important re- volution in Thebes. It is delivered by one of the principal actors in it, and contains fome very mafterly ftrokes of dramatic conduct, and fome admirable traits of that extraordinary man Epa- minondas. He who can read without emotion the account of the confirmation .into which the confpirators afTembled at the houfe of Charon were thrown, on his 5 being [ 44 ] being fent for by the tyrants ; his offer of his fon as a pledge of his fidelity; and the heroical behaviour of that brave youth ; mud have lels feeling than he ought to have. ( Q^) Though we fhould fuppofe that a fneeze was the very omen employed by Socrates, his expreflion concerning it would have nothing in it very extraor- dinary. Ariftotle fays, to-j zfjczpjja^ ©£ C \ rr/x^oi, TrobL § XXXIII. cap. 7. and we find it confidered, by Xenophon and his whole army, in no very different light. Tsto S« "hiyovjog at/r», 'ufja.pvvjaiTiq* ceiixa-avjag m 61 ggccTiccTcziy ziravjsg \jacc, cp^y} ZBrfxxflS* xvy/jo-av tov Qsov. Xj &vJb$caP eurs, Aokh fact) cti cwfysg, Itth w%pl y$y\ zvpog ] zfjoipiJLOv, [£?}$£ x\y$ow f to try,- fjiHov, aXha, Tpozyixug Txrayv to Sczifxcvicv WYOjACtfa. iyu) yot^ av txvc&vtiov i9civu.a?cv dvlpog ux^a o*ici?.iy$ h pvj to lai^ovtoy uKka, TQ'J [ 4* n a tic vtto t£ [£iX%g (potty t:-tpu.\7ocii, y;r r« f3&gcg • Jtto t5 £uy8, f&l t^j y>yo3 uVo t& IgavTog* « y#£ 7« c£y#;-# to spyov, &AA 8 *L 70 Qp}owov 9 co yjjT{icu t&(>qc to tpycv. Opy&VQV Si 7/ £ to CYjfjLHOv, co y^v^ai to cryj par, -cv. Z)* G^»w Seer. p. 301. £V/. Keljle, (S) To gratify our curiofity concernr ing the omen by which Socrates was guided we have little or no light ; but it may be fome confolation, under that dis- appointment, to recollect that the con r temporaries and even the auditors of our philofopher ? were pretty much in the fame cafe. If we may credit what Plu- tarch makes Simmias the Theban declare as the re f ult of hjs own experience, was not eafy then to gain information upon the fubjecl:, even from the fage himfelf: aCrcg Si (0 Hipploig) 1&jLpmr% filjv tp>] KSTSPt TXT00V S^QJASriS TTOTc, ^7} TIS/JHY 6t7rox.pi 7H $Mj*QVl£, TO TOT ©EOT (TYl^LHOV, to f-iyjvog g-'/juhcv. — OEION ri, ?£ S&^usy/cy. It is true that in the fame piece he fpeaks of it as fomething wonderful and pecu- liar to himfelf •, but an uncommon warn- ing, lingular from the regularity or fre- quency of its recurrence, might eafily be iuppcfed to have been conveyed in an ordinary manner, or in fome way at leaft analogous to the common omens. So in the Theages, where we Mnd ij Sv^ixig avri] in oaiucyiz tztz, may we not fairly fub- ftitute r£ 0i5 ***?*, as equivalent, a ;d un- derhand it of the divine power in general, inftead of tranflating it " the power of this demoji ?" I would afk any attentive reader of the Ph^edo, what conclufion he can draw from the account there given by Socrates of his reafons for undertaking to compofe verfes, and of the choice of his fubjecW I can/ee nothing in it but E 2 a moll: C $% ] a mod fcrupulous attention to the fup* pofed divine admonition, and a defiremofl ftrongly to propitiate Apollo. More might eafily be faid upon this fubjedt, but it feems unneceflary. I will add only, that if there are in Plato's writings anypaflages which will admit of no con- flruclion but fuch as favours the notion of a demon in this matter, either I have not ever met with them, or have fuffered them to pafs me unnoticed. I confefs, I have not very accurately fought them, thinking it needlefs to fupport fo (Irong an evidence as has been adduced, by the concurrence of a weaker teftimony. (W) If the opinion of the reality of Socrates's demon were flill prevalent, it might be requifite to fay fomething againft the argument which might be deduced for its fupport, from the boafted veracity of his predictions, which we find afierted even by Xenophon. Me- morab* L I. c. i . The infpiration of the Delphic oracle might be defended upon the fame ground. Infallibility is eafily claimed, C 53 3 claimed, and is maintained without much difficulty, fo long as the tafk of interpre- tation remains in the hands of prejudice and fuperftition. Nor is it by any means neceflary that impofture fhould bear a part in fuch pretentions, the firft deceit of thele pretenders is often pra&ifed upon themfelves. Euthyphron makes a fimi- lar claim in the dialogue which bears his name, and probably from a fimilar caufe. F I N I S, C 49 ] ct exiftimationem, qua difcipuli pra- ceptores plerumque profequuntur, facile ilium, fenfum verborum Socratis ipfis perfuafifTe, qui honori prasceptoris maxi- me conducere videretur. De Platone fane ex illis, quae hactenus diximus, om- nibus manifeftum eft, eum vel ita r enfiire, vel aliis ut ita fentirent, perluadere vo- luifle. Eumque fequitur tota recen- tiorum Platonicorum fchola, quse valde in dignitate hujus genii, aliifque quae ad eum pertinent celebrandis, eft ingeniofa. (T) The Greek is MzyagiKx mog YiKtsa-ot* Flut. VIII. p. 296. which fignifies not a Megarenfian or a perfon of Megara, as it is utually tranflated, but a Megaric phi- lofopher, of the feci of Euclides ; the confufion has ariien from the fubfequent mention of Terpficn, who is known to have been of that country. Hence the conjecture of Reifke, who for Ts£- \Jjiuvcg Se Inilvcg would read T^\&nt Ss fy 3 lofes its foundation : it is indeed on many accounts exceptionable. The na- E tional C 50 ] tional word is Msyaxvg, We find them together in this fentence, Msyc&ptMfc. (jff^osgYi) EvKXi&sjs Mc-Ftx^svg, Diog. haerU Fro am. (U) It may, as I have already hinted, be doubted whether Plato really differed in opinion from Xenophon concerning it. In his Theages it is thus fpoken of, flU NH, v\> oTixv yiVYjj&it da jjloi oiJiMzivfi, as JXiAAw T&pQi'fjzlV) TXTX (X>7Tojp07T7l'A TZp^clTH 8c m7T0J£. X) ZOiV Tig JJiOi T00V (plhOOV CtVCL'MlV'jQTCCl Ti, % ysvyfjai jj (poovrj, tolvtqv tSto cctzq\£tzU) x, %k la. zvpccTjuv. Had he thought any thing of a genius, would he not rather have faid, " this advifes me by a voice" than V. f Efay, p. 7. cited [7] cited and referred to d . Such Confent is not to be oppofed rafhly and without Neceffity. And there- fore I had reafon to expect, that if the Enquirer continued to lay any Strefs on the Notion of the Heathens, he would have quite confuted that gene- ral Opinion, and fhewn, that the Scripture Meaning of the Word must have been the fame with the other. But what had we of this fort in the Farther En- quiry ? Not a Syllable. Nothing but peremptory Ailertions. This was evidently fetting up his own Authority in Oppofition to that of all other Criticks* and not reafoning y but dictating to the World. This I complained of in my Reply e . I endeavoured to fhew the Unreafonablenefs of fetching the Senft of the Word in Scripture from Heathen Authors ; and fhewed, that even Mr. Mede himfelf agreed with the other learned Men in this Point f . Now how does the Author of the Review act? Why, he very fairly deferts the Enquirer. With regard to the great Point, which fb much wanted Proof, and on which fo much depended, he is ab- folutely filent g . Neither Reafons nor Authorities have d Effhy, p. 8. e Reply, p. 2, 3. f Ibid. p. 4. s In the 20 th and 2i ft Pages of the Review we have indeed thefe Words. " It is one thing to punilh Injuftice; it is ano- " ther to be immoral, and promote and infpire Fraud and " Wickednefs. This was never imputed to Demons anciently ; " the other was : And therefore to underfland a Greek Book, " where the Word Demon occurs often without any Definition " of it, it must be neceffary to know what was the Notion of ** that Word in Greek, before and at the Time when fuch Book " was wrote." This I cite as the only Paffage which has fo much as the Air of Reafoning. From the illative Particle therefore, one would think it a Conclufion from what went before. But it is a Conclufion without any Premi/fes to fupport it. If the Heathens underftood Demon, as this Gentleman reprefents them, this can't prove it to be necejfary to confult them in order to know the Senfe of Scripture. And tho' the facred Writers have no where given a formal Definition of the Word Demon, yet they have fufficiently guarded againft Mifconftrudions, by af- B 2 figning [8] have the leafl Weight. He goes on heaping upon us. frejh Teftimonies from Heathen Authors^ as if their Importance^ in order to a right