/-* *J. J' (^Uy 'ysi 1 1 ^ ./ ^ ^L* •^ pivision,.. No, ( -> flWW *•«••#■« ,.f . s^cc f .JC. *» .ft "m^--^^ /.. A^AAT^ LETTERS T O T H E Rev. dr. WORTHINGTON, In Answer to his iate Publication^ INTITLED, An IMPARTIAL ENQUIRY into the Case of the GOSPEL DEMONIACKS. «»- -/ — . _ By H U G H F A R M E R. T^/ notions which we receive from our fenfes^ c fieri render it proper y if not necejfary^ that matters Jhould be ex- preffed according to the fyjlem of appearances ; as is the general praifice at prefent^ though we live in a phihfof phical age ; the popular language being always the hejl underjiood, and therefore the moji proper concerning fiibje£fs incidentally mentioned^ and not profeffedly treated of Dr. Worthington's Litfoduclion to The Scripture-Theory of the Earth, p. 7, LONDON: printed for J. Bucklakd and G. RoBiNscNa m Pater'-nojler Rqw^ iJlS* ( CONTENTS. \ LETTER I. /^AT Dri Worthington s treatment of the ad" vocates for the antidemoniac Jyjiem, p, i^ LETTER IL On Dr. Ws notion of pojfejjing demons ^ ^.24. An examination of his arguments in fiipport of that notion taken : I. From the ^writings of the Heathens, p, 27. IL From the wj^itings of the Jews, ^. 41 . IIL From the language of Chrijl and his apojlles, />. 47. IV. From the fentiments of the primitive ChriJiianSy p. 64. l^he importance of de- termini?tg the opinion of the ancients con- cerning pojfeffng demons, p' y6. 'The moral charaBer of thefe demons, p^ JJ* A denial that pojj'ejjions were referred to the devil, does not infer a denial of his exijie?2ce, Much lefs of the exijience of human fpirits, p. 81, LETTER i^ CONTENTS. LETTER IIL 0?2 Dr. W s accoujit of the nature of de^ 7noniacal pojjejjions^ /• S7. ^he true 7iotion of them Jiatedy ^.98. Why pofjejjions are diftinguijhed from bodily difeafesy and from lunacies y p. 105. LETTER IV. On Dr. W's proofs of the reality of de-^ vmiiacal pofjefjions, p. no. His principal argwnenty viz. that taken from pojfejjio/is and difpofejjions being attejted as fa^is in the ISfew T! eft anient y fated , ib. In anfwer to this argument y it is Jhewn : I. l^hat the pojfej/ions and difpojjejfions of demons y (as ex-- plained by Dr. W.) even fuppofmg them to he real facts y are ?2ot in their own nature objeBs of fenfe ; a?id therefore can not be fupported by the tefimony of fenfe y p. 114. IL "That the reality of pojjeffions and difpof fejjions neither wasy nor could fitly be, efta- blified by the authority of Chrifl and his apojilesy corfidered as infpired and i7ifallible perfonsyp. 123. IIL 'That the language of the CONTENTS. # khe New 'Tejiament relative to pojfejions, did always imply certain outward and fenjible fymptoms and eff'eBsy or the dif order and cure of demoniacs y p, 128 ; that this language was ufed principally to exprefs thofe fympt07ns and effe£lsy p, 129; and commonly without any other i^jtention^ p. 144^ and that it miiji have been fo ufed by the eva?igelifsy ^.148. A diftinB examination of the fever al modes offpeech ifed by Chrift and his apoftles in curing deinoniacsy and defcribing their cafy p, 129 — 144. Peculiar reafbns for believing that poJ[efio7is in the New 'Tefa- me72t denote only ?nadnefsy withouf any re- ference to the caife from which it might proceed y p, 148. It is fiewn farther^, IV. "That the ev^ngelifs might defcribe the diforder and cure of demoniacs by pofjefions a?id difpofefionsy without making themfelves anfwerable for the hypothefis on which this language was or tonally founded y p, 154. Three reafons for this afjigned, i. The univerfal cufto?n of fpeaking on many fubje Sis in the popular lajiguagCy though admitted to have been origifially grounded on a falfe phi-- lofophy, p. 154, 2. The certain conformity of vt . C O N T EN T S*. cf the facred writers to this ciijlomy on ma?iy cccafions ; and particularly when they ajfert the immobility of the earth, and the 7notion of the fun, the denial of which was once deemed a rnoft ifnpious herefy, p, 155. What 77iay be urged i?i vindication of the facred writers in this refpeB, p. 160. There is no peculiar reafon for their not defcribijtg the cafe of the demoniacs in the vulgar language, p. 164, note ('). 3. Their fp caking of demons and bodily diforders in ?nere conformity to the vuhar opinion concerning them, without giv- in^ their fanBion to it, is a farther proof that they might do the fame on the fubjeB of demoniacal pojjeffion, p. 165. He?2ce it fol- lows, that the pofcffioiis and difpoffefjions fpoken of in the New Tefament, though real faBs are not attefted as fiich in the fenfe explained by Dr, W. p. 168, and that there is no colour to charge the author of the EJJay with maintaining, that it is lawful to profefs one thing, and believe the contra? J, p, ijo -, or with impeaching the charaBer and credit of Chriji and his apoftles, p, 171, or with abifing the Scrips tures, p. 174, or with fuppofmg that- Chriji countenanced fuperjiition, p, ly^. LETTER CONTENTS, Yu L E T T E R V. On Dr, Ws farther proofs of the reality of pojfejjionsy drawn from the hifiory of the New T eft ament demoniacs, p. ijj^ His ar- guments from t he f knee of the Sadducees, and of Herod y ib. from th£ objeBion of the Pha- rifees, that Chriji caft out demons by Beel- zebub, p. 178, from Chrifs refutation of this objeHion, p. 179 ; from fo7ne circum^ fiances in the cafe of particular demoniacs, p. 181, fuch as their uncommon Jlrength^ and their knowledge of fefiis as the Mefjiah^ ib. Several obfervations on Dr, JV's acr count of the Gadarene demoniac, p. 183. Hisfalfe account of Simon Magus, p. 193, LETTER VI. On the proof of demoniacal poffefjion, I. From Reafon, p. 197. 2. From Expe- rience, p. 202. 3. From Tradition, p. 20S. 4. From Revelation, p. 214. That the an- il- demoniac fy ft em does no prejudice to re- welation, p, 215. That the 'vulgar hypothefs has Vni CONTENTS. i}as not a Jingk recommendation , p. 216^ tbaty befides expojing the miracles defcribed by the dijpojfejjiom of demons to contempt ^ p, 21S : I. It fiibverts the fundamental principle of all true religion^ the fole dominion cf fehovah over the courfe of nature ^ p* 219, 2. It contradiBs the Scripture doBrine coH" eej^ning the demons or gods of the Heathens^ p. 221^ 3. It deflroys the evidence of re-r- relation y or the force of thofe miracles which. 'ivere wrought to attefl if s divine or'iginaly p, 22g. ^, It ca/is the greateji refleBion 07i 'the charaBer and conduB of Chrijl and his ^pofilesy p. 231. Recapitulation^ p^ 2-35. Conclufon^ p. 238. Advertisement of the Printer, BY Inquiry y and Inq. in the following fheets, is meant. Dr. Worthington's In- quiry into the Cafe of the Gofpel De- moniacs, And by EJfay is meant, Mr. Farmers Effay on the Demoniacs of the Nevv; Teflament. «?:-'' «= ■p ^ ^ "" ,' L E t T E R I. Tuejday^ Nov, 25, 1777* Reverend Sir^ WH E N I firft heard of your Im^ partial Inquiry into the Cafe of th^ Gofpel Demoniacs^ I expeded to fee the fub- jedt handled to advantage : for though I had never read any of your writings, I was no ftranger to your reputation. It was natural for me, therefore, to conclude, that your learning would enable you to throw new light upon your fubjed:; and your benevolence and candour prevent you from exceeding the bounds of moderation, in your treatment of thofe who differ from you in opinion. I recolleded with plea- fure, the following citation from your book >upon Redemption, in a work of the very learned and worthy Bifliop of Carlifle ; viz. I think it may be faid^ in honour of the B prefent ( 2 ) prefent age, that co?ifroverfy is carried on with more decency and good manners, than in any former period of time that can be 72amed''. With thefe prejudices in your favour, I fat down to the perufal of your late pub- lication ; and I heartily wifh that my ex- pe rather than defign) and fupplied the defed: of argument with an uncommon meafure of abufe. I acknowledge, however, that you have paid confiderable attention to your fubjed:, and have offered fome things upon it that may deferve to be coniidered. At the fame time I am fenfible that your rank and cha- radter can fcarce fail of recommending your ^ Law^s Confiderations, p. 244, 5th edit, m the notes. The pafiage is taken from Dr. Worthington's EJJay on Redemption^ p. 136, 2d edit. work C 3 ) work to the attention of the public. To the public, therefore, and to you. Sir, it might feem difrefpedlful, not to affign the reafons of my ftill adhering to that hy- pothefis which you fo feverely condemn. Nor am I altogether without hope, that by reducing the argument of my m]ay on the Defuoniacs of the New Tejlament within a narrow compafs, by fhev/ing it in different lights, and efpecially by confirming it by fome additional