underftanding of the Scriptures^ were undeniable. Surely this Me- thod, to give it the fofteft Name, is impertinent \ nor is it poflible for any Controverfy to be thus decided. Th e Reader fees, that I had no need to concern my felf about the Heathen Authorities, and that the Caufe I defended was fecure enough, without producing any, till the Principle above-mentioned could be proved. But notwithstanding this, I went farther, and in order to manifeft the Falfehood of it, and at the fame time to throw fome Light in upon the Subject, I endeavoured to mew fome different Senfes in which the Heathens ufed the Word. Demon , and their great Perplexities and Inconfiftencies on this Subject : I obferved, that the Enquirer had himfelf departed from the general ArTertion he had before made g , and that his Account of the Heathen Demonology is both partial and unjuft h : And I la- bour'd to confute the whole Scheme at once,by fhew- ing, that even the Heathens ufed the Word Demons in an UlSenfe, and that very probably they fometimes, underftood by them wicked and noxious Beings, fu- perior to Men '. This laft is the main Particular which the Review concerns itfelf about : And his Replies to my Reafoning on it, tho', were they all allowed, the general Caufe would not be affected, iigning to thefe fuch A&ions as could never be applied to de- parted Souls, or Men naturally di leafed. I mutt have leave to fay, that the Parts of the Goipels which gave Rife to this Dif- pute, till a much clearer and better Account be given of them, are fufficient Inftances of this. And as to the " Notion of the * Word" among the Jews " at the Time when" thefe " Books " were wrote," it will fcarce be denied to be on the fide of the Letter. 8 Rtpfy* P- 5- £ #"/. p. 6— —17. J JW- p. 17— —28. {hall [9] (hall be diftine*tly confider'd, and, I hope, clearly refuted. In the Farther Enquiry k it is propofed " to exa- c< mine both the Old and New Teftament, to fee " the Notion of Aotipdvuv in them, and whether " they are not to be interpreted confident with the " Notion [of the Heathens, before] at large ex- " plained." Here alfo I followed him, and by a diftincl: View of moft of the Texts in the Old Tefta- ment, and of all from the New, I endeavoured to expofe the Idlenefs of the Attempt, and to vindi- cate the common Interpretation of the Word 1 . Here then I might, if ever, have expected fome Anfwer. And yet, I know not how it has hap- pened, even in this Cafe the Review in a manner leaves his Friend the Enquirer. We are indeed told, * c that powerful and mifchievous Devils m are no u where to be met with in the Old Teftament." But not an Anfwer is vouchfafed to any one thing which I offer'd in considering the feveral Texts therein ; and thefe Confiderations, if they ftand good, evi-* dently prove that Point. And as to the New Tefta- ment, there are, I think, only four Texts, my De- fenfe of which is taken any Notice of. And, tho* there are in the Review fome other Objections, which I had either anfwered or obviated before * ; yet, as thefe are urged inOppofition to fome of the other Gentlemen engaged with me, I mall leave it to them to confider them, if they think proper, * Farther Enquiry, p. 25. 1 Reply, p. 29, &c. m Rev. p. S. n An Inftance of this we have, Rev. p. 44, 45. where the Obje&ions about, This kind can come forth by nothing but by Prayer andFafting, are again ferved up to us in a more confufed man- ner: and no notice taken of the Anfwers which were given in the Effay, p. 51 ■ 57. Thus again, what we havcRw. p. 41, 42. was obviated in the Reply, 91, 92, 93. the particular Reafoning of which remains unajifwered. And fo in many ©ther Places. and [ IO] and confine my felf to fpeak to thofe Points, on which I am exprefsly refer'd to. From this fhort and general View of the State of our Debate, it is eafy to fee how far the Review is from being a full Defenfe of the Enquiries ,. or a fufficient Anfwer to the Effay and Reply. Let us however confider what he has faid, and this firft with regard to the Heathen Writers, and fecondly with regard to the Holy Scriptures. It is, it feems, a certain Principle ', an Axiom or Poflulatum to be admitted without any Proofs that the Scripture Demons are the fame with thofe acknow- ledged by the Heathens. Unreafonable as this may appear, let us oblige the Author, and for once al- low it. But then, if the Heathens ever ufed the Word in a very ill Senfe, for wicked and noxious Be- ings of a fuperior Order to Men, then the Scripture- Demons may (till be fetch Beings. For fuppofing, that facred Writers are to be interpreted according to the profane Writers, yet certainly they might ufe this Word in any Senfe, in which thefe ufed it. One^ Point then which the Reply ° undertook to prove* and which was intended as no other than an Argu- ment ad Hominem, was, that among other Senfes of the Word, that above-mentioned was one. In order to this I obferved, that the Author of the Farther Enquiry had himfelf owned, that cc the Chaldeans- iC fuppofed two Principles, a good Demon and an " evil Demon. The former's Name was Zeus and, " Oromafdes ; the latter was called Ades and Ari- H manius p ." And from hence I thought it clear, that the Gentleman allow 'd " an evil Demon, which u can't be pretended to have been the Soul of a, 7T0 ( lA7ra<0<, &T3T£0 7TCU01, KvtflOI. And aS tO the latter part, though zsahafjuiou®- may have the Meaning which the Gentleman afligns it, yet he cannot be ignorant, that its original Senfe rather re- lates to Guilt, than to Punifhment, and that it de- notes any wicked, pernicious, murdering Being. I mall therefore take leave to give another Translation of this difficult Paflage, by which it will appear, that every Word in it is applicable to what the Review thinks the Heathens had no Notion of, f* Devils, immoral, malignant Beings. 3 ' Of De- mons others, which confirm Curfes, are called wicked* deftruclive, execrable, who are inftrumental in bringing Evils on Men, and plaguing, punilhing, or murdering them z . As to what is faid in p. 12, 13, of the Review, tho' it is in that Part which relates to me, I do not think my felf concerned, having not made ufe of the Citations there pretended to be explain'd h . But p. 14. we meet with a Sentence or two, which I can't forbear animadverting upon. < c The Rule " among the Ancients was not to impute Evil to * c evil Demons or Devils, of which they knew no- vctToi. The Latin Tranflation is, Qui autem inferunt> exitiales, pejliLntes, malitioji, & homicide. For the fake of Shortnefs, I muft refer the Reader to any large Lexicon for Inftances of thefe Words being ufed in the Senfe in which I haye underftood them. h I would not be underftood, as if I thought the Citations not to the Purpofe. That from Pindar is certainly fo. But the Defenfe of it belongs properly to another hand. 3 " thin g* [ i7l Xi thing,but to thejufticeof theGods; and they made * c no fcruple to fay, as Euripides makes Iphigenia^ <" I can 9 1 think any of the Demons to be evil They ', 87»s v7ro (px JttWn- cr«f, a>f« xj s tu, (pccvhx Ji»- (jlovkc X; ficcrxxvx, zvootrCpQovxvIx toT<; etyxdeTq xvfycc ixiiwo |xoip«s utira, vita rihdjTM ToyfiHriv. Plutarch. in Dion. N. B. I have tranflated rov uroirulotlw, abfurd as it may feem, and believe that Plutarch called it fo in relation to their Senti- ments, whom he had juft before mentioned. For if he had himfelf thought the Opinion moft abfurd, how was it poflibie for him to have once doubted, whether it mould be received or not ? Could the bare Authority of Brutus and Dion make a real Abfurdity credible ? But however this be, abfurd or not, it is declared to be a 'very ancient Opinion, which is fufficient to the prefent Purpofe of the Quotation. 3, Still [30] 3. Still the Line from Euripides flares us in the Face. And I muft own, that I could hardly think* that fo elegant a Writer would differ in this refped from fo many others, as have mentioned evil De~ mons. This gave me a Curiofity to confult the Paf- fage itfelf. And the Confequence of doing fo was only an Increafe of my Surprize, not that Euripides mould fay fo ftrange a Thing, but that any Man of Senfe mould produce him to vouch what he never intended nor thought of. The Words indeed, as detached from what went before, appear ftrong on the Side of the Reviezv. But let us but take in the Occafion on which they were fpoken, and the Manner in which they are introduced, and nothing can well be farther from his Purpofe. Jphigenia is here reprefented as complaining of Diana on ac- count of the human Sacrifices which were offered to her. The Words, which the Poet puts into her Mouth on this Occafion, are extremely beautiful ; nor mall I fear the Difpleafure of the Reader, for giving them at large even in a Profe Tranflation s . u I can't but condemn the Counfels of this God- defs - 9 mould any Mortal but touch a dead Body, or a Woman in her Uncleannefs, me forbids him to come to her Altars, as being defiled. And yet fhe herfelf is pleafed with human Sacri- 8 Tec T>i5 0£» 3 /^'V^'/K'*' (re^l(TfJuet]x t Bso/juuv isnfpyi*, [AVTctpo* ax, viya^ivri. Avrti *f $v Ar t TU TCTKuTlW CCflixSiuv. lyoj {liiV uv T* TctvluXe Qeoicriv ifiaLpuT* ' Anisct x^iW, zs-MiPoq i) upon cctifjbovat itixi xxkoi. Eurip. Iphig. inTaur. v. 380, Sec. " fices. [21 ] Ci fices. Surely this Ignofance, or Inconfiftency, •* could not proceed from Latona the Wife of " Jupiter. For my part, I look upon the Story " of Tantalus's feafting the Gods, as incredible, or iC that there could be any Delight in eating his Son. " And I imagine, that Men, who are here them- " felves guilty of Murder, firft charged the Divinity " with thisWickednefs. For, in my Opinion, -none of " the Gods are ever wicked" i. e. cruel. We fee now^ from the whole Paflage, that by Demons Euripides could mean nothing but Gods ; and that the Word can't relate to Demons, in the Senfe of the Enquiries and Review, i. e. to departed Souls, unlefs it be af- ferted, that the Heathens knew none of thefe to be wicked ; or at leaft, that they knew no Gods but departed Souls, which is equally falfe and abfurd. 4. With refpect to Tifiphone and the Furies^ this Gentleman is, I believe, as much miftaken. They might fometimes minifter to the Juftice of the Gods, and execute juft Punimment on Sinners. But this is no fort of Proof, that they were not malevolent Beings. Very immoral Perfons may be instrumental in bringing about very wife and good Ends of Providence. And this is certain, that thofe Beings are by Authors reprefented in but an unfavourable Light. Thus Suidas interprets 'E&mv?, K. 2 3, 1 find the Review has by the way a Reflection on me, and endeavours to fet a Sentence of mine inOppofition to the Chriftian Apologias , whofe Cre- dit I had before vindicated, and, for aught appears yet, unanfwerably. This Gentleman fays, " the " Author of the Reply feems to imagine, that Jupiter, Mercury, &c. had not been Men at all, but were imaginary Beings. If this be a conteft- ed Point by the Author of the Reply, I only defire him to confute the Chriftian Apologifts ; ' and particularly Tertullian's Apology, Ch. 10, If, Arnobius, &c. Now here I muft firft complain of a Mifreprefentation. A Sentiment is afcribed to me, which, I think, cannot be drawn from my Words. I had obferved the infamous Characters of many of the Heathen Deities, and then added, This is the general Account of them •, and if we fet it afide, it will not be eafy to evince, that they had been Men at all, that they were not ima- ginary Beings V Now is this feeming to imagine, that Jupiter, Mercury, &c." [under which &c. all the reft of the Heathen Gods may be concluded] were never Men ? Or wherein do I contradict the Apologifts ? Tertullian, I am fure, fays much the fame. " None of your Gods can you prove free ** from Crime or Vice, unlefs you deny them to " have been Men V So far then I am clear. But perhaps u Reply y p. 8. r The whole Sentence being curious, I lhall give it the Reader. " Volo igitur merita recenfere, an ejufmodi " fint, ut illos in ccelum extulerint, & non potius in imum tar- ** tarum merferint, quern carcerem pcenarum infernarum, cum " vultis, affirmatis. Illuc enim abftrudi folent impii quique in " parentes, & in forores incefti, & maritarum adulteri, & virgi- ** num raptores, & puerorum contaminatores, & qui fseviunt, & * qui occidunt, & qui furantur, & qui decipiunt, & quicunque D 2 * fimiles M a. [ *4 j perhaps what I faid in the 7th Page might give this Gentleman room to fufpect thofe above to have *■.. been my Sentiments. It was there obferved, as * c moft probable, that the Dii major urn gentium were " originally the Sun, Planets, and Elements, &c. <« and that Jupiter might fignify the Air or * c Heaven, Apollo the Sun, Vulcan Fire, &cc." But neither is this Account abfolutely inconfiftent with the Apologias, who can't be proved in this matter to have declared their own Sentiments. There is no Occasion to fuppofe they did fo. It was fufficient for their Argument, that the Opinion that Saturn and Jupiter had been Men, was allowed by the Hea~ thens them/elves. And accordingly Tertullian feems to prefs it as fuch an Argument : Illos homines fuijfe non pojfitis negare, are his Words immediately fol- lowing. — : But I need not have recourfe to this Anfwer. That Varro reckon'd up 300 Jupiters every School-boy knows. And we may fafely al- low him, who was Son of Saturn, to have been a Man, without any Prejudice to that Account above given w . -Befides, it would be a fufficient De- fenfe for me to fay, that it is one thing to contra- dict the Apologias in Matters of Opinion, and ano- ther *' fimiles funtalicujus dei veftri, quern neminem integrum a crimine *' aut fvitio probare poteritis, nifi hominem negaveritis, &c." Ter- tull. Apol. c. 1 1 . N.B. Nay, I am not confcious of having faid any thing on this Point more than the Enquirer himfelf had faid. Thefe are his own Words : " If it can be proved, that " many of the Heathen Deities were nothing but mere ima- U. ginary Beings, who never did in fact exift at all."- Firfi Enq. p. 12. Whoever will confult the PafTage, will find, that this Writer more than feems to imagine this. w I find in the Farth. Enquiry, p. 29. an Inftance which well enough explains this. Diogenes Laertius is quoted to fhew the Sentiments of the Egyptians, " that the Sun and Moon were Gods, *' and that the former was called Ofiris, the latter Ifis but" (adds this Writer) " it is well known, that Ifis and Ofiris . " were great Men deified — ." See alfo p. 16. And alfo Shuck- ford's Connexion, Vol. II. p. 225, 298. and Vol. III. p. 57. where he tells us, that the Ancients ufed to call their Kings and famous Men by the Names of the Luminaries, Elements, cifr . which were their Gods. [25 ] ther to oppofe their direct Testimony in Matters of Fatt. With regard to the former, fuch efpecially as do not relate to their own Religion, they might miftake. With regard to the latter^ fuch efpecially as occurred to them frequently, I don't fee how their Witnefs can be refufed, if they had common Senfe and common Honefty. II. There remains now nothing relating to Heathen Authorities for me to confider. We muft therefore proceed to view what has been faid with regard to the Holy Scriptures. And here, as I ob- ferved before, the Review gives me but little Trou- ble. He objects only to my Explications of four Texts, but one of which relates directly to the Gofpel PoffeJJions •, and I can fee no manner of Dif- ficulty in vindicating thefe. The firft is Rev. ix. 20. On this Text I had declared, that I had " no Skill " in expounding thefe Parts of the Revelations" and therefore " had nothing to do but to look into them. But " could not Men frame Herefies by and that whether my Solution of it be allowed, or not, nothing can be plainer than this, that the Scheme of the Enquirer will no way clear it. For can we imagine, that the Evangelifts would them/elves ufe the Language of Madmen? And yet, that according to the Scheme of the En- quirer they did fo, he has been told already n , nor has he yet attempted to difprove it. But I am far from being out of Hope of vin- dicating my own Way of anfwering the Difficulty. And I think, any Body or Number of Beings may be properly defcribed as one fuch Being, provided nothing is faid of this one, but what is equally ap- plicable to all. The Words a Jew fignify as much an Individual, as the Words a Man, or, an unclean Spirit. And yet when St. Paul faid, Behold, thou art called a Jew °, it will not be thought that he addreffied himfelf to any one particular Perfon -, nor is there any Difficulty in conceiving, that the Expreffion includes a Colleclion of