obfervations, I may poffibly leffen even Dr. Worthington's prejudices againft it y or, at leaft, convince others that it is better fupported than he is willing to allow. Before I undertake to examine your i^ea- footings againft the EJjay, it will be necef- fary to take notice of your cenfures of its author, and of all thofe in general who maintain the fame fentiments with him. Thefe cenfures, indeed, may feem foreign from the fubjed in difpute.; but you in- troduce them fo frequently, and manage them with fuch addrefs, that were they totally overlooked, they might have an B 2 undue ( 4 ) undue influence on thofe who are leaft ca^- pable of judging of the merits of the con- troverfy between us, and of determining on whofe fide the truth is to be found. And while I am attempting to efll^ace the ill im- preffion which poffibly fome weak minds may have received from your falfe ac- cufations, many obfervations will be made relative to our main fubjed:. It cannot have efcaped your obfervation. Sir, that fcarce has any prejudice a greater influence in perverting the judgment, than that ariiing from the chara5ier of the perfons who efpoufe the dodlrines propofed to our belief. The veneration that men have for their parents and tutors, for writers of great name and eminent piety, inclines them to adopt all their opinions at once, without examination. On the other hand, they reje(ft, without hefitation, the dodirines propofed to them by thofe who are cen- fured as impious and prophane. Fearing to partake of other men's guilt, they dread conviffion as a crime. Hence it \s, that controverfial writers, inftead of anfwering the ( 5 ) the arguments of their opponents, too often ftrive to render their perfons odious by mif- reprefentation and calumny. But, is it poflible that Dr. Worthington fhould ftoop to thefe arts of controverfy ? Let facfts de- termine the queflion. With what other view than that of creating prejudices againft thofe who differ from you on the fubjed: of your Inquiry^ could you give the following account of them in general ? lihe divinity of the Holy Ghojiy and even his perfonality ^ is deniedy I do not fay by this writer y hut by others of his principles'^ , It might be putting you to great difficulties to require from you a proof of what you affert ; and, at the fame time, would be wandering far from our fubjed:. Moft certainly, no one can pof- fibly infer, either from men's denial, or from their belief, of demoniacal poiTeffions, what fentiments they entertain concerning the perfonality and divinity of the Holy Ghoft. ^ Inquiry, p. 70. B 3 You ( 6 ) You advance farther, and fay,^ It Jhould be ferioujly conjidered^ whether the fpeqking of a word againjl Chj'iji' s cajiing out devils by the Spirit of Gody be not fpeaking againjl him^ and that divine Spirit too. In-order to convey into the minds of your readers the very worft impreflion of your opponents, you here infmuate, with an air of great ferioufnefs, that they may be chargeable with the heinous guilt of biafphemy againft the Holy Ghoft. On what do you ground this fuipicion ? Why, it feems, they deny (in your opinion) the fadl, thai Chrift did caft out demons, and thereby virtually deny the power by which he did perform it\ You well know, that all Chriftians are agreed in referring the miracle defcribed by cafing out demons (v/hatever be the import of that expreffion) to the Spirit of God ^ and that the difpute between them refpedts merely the nature^ not the author of the miracle. Of biafphemy againft the Holy Ghoft, therefore, none of them can be guilty, according to your own account of * Inquiry, p. 71. ^ Inq. p. 68, it: ( 7 ) it : for you fay, it confifted in afcribing the 'works of God to the devil'. Nay, you affirm, that there is no one in thefe days that can befo impious, as to attribute the works of God to theJevil^, Your opponents, there- fore, if they are guilty of blafphemy againft the Holy Ghoft, are more impious than any one in thefe days can be ! It would have founded more like truth, if you had been content with faying, as furely you well might, that they were only as impious as men could pofjibly be, or were in great danger of becoming fo. As a friend, per^ mit me to advife you never to let your calumnies bear upon themfelves their own confutation ^ which they are fure to do, when they exceed the limits of poffibility. If you only fay of thofe who differ from you, that they will difpute the plaineji things in the world^;, that they are hardened againft conviction^ 'y that they are iniquitous and perverfe'-y and that their opinions are fuch as argue the height of impiety to conceive^', all ^ Inquiry, p. -67. ^ Inq. p. 71. s Jnq. p. 63, hp. 41. Seep. 75 ^p. 117. ^P-i32. B 4 this ( 8 ) tills may pafs with thofe who take every thing upon truft. But don't inlinuate, that they are more impious than any man can be, left it fliould hurt your own credit. Beg- ging you to excufe this freedom, 1 proceed to. obferve that You p-ive us this farther account of thofe o \vho differ from you : Nor was there any doubt ^;;;(9/2^/^^^(the Heathens in general, thean- cient Jews, and the primitive Chriftians) hi this refpe^ (in refpeit to the exiftence of de- mons, and the reality of their poffeffions), tin- lejs it was amongjl fuch as were of atheijiical or liberti?ie pri?tciples^\ You d-dd, Pomponatius, Vaninus, Hobbes, Spinofa, and Bekker, who^ it hath been obferved, have patronized the opinion^ that polJeJJions were nothijig more than natural difeafes, are all well known to jbave been profane and atheiftical writers. There is no crime in agreeing with atheifts in any innocent opinion. That -under our prefent coniideration, has no re- lation to atheifm. Nor is it true, that * Inquiry, p. 214. ^ Inq p. 214, 215. atheifts ( 9 ) athelfts do patronize this opinion ; they rather take occafion from the oppofite one, to fortify themfeives in their irreligion -, not being able to reconcile it with the wifdom and goodnefs of God, and with the order of nature. It is the genuine theifl: alone, that from an earneft defire of vindicating the ways of God to man, is folicitous to fhew, that reputed poffeffions are natural difeafes. The ftaious Bekker undertook the defence of this opinion -, but he was not, what you falfely reprefent him, a perfon well known to have been a profane and atheijlical writer-, but, on the contrary one who was well known to have been a moft ferious Chriftian, v/hofe general prin- ciples were what even you efteem orthodox- He was a man of admirable parts and learning, a moft indefatigable inquirer after truth, bold and fteadfaft in maintaining what to him appeared as fuch, at the hazard of *every worldly intereft. His enemies, who, through envy, malice and bigotry, fuf- pended him from the holy communion, and depofed him from the office of a mi- nifter« ( 10 ) niter, never raifed a fingle abjeftion againft bis morals*. But you infift upon it, that the anti- demoniac fyftem /j patronized chiefly by fiichy among mitients and moderns^ as are a aijgrace to any caiife^. Can you review this lan- guage with fatisfadtion, when you recolleft that the chief patrons pf the fyftem you * I do not bear this teftimony to Bekker, becaufe I approve all his opinions (for to me many of them appear erroneous), but for the fake of doing juftice to his injured memory. Let not thofe who, under the bias of education, have adopted popular opinions, be forward to difparage men of the moft diftinguilhed abilities ; who, from an ardent and unbiailed love of truth, fpared no pains to difcover it, and were willing to fuiFer difgrace and the fevered perfecution, rather than a61: contrary to their conviction. However mif- taken on fome points tney might be, yet their talents, and efpecially their exalted virtues, entitle them to the hi^^he^ vr^njration of mankind. It is with equal in- juflice that you brand Pomponadus as an atheift. His diftinguifliing opinion oncerning the human foul has betn a. 