Individuals. A 1 Rqfyy p. 71. m fa-view, p. 56. J[Vid. Eflaj, p, 60,65. • Ram.n. 17. Jew [3*] Jew then, though no Noun of Number ', is here the fame as ye Jews. And thus a Legion of Devils may without any Abfurdity be reprefented as an unclean Spirit, if what is predicated of one does equally re- late to all. Why may not " a Spirit fignify a col- " lective Body of Spirits" as well as a Jew Sig- nify a collective Body of Jews? 1 mall only trouble the Reader with one Inftance more, where the Change of Number is very obfervable. This is in Gene/is xix. 1 5. The An gels haftned Lot And it came to pafs when they had brought them forth abroad, that h e faid And Lot faid unto THEM, Oh, not fi, MY LORD, &C ? Before I conclude, it may be proper to obferve, that by the Refietlion which the Review* complains of, it was not my Intention to reprefent the Enquirer as a Deift, or one who concurred with Woolfton in his wicked Defign. That he laid a great Strefs on a trifling Difficulty, which this Blafphemer had raifed, is certain. He exprefsly declared againft the Solu- tions which learned Men had given, tho' thefe were really as plain and ftrong as could be given in any cafe. In a Word, they were not fo much the Ex- plications of learned Men, as the Explications of the Evangelifts themfelves, who, when compared toge- ther, fet their own Meaning paft all Doubt. To rejedt therefore thefe, feemed to me to be fo far " joining the Cry of the Infidels," reviving their Objections, and ferving their Caufe. This Gentle- man I fuppofe imagin'd, that his own Scheme would effectually anfwer the Difficulty. I mall not at pre- fent difpute this. Yet furely it would have better become a Chriftian to have offered this Anfwer, without crying down thofe which had been before given and approved. But to do this in Terms, in ordet to introduce a novel Scheme, clogged with P Grotius on 1 Mac. xiii . 5 1 . fofyas piy**, has this Remark, Lnallage mmeri. [Praefidiarios enim illos arcis intelligit, qui Ifraeli plurimum nocuerant. Here a l^umber is reprefented as .one Enemy, \ Review, p. 64. [ 3 2 J many and great Difficulties", "which had remaiii'd un- anfwei'd, was indeed making this Scheme neceffary, but, I fear, at the Expence of the' Chriftian Caufe I mu$ agafti repeat it, that I do not "believe our Author defign'd any Injury to this. But I may add, in the excellent Words of a Prelate of our own Church, that " when Do£brines, whatever, the In r " tention of propagating them be, appear inconf.ft* *< ent either with the Whole, or any part of our Re- va.t, oi. acriac, roil \vyyn.%\ % von hfeoca; race viya^iefjavaq ^\' v X ot< > Tu * atQftiiruv' ccFaQtn; {asv ra; afaOaj, *axa$ 01 too; tpavXag,. .Apud Athenag. Legat. pro ChrifHanis. p. 25. Aa^>»< pn the DEMONIACS. 5 jdemons, good beings, guardians of mortal men, and authors of good to mankind;, and wicked men after death, by parity of reafon, muft become other demons, evil beings, tempters of mortal men, and au- thors of evil to mankind. That there were wicked and malignant demons, obftru6ling and envying the virtue and happineis of men, was, according to Plutarch in the fore- cited paffage, a very ancient opinion, tm wavy TtruXatcov • and confequently an opinion that prevailed before our Saviour's time. Thales, one of the firft and beft of the Greek philofophers, diftinguifheth between demons and heroes, (2) affirming demons to bq fpi- ritual fubftances, and heroes to be the fouls of men feparated from bodies, fome good andfome bad. In Homer, Pindar, Ocellus Lucanus and others, philofophers as well as poets, mention is often made of the hate- ful and evil demon, and of evil demons, xuxoSaipoveg ; and the like properties and adlions are afcribed tp them, which we com- monly attribute to evil angels. The very vTtu^m & p-tfi^M vet otfudx kcu xaxa Ton; avD|J and evil and wicked fpir its. So St. Matthew (XII. 43,- 45.) and St: Luke (XI. 24, 26.) " When the unclean " fpirit is gone out of a man,— he taketh " to him k\tn other fpirits more wicked c< A certain woman, whofe " youngeft daughter had an unclean fpirit* cc heard of him, and came and felLat his " vkq tx $iu£o\v, when he told Cor- nelius the Centurion, (A6tsX. 38.) " how M God anointed Jefus of Nazareth with the " Holy Ghoft and with power, who went Ki about doing good, and healing all that and immediately fhe was made ftrait, and glorified God." A fpirit of infirmity may be thought an ambi- guous indeterminate expreflion, but the meaning of it is limited and afcertained, w r hen this fpirit is explained immediately afterwards to be Satan ( cc whom Satan hath " bound, lo, thefe eighteen years") oZotlavuq with the article, the great enemy and ad- verfary of mankind. There are alfo de- moniacs in the gofpel, who yetdifcovernot the leaft tokens or figns of madnefs. They were blind and dumb, but theblindnefsand dumbnefs are attributed to the pofleffion of evil on the DEMONIACS. 17 evil fpints, and the recovery to their ejection. (Matt. IX. 32, 33.) " As they " went out, behold, they brought unto £C him a dumb man poffeffed with a demon : " And when the demon was caft out, the £C dumb fpake -, and the multitudes marvel- " ed, faying, It was never fofeen in Ifrael." (Matt. Xll. 21.) " Then was brought Ci unto him one poffeffed with a demon, «?, non quovis modo infanientes, fed im- purorum fpirituum vi majore correptos atque agitatos. Grot, in Matt. IV. 24. (8) Lightfoot. Hebrew Exerckations on Matt. XVII. 15. Vol. 2. p. 21 1. (9) Medica Sacra in Dr. Stack's tranflation. Cap. 9. At non Judseis tantum, fed et aliis etiam gentibus, in ufu fuit infanos pro da±moniacis habere. Hinc apud Herodotum (Lib. 6. Cap. 84.) rex Clcomenes dicitur non ab ullo damonio ad infaniam redaclus, fed confuetudinc cum Scjthis ebriofus fuijje. on the DEMONIACS. 19 Perfians in his learned hiftory of the reli- gion of the ancient Perfians. The Greeks, and Romans called inline perfons Scupo- i>io\7]7p,oi, vvppohyjTfioi, Lympbatici 9 Larvati^ Cerriti, Bacchantes and the like; as if the demons, or the nymphs, or the Larvae, or Ceres, or Bacchus were the authors of their calamities, tho' what notions they had framed of thefe different beings we cannot tell, very imperfect ones we may be certain., The epilepfy as well as madnefs was called morbus facer a facred difeqfe\ as if it were caufed 'by fome divine power. As Dr. Mead (y) in treating of the demoniacs ob- ferves, " this cuftom of taking madmen for " demoniacs was not fo peculiar to the " jews, but that it prevailed in other na- . (Me- morabi]. Lib. I.) Qoin et Ariftcphanes de coJem morbo gravius urgente voceni xcc:'.t,ccAuo\xv ufurpat, et deterrimum infanise gradum nnn (juumt, fed •/.an.coca^ouui efle prmmnciat. (Vide Plutum, Act. 2. Seen. 3. ver, 38. et A&. 2. Seen. 5. ver. 15.) Hinc etiam, at notat A retains, facer apud illos diclus eft hie morbus, quoniam cl Xenophon ufes this word for Jiirere, to be raging mad or furious. Moreover Ariftophanes, intending to exprefs a high degree of the fame difeafe, employs the word KcMoSaifjLovaiv, and calls the higheft degree of mad nefs, not puviuv, but xa*o- Saipoviuv. Hence a!fo, as Aretsus ob- ferves, this difeafe was called morbus facer, or the facred difeafe, becauje it "was imagined that fome demon had entered into " the man!* The Heathens therefore as well as the Jews attributed thefe diforders to demons, the Jews by demons under- ftanding evil fpirits or devils, the Heathens fome beings, they knew not what, fuperior to mortal men. Jn fhort, certain difeafes, which the ancients afcribed to fupernatural caufes, many of the moderns affeft to con- lider as natural effects. III. The great queftion therefore is, and the moft difficult to be refolved, whether the for by the 1 futtlety and finenefs of their nature they * have accefs to either fubftanee of man. * They can do much by their fpiritual * powers, fo that being invifible and im- € perceptible to fenfe they appear rather in 1 effedt than in their aft.' La£tantius de- fcribes their operations much after the fame manner (4), that c being fpirits not to be 4 feen or felt they irifinuate themfelves into 4 the bodies of men, and fecretly working i within vitiate their health, excite difeafes, c terrify their minds with dreams/ and the like. Cyprian afcribes the like effe6ts to them (5), c they difturb life, difquiet ' fleep, and creeping fecretly into the bodies ' of men terrify their minds, diftort their " limbs, deftroy their health, and provoke i difeafes.' More teftimonies might be cited to minis adoundam fubtilitas et tenutas fua. Multum fpirita- libus viribus licet ut invifibiles et infenfibiles in affectu po- tins quam in a&u itfo appareant. Tertul. Apol. cap. 22. p. 21. Edit. Kigaltii. Pafif. 