'opted by fome of the moft refpectable perfons in the Chriftian church. It is unbecoming a perfon of your learning and liberality to deal in groundiefs fcandal. ^ Inquiry, p. 223. . condemn^ ( II ) condemn, are defervedly ranked amongft the brighteft ornaments of human nature' ? Is it without reafon that Ariftotle has been ftiled the prince of the philofophers ? Can you name a man in the whole heathen world fuperior to Hippocrates, for found- nefs of judgment or iincere piety ? Whom amongft his opponents will you weigh in the fcales againft Jofeph Mede ? Scarce is his equal any where to be found in com-? pafs of theological learning, or in depth of penetration. Great names have lately ap- peared in defence of his opinion ; his il- luftrious kinfman. Dr. Richard Mead, the learned Dr. Sykes, Dr. Arthur Young, Dr. Lardner^. Thefe, Sir, are the chief pa- trons of this opinion ; and will you fay that they are a difgrace to any caui'e ? Re- tra(5t your cenfure, if not for the fake of the moderns, yet at leaft tofave the credit of the ancients (of which you are fo jealous) - for fome even of the Fathers, though in their popular difcourfes they alferted the reality ^ See Efiay, p. 155. "^ See a]fo Dr. Dopglas's Criterion, p. 263, note, and Boyle's Left. fol. ed, v, 3.' p. 265. of ( 12 ) of pofTeffions, yet did not firmly believe it. St. Auftin fays, *^ perhaps he who in truth was mad, was on that account thought to be poffeffed^ Jerome, Theo- doret, Cyril, Theophylad, Caefarius, and many other ancients often ufe the fame, or very fimilar language, with the orthodox Bifhop of Hippo". If you were capable of abufing the chief patrons of the antidemoniac hypothefis, I may well forgive your virulence againft the moft inconfiderable advocate for it. The picture you have drawn of me is not a very flattering one -, the reader lliall judge what Jikenefs it bears to the original. You would perfuade the world, that / condem?! fcrip- ture doBrines in the lump, and over -rule the Scipture itfelfy in a decretorial manner " ; be- caufe I do not fubmit to your explications of Scripture. If RouiTeau is offended at the fuppofition, that Chrill: wanted to learn i Forte revera phrencticus erat, fed propter ifta dae- monium pati /)zrf^Z'^/Mr. Auguftin, ^^ Geneft 2A litter, xii. 17. ^ Introdu(5lion to EfTay, p. 7, note (e) ; and Effay, P- 338- » Inquiry, p. 292. of ( 13 ) of the devil what his name was, and I allow this to be an objedion againft that falfe fuppofition 5 then you affirm, that I treat the infpired penmen no lefs difrefpeBfully than that unbeliever'' ', though you knew, that the queftion did not concern the refpeB due to the Evangelifls, but their meaning only; and that I was attempting to affign fuch a meaning to their language, as would ef- feftually relcue them from the fcorn of unbelievers. You are pleafed to join me with C elf us (whom you juftly call one of the bittereji enemies Chriftianity ever had) ; for you fay, you are truly grieved to find his ca'^ lumny of Mary Magdalen catched up, and faftened upon her by a minifier of Chrifi p* Profeilions of being truly grieved for the perfon they mean to injure, are the ufual artifice of all flanderers, in order to eain credit to fome improbable and groundlefs calumny. And though your grief may be more fmcere, it was not your averfion to calumny, that prevented you from difcern- « Inq. p. 37 5 fee alfo p. 24, 25, 314. p Inq. p. 85. ing ( H ) ing the true ftate of the cafe; which is as follows : Celfus, in order to difparage the evidence of Chrift's refurreftion, allcs. Who faw him after he was rifen with the marks of bis criicijixion ? and then returns the fol- lowing anfwer : Why, a diftraBed womariy as you fay, or confefs'^. This expreffion implies, that Mary Magdalen was diftra^led at the time of Chrift's appearing to her after his refurrediori ; and therefore was, what Origen reprefents it, a calumny ', that had no foundation in Scripure ' ; for fhe was in her right mind at that time, having been cured long before. With what truth then could you afiirm, that I ' had faftened upon 1 Tt? tSto oili ; (al. i'.h \) yjrn Tra^oij-^o?, w? ^«T£. The laft words are juftly rendered by Spencer (who had not your end to anfwer, by perverting their obvious mean- ing), ut ipfi fateminu Origen, c. Celf. 1. 2. p. 94* And in p. 96. vejlra qmque confejjione. The expreffion is not, as you would explain it, (Inq. p. 85, note) an infinuatton, but a dire6l aflertion, that the Chriftians acknowledged^ that the woman was d/turbed in her fenfes, ' Origen, c. Celf. p. 96. * Id, p. 97. ' Effay, p. 105. her ( 15 ) her the calumny of Celfus ? You were not ignorant, that I cited his account of her merely to fhew, that the expreffion of hsiving Jeven demons, to which Celfus here refers, was, in ancient times, underftood to denote a violent phrenzy. Thus it cer- tainly was underftood by Celfus ; and, according to him, by the primitive Chriftians. Origen does not intimate, that flie had never been difturbed in her fenfes ; nor can you. Sir, fay fhe never had, whether her infanity proceeded from natural caufes, or from demoniacal pofTeffion. Her former diforder, in either cafe, implied no refleftion upon her moral character, which Celfus fpared, but which you, without any reafon, have impeached ; accuiing her of having been a great and enormous Jin?zer.'' You farther reprefent the author of the Eflay, and thofe who broach the fame opi- nions, as aBing the part of confederates with the devil"" ; as being the emiffaries whofn he employs to argue, and banter us out of our ^ Inquiry, p. 83, ^ Inc. p. 335, belief ( i6 ) belief of pojejions, and as perfons who may have the devil at their elbowy-, and you earneftly intreat them to confider whether this may not be the eafe. When the lower part of mankind reproach one another with having the devil at their elbows, and with having the devil in them^ you think it right to reprove their profanenefs. But when you fee fit to adopt their language, we muft confider it as the effufion of piety and be- nevolence. You aifure the world, after expreffing your concern left I iliould be guilty of the irremiffible fin, xh2Ll if any brother be guilty of the fn that is ?iot unto death, he hath your moft earnejl prayers to God, that it may not be imputed to him^\ This is kind ; almoft beyond belief It is indeed, a new phenomenon in the hiftory of the human mind, for which our moral philofophers will find it difficult to account^ that you fhould be able at the fame inftant both to bear the fame perfon fo much ill- 7 Inq. p. 213. See alfo p. 209, 210. * Inq. p. 71, 72. will ( 17 ) will, as ftudioufly to load him with falfe accufations, and fo much good-will as to pray moft earneftly to God for his pardon. Doth a fountain fend forth at the fame place fweet water and bitter * ? In this cenforious age, many perhaps may be too forward to fufp^ft, that in fome cafes airs of piety are affumed to impofe upon weak minds, and that prayer itfelf is nothing more than a commodious vehicle for flander. Inconfideration is the only apology that can be made, for fuch a flrange mixture of malevolence and Chriftian charity. In your zeal to afperfe the author of the E^j/, you fay, that to a fair defer ipt ion of our Saviour s miracles on the de?noniacSy I have tacked a colleBion of the low, indecent, juggling tricks of profane exorcifs and magicians ; without any salvo to prevent their being paralleled with each other ; aiid that this is done at the conclufon of ?ny per-- formance, that the idea of thefe filly , afid ridi- culous charms, might be left, in a mamier^ lajl upon the ?7iinds of the readers \ You could not be ignorant, that in the very part * James iii. ii. « Inq. p. 219. C of ( 18 ) of the E^j/ to which you refer on this oc- cafion ^, I (tt myfelf to point out the manifeft difference, in feveral refpefts, be- tween Chrift's cure of demoniacs, and the juggling tricks of prophane exorcifts % on purpofe to prevent their being paralleled with each other, which they never can be on my principles, though they may on your's. I was totally at a lofs to account for fo very extraordinary a mifreprefentation of my fentiments, till I difcovered your defign, which plainly appears from what immediately follows the foregoing citation from you : T'/6/V is fuch management y as miifi raife the indignation of every ferious Chrijlian **. Your defign was as honour- able, as were the means you ufed to ac- complifti it. With what other view, than ^ Eflay, p. 408. <= The dilFerence between the exorcifts and our Sa- viour confifted, as was (hewn in the EfTay, in this j that the former only pretended to drive away demons by the ufe of certain charms ; the latter cured thofe violent diforders anciently afcribed to the pofleffion of demons, without the ufe of charms, or natural reme- dies, by a fovereign v/ord alone. ElTay, p. 408 — 416. ^ Inquiry, p. 219. that ( 19 ) that of awakening an unjuft refentment in every honeft man againft the author of the EJ/ay, could you affirm, without any colour for the accufation, that the principle which runs through it, can be none other than this^ or to this effeB : that it is allowable to profefs one thing, and believe the contrary ^ ^ I leave it to you, to reconcile your treatment of your opponents with candour and integrity. Should I happen to forget the refpeft due to your age, your pro- feffion, your rank, and general charafter