1675. (4) Qui quoniam funt fpirhus tenues et incomprehenfi- biles, infinuanr fe corporibus hominum, et occuhe in vif- ceribus on the DEMONIACS. 27 to this purpofe - y and indeed they who deny all power and influence of angels demons and fpirits over the bodies and fouls of men, contradict the general belief of mankind as well as the whole tenor of revelation. If the exiftence of fuch beings is admitted, their power cannot be denied/ the one is fo plain a confequence from the other. But though poffibly jthey may have the power of doing thefe things, yet what rea- fon is there to think, or how doth it appear, that they ever exercifed it ? It was, I fup- pofe, the great difficulty of difcovering the caufes and applying the remedies to certain difeafes, which induced men to look higher, and to regard them as the productions of evil fpirits. They were for referring them to fuch caufes, becaufe they were incapable of difcerning other caufes, and could not any other ways account for fuch effects. If in- deed things can be fufliciently explained ceribus operati valetudinem variant, morbos citant, fomnii s animos terrent &c. JLaftant. Lib. 2. Cap. 14. (5) Vitam turbant, fomnos inquietant, irrepentes etiam in corporibus occulte rnentes terrent, membra diftorquent, valetudinem frangunt, morbos laceflunt. Cypr. de JdoJ. Vanit. p. 10. Edit. Felli. Oxon. E 2 upon 28 A DISSERTATION upon natural principles, we fhould not have recourfe to fupernatural. If we can by any means unty the knot ourfelves, we fhoukl not bring in a demon to cut it. But are then the caufes of melancholy, of madnefs, of epilepfy and the like fo well known and underftood, that we can point them out in each particular cafe, and mark the diftinftion between them ? We may know the fymptoms the concomitants and effcfts, we may in fome meafure be able to adminifter reme- dies; bat who can fully explain the fpring and fource of thefe diitempers, generally in- curable by all the fkill and art of man ; what it is that produces this crafis of the blood and humors, or how it is that this crafis of the blood and humors excites fuch horrid convulfions in the body, fuch ex- travagant fancies in the mind ? Madnefs in particular feemeth almoft as inexplicable as dreaming. In a former diflertation I at- tempted to fhow the extreme difficulty, if not utter impofiibility, of accounting for the phenomenon of dreaming, by the prin- ciples of mere matter and motion, without recurring to the agency of fome fpirit : and may on the DEMONIACS. 29 may not madnefs be confidered as waking dreams, and dreams as fleeping madnefs ? Very little indeed it is that we can difcover of the true caufe and origin of things. We know that fuch and fuch things are, but we know not how they are, or what is their real eflence and conftitution. Thofe events which we call natural are fuch as fall out according to the common courfe of nature - y but we are as little able to account for the common and ordinary, as for the lingular and extraordinary productions of nature. (Ecclef. XI. 5.) " As thou knoweft not what " is the way of the fpirit, nor how the " bones do grow in the womb of her that is " with child, even fo thou knoweft not the " works of God who maketh all." Since then our knowlege is fo very deficient, and we can fo feldom fay This is the caufe, we cannot always be certain 'That is not the caufe. We cannot give any clear and ra- tional explication of the malignitv and in- eurablenefs of certain difeafes, and how then can we be confident that they are no ways owing to the operation of evil fpirits ? May not the fame efllci proceed from different caufes ; A DISSERTATION caufes ; and what is ufually produced in the ordinary courfe of nature, may it not be fometimes effected by the interpofition of an extraordinary power ? Such an interpofi- tion indeed we fhould not admit merely upon iuppofition, nor becaufe we think it pofiibie, conclude it therefore to be proba- ble. We fhould have fome better warrant and authority, and what better warrant and authority can we defire than a divine revela- tion ? Things may be or may not be wrought by evil fpirits, for what we can tell - y but furely we may with reafon believe them to be wrought by evil fpirits, when they appear to be fo from the things themfelves tranfcend- ing all human powers, and moreover when they are affirmed to be fo by exprefs tefti- monies of holy writ. Dr. Mead, who was for attributing as much to material, and as little to fpiritual caufes, as a lefs reafonable man could do, in his Medica Sacra thus freely delivers his fentiments on this head ; (6) " I am not " ignorant that the Jews, by a manner of " expreflion familiar among them, are (-6) Medica Sacra, cap. 3. in Dr. Stack's tranflation. " wont ok the DEMONIACS. 3 t wont to afcribe difeafes of this kind to the power of evil angels as minifters of God; and that even at this day fome very learned men may defend the fame notion. But for my part, if I may be allowed to declare my thoughts with free- dom, I cannot think it right to have re- courfe to the divine wrath for difeafes, which can be proved to^ have natural caufes; unlefs it be exprefly declared, that they were fent down directly from heaven. For if they fall on us in punifli- ment of our fins, the intention of the fupreme lawgiver would be fruiirated, unlefs a fure rule was given, whereby his vengeance might be diftinguifhed from common events ; in as much as the innocent may be equal iharers in fuch calamities with the guilty. Moreover it feems reafonable to believe, that evils in- flicted by the omnipotent judge muft be either incurable, or curable by himfelf alone ; that the connection of his power with his equity may the more brightly fhine forth. By fuch a criterion are mi- raculous works diftinguifhed frorti the " operations 32 A DISSERTATION " operations of nature." And is not this precisely the cafe of the demoniacs and ethers in the icripture ? They are exprefly declared to have been actuated and afflicted by evil fpirits; their cafes are fufficiently diftinguifh- ed from common events, and were either in^ curable or curable only by a divine power. IV. Let us then take a nearer view of the demoniacs inthegofpels, and fee whether they do not come within this defcription. Thofe who maintain that thefe poflefiions were nothing more than natural difeafes, have not gained any honor or credit by the company they keep : for as Dr. Hutchinfon, the learned editor of fome part of Xeno- phon's works, obferves in a (7) fermon upon this fubjeci, and to come out crying and faying any thing. When our Saviour had called unto him his twelve difciples, (Matt. X. j, 8.) " he gave " unto them power againft unclean fpirits " to caft them out, and to heal all manner " of ficknefs and all manner of difeafes :" and among his other direftions he gave them the following, " Heal the fick, cleanfe the " lepers, raife the dead, caft out devils." " He ordained twelve," faith St. Mark (III. 14, 15.) " that they fhould be with him, " and that he might fend them forth to " preach, and to have power to heal fick- M neifes, and to caft out devils :" and it is faid 4 o A DISSERTATION faid afterwards (VI. 13.) that " they caft out " many devils, and anointed with oil many " that were fick, and healed them." When our Saviour had fent forth his feventy dif- ciples to heal the fick, and to preach the kingdom of God, (Luke X. 17.) " they " returned again with joy, faying, Lord, " even the devils arefubjedt unto us through " thy name j N as if this was the higheft in- ftance of power, and far beyond what they could have expeiled. In his laft commiffion to his difciples our Saviour ftill preferves the fame diftinftion, (Mark XVI. 17, 18.) " In " my name (hall they caft out devils, — they " fhall lay hands on the fick, and they fhall " recover." But it is pretended, that in this manner of fpeaking our Saviour complied only with the cuftomary language of his country, it being no part of his commiffion, nor the defign of the facred writers, to correft mis- takes in phyfic, any more than in aftronomy or any other fcience. But the cafes are vaftly different. This or that fyftem of aftronomy, whether true or falfe, whether the Coperni- can or Ptolemaic or any other, hath no kind of on the DEMONIACS. 