in life ; you will remember that you have fet the example. For by {looping to the loweft arts of controverfy, you forgot the refpedl that you owed to yourfelf. I readily allow, that even to you. Sir, every favourable allowance jQiould be made, that the nature of the cafe admits. Rather than, I fhould impeach your veracity \ I would • Inquiry, p. 124. ^ I cannot (in any manner honourable to you) ac- count for the foilov/ing mifreprefentation of Mr. Jo- feph Mede, however ambitious you might be of fup- porting your argum.ent by his great a-ithority. You tell the world, (Inq. p. 185) that D.lr. Mcde fays, C 2 Tns ( 20 ) I would afcribe your defamatory and inju- rious language to the influence of prejudice and paffion, (from which fcarce are any totally ^e zvord ^otii/,ovw is in the Scripture never taken in the better^ or indiff'erefit fenfe^ however profane authors do ufe it ; but always in an evil fenfe, for the devil y or an evilfpirit, Thefe are, indeed, the very words of Mr. Mede ; and you refer us to the place in his works where they may be found, (which in the fourth edi- tion is p. 634.) This has the appearance of fair deal- ing. Neverthelefs, incredible as it mufl: appear to fome, Mr. Mede's opinion was the very reverfe of that which you afcribe to him ; for the point he undertook to prove was, as he himfelf expreffes it, that the word ^at/xovtov is fometimcs in Scripture taken according to the theo- lagy of the Gentiles^ and not always for an evil fpirit. In the paflage that you cite from him as expreflive of ' his own opinion, he profelTes to be only fiating an ob- jection againft it ; for he introduces it with faying, fome things in our way mu ft fir ft he cleared. And after ilfttinp- the objection, he immediately proceeds to an- fwerit; and ihews from Ads xvii. 18. ^ev. jxj^i3. 1 Cor. X. 21, as he had before done from i Tim. iv. I that demon is not always ufed for an evil fpirit. As juftly, Sir, might I appeal to your authority in fup- port of my opinion on the fubject about which we dif- fer becaufe you fometimes ftate my objedlions againft it ; as you, on the fame ground, appeal to Mr. Mede's authority in fupport of your opinion, which he dif- avows and refutes. As ( 21 ) totally exempt, but) which fo diftort the human underilanding, as to make things appear quite different from what they really are. But, indeed. Sir, you have taken very little care, to exemplify in your As little. Sir, am I able to account for the follow- ing mifreprefentation of myfelf, (Inquiry, p. i8o, i8i, 182.) where you charge me with artfully inftnuat'ing^ that the facred writers themfelves regarded thofe as deified fpirits, whom the Heathens confidered as fuch, merely becaufe I had faid, what you allow to be true, that the facred writers employ the term demon to de- fcribe the heathen gods, or fuch human fpirits as the Gentiles deified. Such an infinuation as you reproach me with, had it been contained in my words, could not have proceeded from art^ but muft have been the fole eiFecl of the moft extreme folly ; becaufe it would have been a contradi61:ion to every pao-e of my writings. But, in facft, there is not the leafl: colour for your accufation ; for befides my making the moft explicit declarations (Effay, p. 326, and in other places) that the prophets of God gave the objeds of heathen worfhip the fame titles as the Heathens did, merely to charatlerife, not to allow, the pretenfions of thofe obje6ls of their worfhip ; befides this, thofe very pretenfions v/ere exprefsly rejected by me, upon the authority of the facred writers • as you could not but know, when you undertook to anfwer what I had urged to fhew, that - ^^;;zi7/zj were nothing in the. world. Such mifreprefentations as thefe ftand in need of an uncommon meafure of candour and indul- gence. C 3 ov/n ( 22 ) own conduft, the principle you would eftablifli, *' that controverfy is carried on in the prefent age with more decency and good manners, than in any former period of time/' It is with a very ill grace, that you ^ reproach the firft reformers with virulence and acrimofty in their controverfial writings. Men's paffions were at that time generally agitated in an uncommon degree, which is fome apology for the reformers. You tell your opponents, that the quejiton ought to he debated with great caution and candour . Surely candour is due not only to you, but alfo from you to thofe who have the fame reverence for the facred oracles with yourfelf, and only wifh to clear them from the objediions of our common adverfaries. You plead your good intention ^ in your own favour, when you thought yourfelf treated with undeferved feven ty by your opponents. Your caufe would not have fuffered any injury, had % Worthlngton on Redemption, p. 136. ^ Inquiry p. 222. 5 Dr. Worthington on Redemption, p. 412. note. you ( 23 ) you defended it with the calmnefs of a philofopher, and the candour of a Chriftian. I could wi(h you to review the contro- verfy. For while your mind was agitated by ftrong (but groundlefs ^) refentments, how was it poffible for you to hold the balance of your judgment with an even, and fteady hand ? With refped: to your readers, do you not difcern the impropriet)?- of attempting to inflame their paffions and prejudices, in order to create in them aa equal incapacity of judging truly concern- ing the point in queftion ? This, at beft, was a needlefs undertaking : for the pre- judices of education, which v/ere all on your fide of the queftion ', do, of their own accord, obftruft conviSion ; and are generally too ftubborn, to yield to the moft forcible reafoning, and the moft engaging addrefs. I am. Rev. SIR, Your moft humble fervant, H. FARMER. ^ I may borrow your complaint againfl Dr. Grey, The whole ground of your quarrel ztjith me^ is^ that I have pre fumed to differ from you» Id. ib. ^ Incjuiry, p. 117, 216. C 4 LET- ( 24 ) LETTER IL Reverend Sir, "^ OUR aiuje of the advocates for the antidemoniac fyftem, refleding dif- honour on none but yourfelf, I fliall drop the fubjed:, and proceed to conlider your reajonings againll; the fyftem itfelf. It will be proper to begin with examining your objedlions againft the account I had given of POSSESSING DEMONS. What the author of the B,Jfay undertook to prove, was this : ** That the pofleffing demons fpoken of in the New Teftament, were the deities of the Heathens, or fuch human fpirits as, after the dilTolution of their bodies, were fuppofed to be converted into demons." On the other hand, you, in your hiqiiiry, refer poffeffions to the devil ; you affert, that ** he is the chief author of them^; and attempt to juftify the Englifh * Inquiry, p. 189, 190. tranflation. ( 25 ) tranflation, in rendering the Greek word demon by devils'^. By the devil you un- derftand the chief of the fallen angel s^ You affirm, ** That as God is the author of ail good, fo the devil is the author of all evils and that *' he is juftiy to be reckoned the evil principle %" In fupport of his opinion, the author of the EJJay^ obferves, that the Scripture never defcribes more than one evil fpirit by the word devil ; and never reprefents any perfons as pofieffed by the devil, or by devilsy not even in a fingle inftance, not- withftanding the great frequency with which the evangelifts fpeak on the fubje£l of pofleffions. In all the inflances in which the term devils occurs in the Eng- lifh tranflation of the New Teftament, the original word is demons^ , and not that from whence comes the Englifli word devil^. In prjder to determine who thefp ^ Inquiry, p. 152, 187. «: Inq. p. 63, 2275 228. ^ Inq. p. 233. ^ Inq. p. 233, 306. ^ EfTay, ch. I. kdi. I. demons ( 26 ) demons were, it was fhewn in the mfay\ that the ancient Heathens and Jews, and the primitive Chriftians, did all agree in reprefenting them as no other than human fpirits. From thefe premifes, the follow- ing conclafion was drawn ; viz. ** That the facred writers, having given us no notice of their uling the word in a new or peculiar fenfe, did certainly employ it in reference to poffeffions, in the fame fenfe in which all other perfons did.'* To fuppofe the contrary, would be to fuppofe, that they intended to deceive their readers. It is the more neceffary to allow, that the Evangelifts, when fpeaking of poffeffing demons, did not refer to any other than human fpirits, as they knew that to fuch fpirits the term demons was applied by the Heathens,'' and by the authors of the Sep- tuagint.^ Nay, they have themfelves ufed it to defcribe fuch dead men as the fuper-r * EfTay, ch. I. fecSl. 2. ^ A.a,7f\ov ku\ to w(pcA5y, The caco-demons of the Greeks, and the vejoves & numina Iseva of the Romans, like the Arimanius of the Perfians, and the evil principle of other eaftern na- tions, were worfhipped under ths charadlercf malignant beings. D itn- ( 34 ) impotence of all their gods ; and in direft oppofition to the notion of their being the authors of evil, declares that Jehovah forms the lights and creates dark^ nefs : that he makes peace ^ a?td creates evil'' ^ Some fuppofe, that, in this paiTage, there is a peculiar reference to the evil principle held by the Perfians. Now, if this evil principle was the devil, it will follow from hence, that, according to Ifaiah, the devil can not be, what you reprefent him^ the author of natural evil. Indeed, the pro- phet refers all natural evil, as well as natural good, to God. Moft certainly the demons, whom the Heathens reprefented as the authors of all evil, do not anfwer to the idea of thofe fallen angels who are confined in chains of darknefs to the judgment of the great day. And even were it true, that the higher rank of demons amongft the Heathens were fallen angels ; this would not ferve your purpcfe : 4. For after all your letrned refearches, you have not been able to produce a fingle inftance of any heathen writer's referring pofleffions to evil demons fuperior to ^ If. xlv. 7. man- ( 35 ) mankind ; though one fuch inftance would have ferved your caufe, more than all you have offered in it's fupport. You lay % indeed, that *' according to the docflrine of the Effay, the twelve greater gods \ vul- garly fuppofed to have been deified mor- tals, were poffeffing demons. But thefe in Plato's eftimation exifted from all eternity." Your argument proceeds on two fuppofitions highly extravagant. It fuppofes, that becaufe poffeffing demons wxre conlidered by the Heathens as deified men ; therefore all deified men were poffef- fing demons : and it farther fuppofes, that v^e are to form our judgment of the twelve greater gods, by the fpeculations "^ of a philofopher who rejected the common opi- nion concerning them, merely becaufe he deemed it abfurd ; rather than by the whole current of heathen antiquity, and the declarations of Scripture, which repre- fent all the heathen gods as dead men. You likewife appeal to Apuleius and For- • Inq. p. 162. ^ Dii majorum gentium. ' See DiiTert. on Mir. p. 189. D 2 phyry ( 36 ) phyry ', as defcribing pofleffing deroohs as middle powers between the gods and men. The latter, according to your own account of him, fpeaks chiefly of demons entering the bodies of men, in order to regale themfelves with human ordure, which, your author tells you, is their chief delight. But this has no relation, to poffeffions ' ; nor can I conceive why you mentioned it, unlefs it was to expofe Porphyry to the contempt of your readers. As to Apuleius, you could fcarce have quoted a ftronger authority againft yourfelf. The heathen philofophers held that there were different kinds of demons ' : that fome of them were fpi ritual fubftances of a more noble origin than the human race % and that ' Inq. p. 163.^ s You fay, (Inq. p. 163.) that according to Por- phyry, '' their houfes were full of demons, and their lodies likewife." I'his paffage, even were it genuine, would only prove, (what will be fhewn in the 3d ietter) that the Heathens did not efteem every thing pofTelTed that had demons in it ; for thofe houfes which were full of demons, were never faid to be pofiefied. ^ Varias fpecies daemonum a philofophis perhiberi, Apuleius De Deo Socratis, p. 686, 687, ed. Delphin. See above, p. 29, note (*), « Id, p. 684, 690. others ( 37 ) Others had once been men ''. Of both thefe kinds of demons, fome (as we have feen) were good, others evil^ and thofe of each kind were united under a prince and leader, or had their refpective de- monarch^. It muft be obferved farther, that different orders of demons had dif- ferent * Eft et fecundo fignlficatu fpecies daemonum* animus humanus, &c. Id. p. 688. y That fuch demons as were of human origin had a prince, according to the Heathens, appears from the Alceftis of Euripides, where Hercules is introduced as faying, i^o^x^^ a-woi-^uq ^cct[/,owv Tbi Koipacvu, which the fcho- liaft explains by to; rav vty.^m K.vfa, This prince was called by the Heathens, Pluto. Could any credit be given to the forgery that pafTes under the name of Por- phyry, (apud Eufeb. Priep. Ev. 1. 4. c. 23.) the prince of the higher race of demons was called Sarapis. But according to Plutarch, (de If. & Ofir. p. 361, D.) Sarapis was no other than Pluto. Sammael was wor- fhipped by the ancient Zabians as the Prince of evil demons, Hettinger. Hift. Oriental. 1. i. c. 8. The Perfians had their Arimanius. Plato thought that the caufe of evil was the moving principle that refided in matter. (See Bayle under the article Zoroafter), This very principle is called by Manes (in his cpiftle on the foundation, ap. Aug. contr. ep. Manich. c. 15. n. 19.) Immanis princeps et dux, habens circa fe in- numerabiles principes, quorum omnium ipfe erat mens atque origo. To which of thefe demonarchs doesyoiir idea of the devil anfwer ? The independent principle ^? of ( 38 ) ferent ftatlons and employments refpec^ tively alTigned them^; fo that thofe of one order did not ufurp the office of another. To which order then belonged the office of pofleffion ? You fliall learn that from your own voucher, Apnleius*; he tells us> of evil is called by Plutarch (De Placit. Philof. 1. i, c. 7. p. 881 • E.) an evil demon. But you juftly cen- fure the do6lrine of two independent principles^ as both ahfurdondifnpicus. Worthlngton on Redemption, p. 410. ^ See Apuleius, de Deo Socratis, p. 677, &c. & p. 689, 690. Compare Plato's account of the difFerent functions of demons, Oper. p. 327, ed. Ficini. Lugd. What is faid above concerning different orders of de- mons, is true concerning demons of the fame order, or fuch as were of hqman origin ; they had different oiEces affigned them, as appears from the follov/ing note. * Ex lemuribus, qui poflerorum fuorum curam for- titus, placato h quieto numine domum pofndet, Lar dicitur familiaris. Qui vero ob adverfa vitae merita, nullis bonis fedibus, incerta yagatione ceu quodam exilio punitur, inane terriculamentuin bonis homini- bus, cs:tcrum noxium malis : id genus plerique larvas perhibent, p. 688, 689. He foon after adds, Quippe tantum eos deos appellant, qui ex eodem numero jufte h prudenter vits curriculo gubernato, pro numine poftea ab hominibus proditi, fanis & caeremonijs vulgo advertuntur : ut in Bsotia Amphiaraus, in Africa Mop- fus. A plain proof that oracles were afcribed to human fpirlts. that ( 39 ) that the ghofts of the deceafed were diftinguiflied by dlfrerent names, accord- ino: to their different fundlions. The harmlefs ghofts were called lares ; and the mifchievous ones, larvc^e. Now, it is al- lowed on all hands, that the larvati were fo called from larva ^ and they exadlly anfwer to the demoniacs of the New Teflament. I have now examined all vour heathen authorities ; and have ihev/n, that they are either fpurious, or foreign from your purpofe, or that they conclude againfi: you. How little reafon then had you to re- prefent me, as ^^ feeming to adopt the opi- nion of the Heathens in general, in op- pofition to that of the philofophers ; and, as having only the ignorant vulgar to keep me in countenance \?^" Had this been the cafe, I might have pleaded, that the lan- guage of the New Teflament is not bor- rowed from the fchools of philofophy, but from common life. But for any thing that has hitherto appeared to the contrary, the learned and illiterate were all of one a Inquiry, p. ;6i. D 4 opinion ( 40 ) opinion on the fubjedt before us, and the demons in queftion were univeJifally con- fidered, throughout the ancient heathen world, as the fouls of deified men. In a word, the evidence, and that as clear and cogent as can be defired, is all on one fide of the queftion. I agree with you, that the writers of the New Teftament were not to be taught by unenlightened Heathens''. Neverthelefs> they learned the meaning of w^ords in vulgar ufe, as all other perfons did, and employed them in the fame fenfe. And in order to know whether the Greek word demon, when employed in reference to pofieffion, did univerfally bear one uniform meaning in the time of Chrift, it was necefTary to fhew, how it was underftood by the Heathens as well as by the Jews; efpe- cially, as the evangelifts wrote in the Greek language, which, at the commence- ment of the Chriftian aera, was in general ufe amongft the Heathens. You, Sir, no lefs than myfelf, have appealed to the > Inq. p. 173, 181. Heathens ( 41 ) Heathens to determine the meaning of the New Teftament lapguage ; ancj, you go farther than I have done : for, whenever they