41 of influence upon Chriftian faith an^i pra6tice. Whether the fun or earth be at reft, it maketh no difference to us, we have ftill the fame race to run, the fame goal to reach, and the fame prize fet before us of the high calling of God in Chrift Jefus. But miliaken notions of demons or devils may much affe£t our reli- gious and moral character, may fill our minds with vain terrors and fuperftitions, debafe and corrupt our morals as well as our understandings, and prove the fource of infinite calamity and mifery here and hereafter. A more plaufible argument may be drawn from the ftoryof the blind man in St. John's gofpel, (IX. 1,2, 3.) " As Jefus pafTed by, he. faw a man, which was blind from his birth : And his difciples aiked him faying, Mafter, who did fin, " this man or his parents, that he was born " blind ? Jefus anfvvered, Neither hath this u man finned, nor his parents ; but that " the works of God fhould be made mani- 11 feft in him." We fee, the difciples had a notion, as many of the Jews then had, of a ftate of exiftence prior to this life \ and our Saviour feemeth to allow it, $t leaft G doth 4? A DISSERTATION doth not refute and reclify it : but as we Jiave no remembrance, no confcioufnefs of pur former exiftence, it is all one to us whether there be fuch a ftate or not -, it is a matter merely of (peculation, and no way relates to practice : and fome ingenious Chriftian divines as well as fome learned Heathen philofophers have entertained the fame opinion, I will not fay truly, but yet very innocently, and without any prejudice to religion. Whereas we can neither with innocence nor with fafety attribute powers to devils which they have not, nor take iron} them what they really have : and it is not eafy to fay which of the two may expofe us to greater evils and dangers. ( i John III. 8.) " For this purpofe the Son of God was " manifefted, that he might deftroy the <£ works of the devil :" but it is inlarging and adding to the works of the devil, if he never had fuch a power, to afcribe to him the power of influencing and pofleffing the fouls and bodies of men. Next in power and goodnefs to the cafting of real devils out of the bodies, would have been the. deftroying and rooting of this falfe notion out od the DEMONIAC S. 43 out of the minds of meti. If it had beeri impofiible to overcome the prejudices of the people, yet our Saviour might, either by himfelf or by the Holy Ghoft afterwards, have difclofed the truth to his difciples. His goodnefs would hardly have fuffered them to remain in fo pernicious an error. But our Saviour was fo far frorri reprov- ing or correcting this notion, that he hath confirmed and eftabliflied it beyond all rea- fonable contradiction. He was fo far from giving other inftru6tibris to his difciples; that he hath faid and done more than enough to convince them of the reality of thefe pofleffions. When he had called his twelve difciples, (Matt. X. i.) " he gave " them power againft unclean fpirits tQ " caft them out," and he gave it befides in. commiffion to them (ver. 8.) " to caft out " dev'tls :" and would he have given fuch a power and fuch a commiffion, if there had been no devils to caft out, and the wtiole had been a vain imagination ? When he had lent forth the feventy difciples, and they (Luke X. 17.) " returned again with joy, u faying, Lord even the devils are fubjecl G 2 " unic* 44 A DISSERTATION " unto us through thy name/* he was fo far from repreffing their joy, that he rather encouraged it, and fixed it upon its proper foundation, (ver. 18, 19, 20.) " I beheld ce Satan as lightning fall from heaven. Be- * c hold, I give unto you power to tread on ferpents and fcorpions, and over all the power of the enemy ; and nothing fhall by any means hurt you. Notwithftand- ing in this rejoice not, that the fpirits are fubjeft unto you , but rather rejoice, be- caufe your names are written in heaven." But what is the fenfe or meaning of all this phrafeology, if nothing more was perform- ed than fome cures of epilepfy and madnefs ? How can the healing of the falling licknefs be faid to be the fall of Satan from his power and dominion ? How can the curing of bodily difeafes be faid to be the fubjeclion of the jpirits.% and a victory and triumph over all the power of the enemy ? Our Saviour often commands the unclean fpirits to come out of a man : " Hold thy peace, (Luke IV. 35.) cc and come out of him:" but where is the reafon or propriety of this command* if there were no fpirits to come out, otfTiiE DEMONIACS. 45 Out, and only fome diftemper to be cured ? When the Jews charged our Saviour " with " having a devil," (John VIII. 48.) he de- nies the charge indeed, and difproves it : but upon this fuppofition the fhorter and better anfwer would have been, that there was no fuch pofleffion, there was no fuch thing as having a devil. In like manner, when the pharifees accufed him (Matt. XIL 24.) of " cafting out devils by the prince of but not He, who is emphatically ftiled (John XIV. 6.) "the " way, and the truth, and the life." Befides, if the demoniacs were mere mad- men and lunatics, how came they to be fo much better and fo much earlier acquaint- ed with our Lord's true character and office, than the generality of the people, or evert the difciples themfelves ? His fame indeed went abroad, but his real ftate and condi- tion were little known and underftood, while we find the demoniacs publicly pro- claiming him to be " the Chrift, the Holy " One of God, the Son of the moft High on the DEMONIACS. 47 < £ Nazareth ? art thou come to deftroy us ? " I know thee who thou art, the Holy " One of God :" and according to St. Luke (IV. 41.) " devils alfo came out of many, " crying out and faying, Thou art Chrift, " the Son of God." It was fome time after this that our Saviour afked his difci- ples, (Matt. XVI. 13, 14.) " Whom do " men fay that I, the fon of man, am ? " And they faid, Some fay that thou art " John the baptifl ; fome, Elias; and " others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets." We fee, that they regarded him as no more than a prophet ; they did not generally con- ceive him to be the Meffiah ; the demoniacs had fuller and jufter notions of the facred- nefs of his perfon, and of the dignity of his charafter. Afterwards, when he aiked his difciples (ver. 15, 16, 17.) " But whom fay " ye that I am ? Simon Peter anfwered and as we fhall be more fully convinced by taking the two cafes into confideration. While our Saviour was with Peter, James and John upon the mountain which was the fcene of his transfiguration, a certain man brought his young fon to the difciples that they fhould cure him, and they could not. His cafe by the defcription of it was plainly epileptic, but it was fomething more than a common epilepfy, as is evident from feveral circumftances. All the three evan- gelifts (Matt. XVII. Mark IX. Luke IX.) exprefly afcribe it to " a devil, an unclean " fpirit, a dumb and deaf fpirit y and a dif- tinftion is made between the a£Hons of the fpirit as the agent, and of the demoniac as the patient. In St. Mark's account (ver. 18.) " wherefoever he (the fpirit) takethhim, he . 47. cc believing. on the DEMONIACS. 