appear to you to favour your opinion, you feem willing to allow, that they de- rived their information, though not from reafon, yet, in fome meafure, from tra- ditions 11. I will now proceed to vindicate and confirm the account given In the EJ/ay of the fentiments entertained of poffeifing de- mons by the Jews. Againft the teftimony of Jofephus*', who in the moll exprefs terms tells us, that the demons in queftion were departed fouls y you have not raifed any objedion. But you feem not to approve the account which the Effay^ gives of Beelzebub; and plea^ fantly telF your readers, that they are to infer from it, ^^ that fuch 2. poor devil can have but little influence upon men/' It muft on all hands be allowed, that Beel- zebub was confidered by the Pharifees as *= Inq. p. 327. ^ Cited in the Eflay, p. 42. \ * ElTay, p. 14—175 and p. 30—40. ^ Inq. p. 60, 61- the ( 42 ) the prince of pofleffing demons. But, ac- cording to Jofephus, who was himfelf a Pharifee, pofielling demons were human fpirits. Such, therefore, was their prince and leader. It has been obferved^ that Beelzebub was the name given to the god of Ekron, or Accaron, who had a temple and oracle there ; and, therefore, rauft have been a man. For fuch all the heathen deities had really been ; thofe, efpecially, to whom divination and oracles were afcribed*. Nay, you admit'' (what I had fliewn to be very probable'), that Beel- zebub is the fame as Pluto, v/ho is well known to be the fon of Saturn, and brother of Jupiter and Neptune, and was called Jthe chief and ruler of the infernal gods, or departed fpirits*". In *> EfTay, p. 31. ^ EiTay, p. 39. ^ Inq. p. 49. 1 EiTay, p. 40, note y), *" Pluto vv^ls called Summanos, q. fummus manium, Auguft de Civ. Dei, 1. iv. c. 23. See EiTay, p. 40. The learned Jurieu (Hift. critic, dogm. & cult. &c. part iv. c. iii. p. 632, feq.) as cited by Buddeus |Hift. Eccief. torn. it. p. ^26), was of opinion that Pcel- ^bub was Pluto, the prince deorum maniurn, feu Ueorum ( 43 ) In confirmation of what was advanced in the Effiy with refped to the Jews, two farther obfervations may be made. Firft of all, it is highly probable in itfelf, that the Jews entertained the fame fentiments with refped: to poffeffing demons as the Heathens ; for, the former not only adopted the principles of the latter on other fabjedls, but they did this in re- ference to demons. Even you"" admit, that they borrov/ed, in one inilance, from the heathen demonology. And whoever is ac- quainted with the Greek veriions of the Old Teftament, and the Alexandrian in par- ticular, ufually called the Septuagint, muft have obferved, in a great num-ber of in- deorum infernalium. Pluto, he obferves, is fometimes called Acheron (which 'he derives from Accaron), par- ticularly in that line of Virgil : Fieclere fi nequeo fuperos, Acheronta movebo. Pluto was certainly v/orfhipped in Phoenicia, (as ap- pears from the teftimony of Sanchoniatho, apud Eufeb. Praep. Ev. 1. i. c. lo.) ; and the oracle that Ahaziah fent to confult (2 Kings i. i.) was in his temple, where the dead were evoked ; which fpecies of di- vination was called v£>tpu,c(.vTiici^ and ■^v^oiy.oi-.renf,, Bud- deus, ubi fupra. ^' Inquiry, p. 48, ilances. ( 44 ) jftances, a ftriking conformity between the fiemons there defcribed, and thofe of the Heathens". The fame obfervations may- be applied, and in a greater degree, to the Chaldee'' tranflations and paraphrafes of the Old * The Septuagint, from a fondnefs for demonlfm, renders feveral very different Hebrew words by demon^ though not one of them be capable of that meaning ; particularly feirhn. If. xiii. 21. fchedbn^ Oeut. xxxii. 17. Pf. cv. 35. clillm^ Pf. xcv. 5. i^'m. If. xxxiv. 14. It introduces the fabulous mon- fters of the Gentile theology, (If. xxxiv. ij. ^i/powT'^cracri ^a.y/on hags, fairies, hobgoblins, fpe&es, demons famiflied with hunger, and howling in the wildernefs ; targum of Jonathan B. Uzziel on Deut. xxxii. 10, 24. Numb, vi- 24. After the Heathens, demons are diftinguifhed into morning, mid-day, and no arid his apoftles ufed this word, as that they did any other, in its ordinary acceptation. Were we to allow> that they employed words in a fenfe peculiar to themfelves, without explaining their meaning, we muft neceffarily grant, that they fpake in an unknown tongue. You afBrm, that ** there are inftances in the New Tellament of the devil's pofleffing nien under different names from that of demon"." The different 7tames you here mean, are thofe of Beelzebub and Satan. With regard to Beelzebub; as our Sa- viour never makes any mention of him but when he is either reafoning with the Pha- rifees upon their own principles % or al- luding to their accufations , he cannot refer to a different fpirit from what they did, and therefore not to any other than a departed foul. Much lefs can it be fuppofed, that his idea of Beelzebub w^as different from that given us of him in the Old Teflament, as a heathen deity, or deified human fpirit; and, confequently, deflitute of all power « Inquiry, p. 152, 155. ^ See ElTay, p. 331, note ('). over ( 49 > over mankind : a confideration, one would imagine, that would abate your zeal to prove him to be the devil. Many chriflian^ writers, though they fuppofe Beelzebub to be one of the fallen angels^ yet diftinguifh him from the devil, their prince and leader. Nor indeed has the Scripture ever confounded them together. But you fay, ^^ Beelzebub and Satan are convertible terms> — and are coniidered as names of one and the fame perfon^'' If this be true, then fatan is nothing more than a heathen deity ; for fuch we have proved Beelzebub to be. But the ttvm fafan^ you plead, ** is ap- lied to the devil, as his proper name ^ and is as much appropriated to him as any proper name can be to any perfon\" Our Saviour, you obferve, called the devil by this name^: and add% that in one evan- gelift it is faid, the devil put into the heart of Judas to bet^^ay Jeftis^; and, that in another, we read, that Satan e?2tered y See Milton's Par. Lofl, b. i. v. So. ^ Inq. p. 6i. ^ Inq. p. 6i, 62, and 92, 93. ^ Luke iv. 8. " Tnq. p. 91. * John xlii. 2, E 2nta A so ) info Jiidas^. Still more fully to prove, that fatan is the devil's proper name, you take notice % that the Hebrew -wovAfatan^ in the Old Teftament, is by the Septuagint tranflated devW^^ no lefs than feventeen times. This feems plaufible, but vi^ill not, perhaps, bear examination. The Hebrew v^oxA fatan denotes an ad- verfary^y and with the emphatic article prefixed to it, the adverfary. It may be applied emphatically to any one particular enemy, to the devil, for example : but it is not appropriated to him y it is no more * Luke xxii. 3. ^ Inq. p. 155, 156. ^ 'O H 'EQfse.1av hccXUru) a-ctrav, kx) ''EX^'DinnuTZfov vTro rmu/ Toc Ivxvricc 'Trpa.TTcJv t5j a^v^rvj, aarava? eriv> rar sr^v, avriKiii/.Bvo^ vu i/iu t5 Seb, ovTt ^iK(X,iaai)i''ii] y kou a^^^t^a kou a-opicc, xvpiurepy ^s amxsi/AEco? Inv o Trfwroj, k, t. x, Ceterum Satan, He- brsea lingua di6luS5 & a quibufdam forma magis Grae- canica nominatus Satanas, interpretatur adverfarius : omnis autem qui in vita fe6latur malitiam, ut con- trarius virtuti, Satanas eft, hoc eft, adverfarius Dei fllii, qui eft juftitla^ Veritas^ & faplentla : fed magis proprle adverfarius eft is, qui primus omnium in pace beate degentium amiffis alis a beatitudine fua excidit. Origen. c. Celf. l.vi. p. 306. bis ( 51 ) his proper name, than it is that of any other perfon who acls the part of an ad- verfary. In the Old TePcament, it is ap- plied to a good angel, when afting an adverfe part* ; and very frequently to men''. Examples of both thefe applications of the word were produced in the EiTay, though you have taken no notice of them. The inftances in which it has been fuppofed to refer to a malignant fpirit, are but few^ Granting that it is fometimes applied to fuch s Numb. xxii. 32, 33, cited in the EiTay, p. 17^ note (^). ^ Several inftances of this application of the word fatan, may be (een in that part of the EfTay referred to above. I will add here, that it is ufed in the plural as well as in the fingular number, Pf. cix. 20. Let this be the reward of 'JiDtt^ mine adverfaries. The fame word occurs in v. 29, and in Pf. xxxviii. 20. Pf. Ixxi. 13. Pf. cix. 40. In thefe feveral places it is applied to men, and cannot poilibly denote fallen angels. ^ You fay (Inq. p. 62.), "that the term fatan is applied to the devil as his proper name, about fix or {Q\Q.n times in the Old Teftament j" but you have not referred us to the places where it is fo applied. I do not recolleft more than three occafions on which it is commonly fuppofed to refer to an evil fpirit 5 viz. in the hiiloryof Job ch. i. &:ii. (where that word is frequently E 2 repeated) ( 52 ) fuch a fpirhy yet it is no more his proper name, than it is the proper name of any of the 7nen to whom it is applied. You might as well fay, that the Englifli words, an enemy y and an opponent , are the proper names of the prince of fallen angels, as to fay the ttvxnfatan is ; for they are all ufed with equal latitude. Nor is it any jufl objeftion againfl this aflertion, that the Septuagint tranllates fatan by devil''' ; for the authors of that verlion ufe devil in the fame latitude as the facred writers dofatany as equivalent to adverfary"^ though your objeftion repeated), in Zechariah iii. i, 2. (where the margin of the Englifh tranflation reads, adverfary) and i Chron, xxi. I. with the parallel places. And as you know, that fome learned and eminent writers have contended, that even in thefe places there is no reference to the devil, it were to be wifheJ, that inilead of bare af- fertions, you had favoured the world with folid proofs of the truth of your interpretation of them. * In Pf. cix. 6, we read, fet thou o %vicked ?nan over him^ and let fatan (that is, an adverfary, in the 70, ^^o-Ko<;) Jiand at his right hand: which is thus ex- plained by Bifliop Patrick : " Let the worft man that can be found, be appointed to hear his caufe v/hen he is ( 53 ) objedion fuppofes, that they appropriate it to the prince of apoftate angels. In the New Teftament, likewife, the tQrm fat an is given to fuch men as acft the is accufed, and his moft malicious adverfary plead againft him." There is here no reference to the chief of apoftate fpirits. Nor did the authors of the Sep- tuagint imagine there was any reference to him in I, Chron. xxi. i. which they render ncci dvsry^ ^idQoXoq (not ^ta^oAo?) iv Tw \(T^o(,\h^ and there arofe an enemy in Ifrael, Even in reference to a good angel, the Hebrew word fatan is tranflated ^icc^oT^-n by the Septuagint, Numb, xxii. 32 ; which, therefore, muft denote oppoiition without malice. In reference to the fame angel, the Septuagint ufes the verb from which ho(,QoXo'; is derived^ x«t avi'T'n ocyyiKot; t5 GeS hhicc^ avrovy Numb. Xxii, 22. ^icc^ccT^sTv, codex Vatican. Befides tranilating fatan by ^id^oXo; in cafes in which men or good angels are fpoken of, the Septuagint alfo renders other Hebrew words, particularly "iv & nny, by o»aCo;^o?, though they are never applied to that wicked fpirit whom we call the devil. o^t^^oXoqis ap- plied to Haman, the enemy of the Jews, in Either vii. 4« ov yap «|foj i huQaXoc rY,q dvXvj^j and in c. viii. I. oW l'?rapx^^ cl[^%v ru ^icc^o?m. See alfo Aquila's vcrfion of Prov. xi. 13. and i Mac. i. 38. I will add, that the authors of the Septuagint, though they fometimes render Satan hy oics^oAo?, yet, at other times, they preferve the Hebrew word itfelf, as in 3 Reg. xi. 14, 23, 25, in which places ffoi,7^v is manifeftly ufed concerning men. See alfo Syr. xxi. 29. E 3 part ( 54 ^ part of enemies, to calumniators and acr cufers. Though you are pleafed to affirm" *^ that the term y?7/^;ns applied to the devil about thirty- three times in the New Tefta- ment as his proper name;'' yet you have not proved, that v^hen it is applied to him there, it is ever ufed as his proper name. On the other hand, it often occurs as an appellative, and denotes in the New Tefta- ment, what it does in the Old, an enemy or adverfary in general^. When the ancient Jews o Inq. p. 62. ? I do not aiHrm, that the term fatqn does never refer to a wicked fpirit ; but I wifh you had either cited or referred to the thirty-three places in the New Teftament, in which you fay it is applied to the devil. Were I to undertake to reduce their number, I fhould be fupported by the authority of the Fathers. But, waving, their authorit}', I am content to appeal to the natural and obvious import of a few paflages. I fhall begin with one on v/hich you quote more than once. Inq. p. 62, 236. I refer to Rev. xii. 9. The great dragon was caft otit^ that oldferpeni^ called the devil, and fatan^ which decelvcth the whole zvorld: he was cajl out into the earth, and his angels were cajl out with hi?n* This has been called the hijlory of the devil's revolt ; fout it is certainly not a hiftory, but a prophecy. St. John ( 55 ) Jews applied it to evil fpirits, they did by no means confine it to any one in particular. nor John is not recording ^^'? events, but pr editing future ones ; and, fhould we grant, that it alludes to th» common opinion concerning the expulfion of the devil from heaven, yet he cannot be the perfon here diredly referred to. Great and oppreffive powers are repre- prefented in Scripture under the image of ferpents and drago?2S, Pf. bixiv. 13. If. xxvii. i. Ezek. xxix. i, 3. Luke X. i^. There is a peculiar propriety in repre- fenting an idolatrous power under this figure, becaufe ferpents w^ere the great objeds of the antient idolatry, efpeciaily in the eaft. Of the idolatrous power, or dragon here fpoken of, it is faid, that he is called devil pia.Qo? devil^, like fatariy is of general import ; it denotes an enemy y a pi'ofecutor^ an accufer^ and calumniator ; and (though not always) is often applied to men. That it bears this application in the Greek verfion of the Old Teftament% has been already fhewn. I will here produce feveral paffages from the New Teftament, where it myft be under- flood in the fame manner. Have I not chofen you twelve ^ and one of yQii is a devil' ? Chrift here refers to the traitor, who was not the chief of fallen angels^ but one who ,ad:ed the part of an enemy in betraying his piafter. Neither give place to the dfvil"- that is, give no occafion to the railer, or Jlanderer to reproach your religion : which is the fenfe given to this paffage by Eraf- mus^ and others. A bifhop muft not be ,a novice, or nev/ convert, kjl being lifted up with pride, he fall into the condemnation of the devil, or calumniator. Moreover, he muji have a good report of them which are without, lef he fiould fall into reproach, and ' P. 52, note (") ^ John vi. 70. t e^j^^^^ -^^ ^^^ ( 6o > the fnare of the devir^ or the adverfary and flanderer. It is hard to fay, what peculiar advantage the devil might derive from a bifliop's want of a good report of them that are without y but, it is eafy to fee, that this would expofe him to the cenfure, and to the ftratagems of the enemies of re- ligion, who might try to ihame him out of thofe principles, which ferved only to re- proach and condemn him. Once more, the devil (the enemies y or falfe accufers of chriftianity) Jloall cajl fome of you info prifon^. The term devil feems more efpe- cially to denote an enemy of God^ . And in this fenfe it is applicable not only to wicked fpirits, but to wicked men alfo ^ to fuch efpecially as corrupt or perfecute true re- ligion. The term devil is ufed in the plural number in the New Teftament, juft as fatan is in the Old, when it cannot refer to fallen « I Tim. ill. 6, 7. * Rev. ii. 10. y Grotius (in 2 epift. ad TheiTal. ii. 4.) explain^ &,r:w.i\^ivn(; (which anfwers to ^ta^o^©^) by Dei adver farms; and adds, quomodo exime vocatur diabolus et qui evim imitantur. angels* ( 6i ) angels. St. Paul, in two of his epiflles'^^ forbids wome?i to be devils^. Will you affirm that the apoftle defigned to intimate that women are angels ^ and to guard thera againft becoming fallen angels ? Muft you not rather allow, that our tranflators were in the right, when they underftood by devils, Jlanderers and fa If e accufers^ efpe- cially as the fame word is applied to 7nen^2 In the laji time 7nen will be devils-\-. With- out your affiftance. Sir, I can never fhew when this prophecy has been, or will be accomplifhed concerning 7neny according to your icnk of devils ; though too many anfwer the import of the word, as it de- notes flanderers or falfe accufers. It is needlefs to produce more paiTages to prove, that the term devil is not (what you affert it to be) the proper name of one particular evil fpirit. And if more evidence were wanted, you yourfelf have fupplied it,; for you have taken pains to fhew, that 2 I Tim. iii. ii. Tit, ii. 3, * 2 Tim. iii. ^, there ( 62 ) there were fix thoufand fix hundred and fixty-fix devils in one man^. So little reafon had you to reprefent the term devil as fo particularly defcriptive of the prince of fallen angels, as not to admit of any mijiake^ tinlefs it be a ^wilful one''. Here your judgment and temper keep pace to- gether. As to the particular injlances you produce from the New Teftament, of the devil's pofleffing men under different names from that of demon, they will fall more pro- perly under confideration> when I come to explain the nature of poffeflions. Then I hope to