53 c ^ believing, ye fhall receive." St. James mentions it, as one of the miraculous gifts in his time, and as an encouragement to pray over the fick, (V. 15.) " that the ?f prayer of faith fhall fave the fick, and the " Lord fhall raife him up." Thefe then are the conditions without which no miraculous powers were obtained, and much more were they neceflary to the performance of fuch an extraordinary miracle as this. The cafe of the madman or madmen is ftill ftronger, and more inexplicable upon the principles of mere difeafe, mere mad- nefs. According to St. Matthew (VIII. 28.) there were two of them 5 Mark (V. 2.) and Luke (VIII. 27.) mention only one, one being perhaps more frantic and outrageous than the other ; but this difference maketh little difference in the cafe. It is faid of him (Mark, ver. 3, 4.) that " he had his dwell- ing among the tombs, and no man could bind him, no not with chains : Becaufe that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked afunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces 5 neither could any man full of fpectres or goblins : but whoever heard of many madneffes, of feven madneffes, or a legion of madneffes ? It is natural for evil fpirits to delight in mifchief, and accordingly they " befoughtjefusmuch'* (Mark, ver. 10.) " that he would not fend Cf them away out of the country/' but that he would give them leave to pafs into a herd oi fwine that was feeding nigh unto the moun- tains. For good reafons without doubt (fome of which we may difcern) he per- mitted them ; and they went out of the man, and entered into the fwine, and the whole herd, to the number of " about two thou- they will be revengdy in Jbme meafure, on each adverfary, by infufmg into his compofitions a tincture of their own futility. But, the excellencies of our author's per- formance mufl not be dijjembled. The judg- ment, then, which is difplayd in the conduct of ity is confeffed abundantly fuffcient to fur- prize ; and the urbanity, wherewith it isfea- foridy equally qualify th it to divert. Thro- oat the whole are diffused undoubted evidences of a fngular love of truth : and, in difcujfng the references, the author hath uniformly A 2 main- iv PREFACE. maintain d a confiderable figure, by prudently jiibjlituting a part for the whole. " The author Jeemeth to lay much Jlrefs on the authority of Mr. Mede — Is he, on other occafwns, ufually difpo.s d to pay deference to authority'? And, can he be ignorant, that the authority of many, equal at leaf, if not fu- perior, to Mr. Mede, in learning and judg- ment, might be pro due d againjl his opinio?!? Several famous men, 'tis true, befides the learned Mr. Mede, have advancd the fame opinion. And, about the clofe of the Sermon, it is fayd — " If he (the author of the En- &c. is thus introdue'd — . 1 The difference betwixt Mr. Hutchinfon and the Enquirer would foon be at an End, had he produe'd Authorities an- tienter than the New Teftament for the Ufe of the Word loupoov in the Senfe he under- ftands it. " Here the author difcovereth a * Review, /> 16. B fymptom, [ 1 ] 'fymptom, that may feem hopeful enough, at the firft view. But it, alas ! (like the language, which his demoniacs will fometimes utter) taketh a fudden and unpromifing change. For, thus he immediately proceeds — " But with all the Pomp of References that " his Margins are ftufPd with, there is not fo " much as one that is as antient as the New " Teftament, that is to his purpofe." 1 Who wou'd not be pleas'd even with the feverity of a fentence, that is pronounc'd with fuch de- cency and elegance? Yet, what expostulations might have been expected from this delicate writer, had thofe offenfive margins appear'd without references ? It cannot be fuppos'd, indeed, that the me- thod of directing the reader to authorities, which I have chofen to life, fhou'd be ap- prov'd by any modern dealers in antifcriptural cavils. Thefe are generally contented with repeating fuch citations, as they find already made : and, if they produce the name only of itn author, their intimate acquaintance with him mufT, in compliance with their modeft expectations, be acknowledged. Writers, lefs adventurous, will not refufe the Public even the lovver inftances of their diligence. And, in treating fubjects, where authorities are re- quired, thofe may feem to confult their own reputation, as well as their reader's conveni- ence, rriof: fuccefsfully, who draw off the fen- timents of the authors cited, with fidelity ; ■ Review, ibid, reprefent [3 1 reprefent them digefted and conne&ed, with propriety and perfpicuity ; and then refer, with accuracy, to the places, wherein they occur. Recourfe to the feveral originals is hereby fa- cilitated; fufpicions of unfair practice pre- vented; or, at leaft, the more curious reader is inabled, without lofs of time, to remove the fufpicions, which he may have conceiv'd. This digreffion may, perhaps, be wonder'd at — It is chiefly made for the fake of the Reviewer-, that he may hereafter learn to di- ftinguifh between pomp and propriety. II. What ? {hall our judg of pertinence and good writing acknowledg the propriety of re- ferences, " not fo much as one of which is to " the purpofe? The thing required (for thus " he goes on) is to produce an inftance of the " word Saifjtoveg fignifying malevolent, malefi- " cent Beings, delighting or delighted in pro- " moting wickednefs amongft men." 1 Here the author begins to difplay his dex- terity. In the Sermon 2 , Saipoves are, indeed, called Beings " delighting, or feeming, at leaft, " delighted, in the indulgence, &c" Our author's omiflion of the qualifying term can- not be look'd upon as a fault of the prefs, It is omitted a fecond time, in this fame page ; and alfo in pages 19, 27, 36, 38 of the Re- view. If he coud not diftinguifh between real 1 Review, p. 16. : p. 10. B 2 and [4] and feeming delight, his difcernment mufl be limir'd; if he -_;;/.;' ".::, his J: III. To the defcription of lalyuttn; abovementi- orf d he immediately fubjoineth this piece of i nflru ;:::.-. — viz. " For I enfe cf &ufu>zs " are cited Plutarch, r 7 . JambHchus" ; apd then politely adds — " all :::erf f "but toe modern by much for the thing to " be prov'd. x His own experience and ccr. n, undoubtedly, drew this courtefy from him ; s peculiar beauties of his le afford incootefb roof of his acquain- tance • ::h good writers. Well: but " they " (Plutarch^ Sic. as above) are too modern by . 1 6, 17. 2 P. 11. C in [ I0 ) ^n iome meafure, according to his wifdom, let me be permitted to afk — Do I appeal to Plato y as faying fo, direBly and in terms ? or, have I lay'd a ftrefs on Plato's, Jingle au- thority ? The Reviewer may here give occa- fion to fufpect, that he was ferious, and di- rected by the fimphcity of his heart, when, he talk'd of " margins fiufFd with the pomp . 361. C 2 « there [ * ] C£ there is not one Word about Demons en- " couraging pernicious Delufions. " How is this prov'd? Why, as ufual- — it is affirm* d. And, were the moft peremptory conclufions the moft pertinent too, who wou'd venture to gain fay him ? But, his hardieffe having already been expos'd, the juftnefs of his pre- fent deeifion may reafonably be fufpected ; at leaft, 'til all the places referr'd to, be duly confider'd and compar'd. In the firft, Plato (according to x Plutarctis citation) forms a direcl oppofition between the characters of Seo) and fraipoveg ; to the former attributing what is favorable or benign and Jingidarly ex- cellent*, to the latter, the contrary. Plato, then, herein juftifyeth fome part of the de- fcription of Salfioveg, in the Sermon. And, had the Reviewer thought fit to have taken proper notice of Xenocrates's opinion, which Plutarch immediately fubjoineth to that of Plato, the fcholar might have given him a clearer idea of the mailer's fentiments, and fupply'd fome other diftinguifhihg features, which belong to the Beings there fpoken of. The expediency of paying attention to what was added, in Plutarch, to Plato § words, is plainly fuggefted in the very next fentence of the Sermon, which beginneth thus — " and " Plutarch fuppofeth, that feveral inquifitive £ GregA-tltx, rci $' cLAltyuva Tb'ruv ^cupoaw micMw if, thro' his propofal of a pre- fent pleafure, men might be induc'd to in- * As cited in the Sermon, p 1 1 . 1 Eft j£ $*i *) «*** tta.ua.* v.'KK'i i\% tfii^i occiput reus •srAw- volve [ M ] volve themfelves in guilt. According to the ufe which * Clemens Alexandrinus hath made of this paffage of Plato, (and this philofo- pher might be, perhaps, as well underftood by that Father, as by the Reviewer) the Scu^ay, therein fpoken of, was either } &Qu\Xxfj8j/j@* <5W£cA©^, or fome immediate vaffal and agent of that &^%w r Saifjiov&v. IX. The next references to Plato are thus pro- pos'd — " Confer, idem de Repub. 1. 2. p. 364. " & P> 27% — 381 — 2. *" Here the Re- viewer fhould have attended to the manner •, in which thefe references are made. Plato is not therein cited, as offering direct, indubi- table evidence, in regard to the prefent fub*- jecl: of debate ; but, a collation of him with the other authors, referr'd to at the fame time, is recommended to the reader. And, with what pertinence this office was recom- mended, a brief furvey of the paflages will evince. In the firft, which occurreth 1. 2. de Rep f p. 364. the dyig) and pd,v\m; are charg'd with attempting to delude, not only fome few in-? dividuals, but whole ftates, into a perfuafion, that they were inabl'd by the foot, (whofe aid they pretended to ingage, by 'maScot, Bvcrlcu, tKciyuyou Tivig) to clear men from the dange- rous coiifequences of any wrongs, whereof 1 Strom. I. 5. p. 701, &fcq. Edit. Oxon, 1 Serm. p. 1 I. _ they [ «.y they had been guilty. That the (paZxoi or 7rovv](}M Scu'fjLdveg might incourage their votaries, to make an attempt of this pernicious nature, 1 Porphyry and 2 Jamblichus will authorife us to maintain. And thofe Beings, as the 3 former alfo obferveth, (ZxXoi?) «va< .9W*, — and according to the latter — vttoz^ov^) rrjv rav Stuv mapxa-iav. It may ftill, then, feem probable, that by Bto\ in this paflage of Plato, SotlfjLoveg are to be underftood; efpeci- ally feeing this ufe of Beet is fay'd by Proclus (no incompetent judg of Plato's language) to obtain in many places of that author. X. In the next paflage, extant p. 378, are men- tion'd the extreme injuftice, unnatural cruelty, and difcord amongft the Srm, continu'd either by infidious practices or by open violence. The imputation, indeed, of fuch enormities ■ to the S-zo) is there condemn'd ; as capable of producing ill impreflions on the minds of the young efpecially, and propagating wrong no- tions of the Beings, commonly diftinguifhM by that name. But, fuppofing Sulpom to be here intended by it, the tranfactions will be, in fome degree, fui table (as thofe were, which the former paflage records) to fuch agents - y and the narration found to contain fome foot- fteps of truth. Nor is this fuppofition ground- lefs. Plutarch, having mention 'd fads, which « de abfl. I, 2. fiS. 41 & fefy * ds mjji. Sett. iv. c. 7. i loco at, refemble [ It) refemble thefe, * fay'th that they were mors properly attributed to Sat^oyig, than either to Stot 3 or to uvd^co7roi : and citeth Plato, Pythago- ras, Xenocrates, and Chryjjppus, as concur- ring in the fame opinion. The opinion feemr- eth to have been founded upon a jufl perfua- fion, that, in the fads, to which it relateth, were imply 'd fuch guilt and fuffering, as cou'd not be afcribed to Stoi: and fuch pow- er, as belongeth not to human nature. Plato, then, having (according to Plutarch) attri- buted the like fads to Socl^ong, may, not im- probably, be thought to have intended the fame Beings, in thispaflage; w T here he men- tions the ftories, concerning the various dif- ienfions and wars of Sec), and pronounceth them improperly apply'd to the Beings, w r hich Bio) was fuppos'd to denote. XI. In pages 38 1 — 2 of Plato, it is inquir'd, whether the 3-sot may, in fome cafes, be efteem'd i^cwrcLito\\ig Xj yov\rdjov\ig ? And, in the anfwer, {viz. I £ XI £) it is imply'd, that the ads, fpecify'd in the inquiry, had been, or might, without abfurdity, be attributed to them. But the anfwer implyeth not only, what is. not abfurd, but alfo what is ftridly true, provided fclppm be here likewife com- prehended in the term , &c. feemeth to be a conclufion, defign'd to rectify miftakes, in the preceding debate. And, as no exprefs mention had before been made of Salpoveg, or the (Jaipivtov $@i) it appeareth, that they were rightly fuppos'd to be comprehended in the term 3*o), during the courfe of the dii- pute ; feeing they make part of the fubject, in the conclufion. Well : but is not the con- clufion directly contrary to the notion of authority alone: and then his accumulated, fevere demands prove, (as clearly as any reafonable man can expect him to prove) that the defcription can receive no confirmation from the verfes of that phi- lofopher. Yet, concerning their import Plutarch feemeth to have entertain'd a diffe- rent opinion. In one of the pages, wherein 1 he hath preferv'd them, an exprefs diftincli- on, between xw^ 1 anc ^ (paJuXoi Soupong, had been premis'd. And, after Plato's, Xeno- crates's and Hefiod's accounts of thofe Be* ings, it is added, EpTreSoKXfjg 3 £ $Ua$ pffir) die ov on rug Sccifiovag coy i^^d^coart ii 'ovfyfAftiXq- l Vhitarch. T» 2. p. 361. [ M 1 AWiyiov fjfyi yd% y tuoXby t») $tu>wj,S7c-jtv xj Tfa? J h-lw imrot^rli, Thefe are here added for the fake of propofing a reformation of them. In Head then, of — cd&vicr4 ci o-wj— it might be better to read — aiS-ia-j h aiv — In- Head of — Giycfyjl/M — to read — ctx°f^V — Inftead of -4r iTnru&TV — to lead — iKilflEQtVfa^ The Reviewer, perhaps, may rind the pafTage cited by an antient Chriflian writer, and then pretend, that he ther.ee produe'd t£c true reading of it. to [ *4] to cite them (not from Plutarch, p. 361, where they firft occur, but) from Plutarch^ p. 830. And, proving that he now had pret- ty well conquer'd the faftitium or fright, which a " pomp of references' 1 had former- ly rais'd, he grow'th familiar with them; and bravely thus prefenteth the reader with the following lines *S Ai8e£/ov ft\v yd() zrovlcvSt Staxet • Hovj@» b* %q x^ovog xSag u7riiP[\}(Ti. ' yoci'x ig >/ ewyetq HsAtg cLx.d[jia,vi@* ' ouQep®* e//.SaAe otvxig AAA©^ <5° e^ a A A* $ex*l at ?vy exert Si weefleg. and adds, " Thus Plutarch gives us thefe " Lines in his Treatife De vitando are alie- c< no, p. 830." Do's he fo? Alas! thefe fame references have drawn a fort of vengeance upon our author ; and, in aggravation of it, have made his own " eyes and hands " the inftruments of expoiing the raftinefs of his pretences to familiarity with them. In the 830 th and 83 i ft pages of Plutarch, the lines above cited, appear exactly thus — Al6i(/ov p\v ycLp tr(pi i*.iv@* woflovSe oiattet. Xlo9}@» q xficvog xSctg ccve7r]vcre ' ycuct, & 1$ ewyctg HeAi* ctKccpuv]©^, oS* uWep(^> 'tfj&ctte Stvcug. Thus ends p % 830. and then immediately, in />. 831. follow, «AAoy 9 i% aAAtf $i%Sj) kcii Tuffccivxcrai *z?(2g$ %&\v ccXXo X&qov t()£7rov T ). The reader will be eafily led, by this admirable grammatical ftru&ure of the words, to fufpect, that the Reviewer muft here have meddled with language, of which he had only a ilender knowledg. In Plu- tarch 2 we read thus — O3 Suwp^tq* k, rm vifjiifitov tag a,7rc(p^y[oug K t£v zopjuv ccott stXyi* ycig Twcts, v) x,07rfl#g, i) vyj^eiccg, $ Svo-Qyifjuocg. rj dt%poXoyictv s^xa-iv, xrt Beuiv upoug #ts ocufuovcov ciZTcu Tirpocr^zeiv ^vj^av* uTXa. eivai (pvcr&tg cv tca <5&{i'Xjj?lt, peydxag /$/) Kj lo^upjig, cvsptTnsg 3 %. Q>tv()poo7rciqt eel %otiozo-i rotg ToixToig, tl tuFxccvuccu 'srpog ib\v aXXo x e ^°v T?i7r*ty, Herein are re- counted feveral hurtful, infamous practices, which Xenocrates judg'd to be unfuitable me- thods of honouring either the deities or good demons; and alfo declar'd to be the delight of thofe vaft, powerful, malign and gloomy Beings, (call'd above (pcwXoi Suipovig) which inhabit the air. But, the Reviewer thus gently reprefenteth the fenfe of the place — » Pvevicw, p. 36. * De If. £c Of. />. 361. " Xeno- [ *7 J " * Xenocr cites indeed talked of gloomy , morofe " Demons that rejoice in fuch days, in which " Men iiuote their Breafts, mourned, and " fafted ; and if they have but thefe, they " turn to nothing worfe!' — have but thefe — what muft become, then, of 7u,<; 5 ■*£ $u2^«f, ucaree v^uiqeu X?rc~ (pgjLoctq t£ cx.v@(>w7ra.c 3 cm <£$ cu l iio'p. y,JA y^ %j<;.cdbra9] the drudgery of purfuing them. He had in view, it may be fuppos'd, Laert. 1. 4. fegm. 6. where Xenocrates is call'd Qspvig xa) Q>cvS^i»7rog. What conclusions the Reviewer -will allow to be drawn from the countenance ', it may not be eafy to fay. Yet, the gravity and aufterity, which appear'd in Xenocrates^ can hardly be thought fufficient to invalidate his authority ; efpecially, when the excellent character, by which he is diftinguifh'd in Laertius *, and other authors, (cited by the commentators) fhall have been duly confider'd. XV. The authorities cited in the Sermon, in fupportofthe ufual interpretation of Scupw and Suipoviov, may be now thought abundantly vindicated from the cavils and general nega- tives of the Reviewer. Yet ftill muft not the reader be deny'd the diverfion of behold- ing our author triumph, as it were, in his own defeat. No fooner had Xenocrates been difmifs'd, than he thus courageoufly proceed- ed 2 — " But what Evidence is there for even