lliew, that all your infl:ances are foreign from the purpofe. Should this point be made good, the notion of pof- feffing demons maintained in the Elfay, will ftand clear from all your objedtions acrainft it, drawn from the -New Tefla- liient. What has been already offered on this fubjedl is fufficient to illuflrate your great fnodejly and candour in affirming % that no ** Inq. p. 44. * Inqi p. 62. ** Inq. p. 180. HONEST HONEST man ever failed to find ^ or even doubted of it y that is, of the fenfe in which the facred writers ufe the word demoriy by which you underiland the devil, ' It is hard,^ indeed, if amongft all the eminent men who differ from you in this matter, there is not one as honeft as the gentleman that paffes this cenfure upon them. If they had no ftrict principle of honefty, they had, at leaft, fo much honour and virtuous pride, as to fcorn imputing to others opi- nions which they openly difavow, and fup- porting that injurious imputation, by a grofs impofition upon their readers. V/he^ ther you have not been guilty of fome- thing like this in the cafe of Mr. Mede% I leave others to determine. Were wx to grant you, that amongft all the adver- iaries of the demoniac fyflem, there is not one honeft man ; furely, you will fcarce brand the advocates for it as perfedt repro- bates. Now, amongft thefe there are fome who underftand the word dem.on in the fenfe in which I explain it. Dr. Pearce, "^ Letter I. p. 19, note (0 late- ( ^4 ) late lord bifliop of Rochefter, has been univerfally (and I believe very juftly) efteemed a perfon of fingular probity and piety, as well as an able critic, yet he tells us, that Jofephus defcribes demons to be the fpirits of wicked men, without ex- preffing any dilTent from this account of them^ The teftimony of fo great a judge of the Scripture language deferved to be produced on this occafion. IV. It fiill remains, that I examine the objedions again ft this notion of poffeffing ^ See the bifhop of Rochefter on Mat.vlii. 28. Hi? lord{hip,indeed, in his note on v. 29, refers to Jude v.6. and is chargeable with inconfiftency, unlefs he thought (as fome others have done) that the angels, or mef- iengers there fpoken of, had once been men ; or, that wicked human fpirits had the fame expedlation of future punifhment with the fallen angels, and referred to Jude only in a general view. It is remarkable, that at the very inftant that he cites Jofephus's account of poflefling demons, as denoting human fpirits, he calls the demon which (according to the Jewifli hiftorian, Antiq. 1. viii. c. 2. feet. 5) Eleazer expelled, a devil -^ though he knew that a wicked human fpirit was in- tended. So little notion does his lordfhip feem to have had, that either demon or devil, was the proper name of the prince of fallen angels* demons. C 65 ) demons, which you have drawn from the writings of the primitive Christians. Here, Sir, you have beftowed much ufelefs pains in proving, what, I imagine, every one allows, that the Fathers afferted (as we have feen feveral of the heathen phi- lofophers alfo did) the exiftence of m.alig- nant demons who never belonged to the human fpecies. You cite, with triumph, Juflin Martyr ^ Tertullian^ Clemens A- lexandrinus^ Cyril*, Theodoret'', Bafir, Origen*, and Ignatius'; to whom yoa might have added many others''. But why did you not proceed one flep farther, and fliew that thefe fuperior demons were the evil fpirits to whom poffeflions were rer^* ferred by the Fathers of the firft, fecond, and third centuries ? This you have not. done. The primitive Fathers (as well as the Pagans) believed there were var'ous kinds of demons, fome of a celeillal, others; of a terreftrial origia^ Some vyere entirely 2 Inquiry, p. 200. ^ Ibid. p. 202, ^ lb. p. 203. ^Difiert. on Mir. p. 216, note. p. 223, Sc feq. * Ita duo genera dsemonum facia fiint; unum cas- lefte, alteram terrenum. Laclantius, Dlv, Inltitut. I. ii, c. 15. p. 174. ed. Dufrefnoy, F of ( 66 ) of human extrad, others fprang from the congrefs of angels with the daughters of men"". The affertion of one fpecies of demons did by no means infer a denial of. the exiffence or power of another. Athenagoras, who flour Ifhed in the fe- cond century, reckons the fouls of the giants amongjl the demons who ^wander about the world'', Origen believed, that fuch as were once men might become demons, and even the devil and his angels °. And St. "* Ladiantius (ubi fupra), and others, taught that the fall of angels confifted in this polluted intercourfc between angels and women, which gave birth to a middle order of demons. Qui autem funt ex his pro- creati, qui neque angeli, neque homines fuerunt, fed mediam quandaai naturam gerentes, &c. ^aif/.(.»i;. Athenag. Apol. p. 28. B. In the frag- ments of the (fpurious) book of Enoch, likewife, hu- man unclean fouls are reckoned amongft demons. From this book the moft ancient Fathers borrowed their Qoinion of demons ; and particularly the notion of demons being the offspring of angels by the daughters of men. ° Jerome (epift. lix.) gives this account of Origen : Ita enim cun6la variari dicebat Origines, ut et qui nunc homo eft, poffit in alio modo dsmon fieri ; et qui daemon eft, ct negligentius cgerit in crafliora cor- pora ( 67 ) St. Auftln reprefents Tertullian, as main- taining, that the fouls of the worft men be- come demons after death ; and thus ac- ceding to the opinion of Apuleius^. Nor do I recoiled: any of the fathers but Tatian% who did not allow that fome human fouls became demons, though at the fame time they maintained that there were other de- mons beiides* pora relegetur, i. e. lit homo fiat. Slcqiie permircet omnia, ut de archangelo poilit diabolus fieri, et rurfus diabolus inangelumrevertantur. — Qii'i verb non fuerint rneriti ut per genus hominum revertatur ad priftinum ilatum, fierent diaboli et angeli ejus, et pefiimi dae- mones. Concerning Origen, See Difi'ert. on Mir, p. 5127, 228, 229. p Auftin (L de haeres. c. 86.) fays of Tertullian: eum fenfilTe animas hominum peffimas poft mortem in. daemonas verti, qui ita accederet ad fcntentiam Apulei. Concerning Apuleius, fee above, p. 38, note (*). From the works of Tertullian, which are come down to us, it appears, that he believed that the worfi; demons fprang from a corrupted flock of angels, who mixed v/ith the daughters of men. ApoL c. xxii. p. 21. Diflert. on Mir. p. 224. 4 Tatian's reafon for not allowing that any human fouls become demons, was peculiar to himfelf 5 for he believed that the foul of man dies with his body. But his very denying that demons are the fouls of men^ fliewS what opinion others entertained of them. F z Yofei { 68 ) You commit the fame miftake with refped; to the Fathers, as you did with refpeft to fome of the heathen philofophers. The former, as well as the latter, might be- lieve in a higher order of demons, and yet not coniider them as the authors of pof- feffions. Juilin Martyr, for example, fpeaks of ^ prince of evil de?nons^y (as well as the fpurious Trifmegift) to whom he ap- ^plies the names of ferpent, fatan, and devil y and he, as well as many other Fathers, held demons v/ho were the oiFspri ng of angels by women ; yet, what has this to do with the queftion before us ? For, not to obferve that this mongrel race of demons, which are neither angels nor men, are different from yours', which are all of a celeflial * Inquiry, p. 200. ^ Though yoii allow (Inq. p. 200, 20i.), that in the opinion of Juftin, x^thenagoras, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, La6tantius, and other primitive writers (amongll whom you ought to have ipecified Irenaeus ), de- mons v/ere bep;otten by angels upon ihe daughters of men^ yet you fcruple not to affirm, " that the Fi^thers all agreed with the primidve church, in the perfualion, thi^t polTeiTing deniQns weie none other (liaa the devi] ( 69 ) a celeftial origin ; Juflin held an order of demons different from both ; viz. th^ fouls of the deceafed, and to thefe he re- ferred poffeffions. Hhofe perfonsy fays he, who are feized and thrown down by the fouls of the deceafed, are fiich as all men agree in calling demoniacs and mad\ You objecft^ ** that he mentions this only as the opinion of the Heathens, not as his own/' Why then does he fay, that it was the opinion of all men, without making a fingle ex- ception ? That he could not delign to except himfelf, appears from the context: for he there urges the cafe of the pofleffed, as a proof of the permanency of the human foul after the diffolution of the body. Thefe obfervations were made in the EJfay^ but you take no notice of them, and expecS us to believe upon your bare word, that Juftin is not fpeaking of what all, but of whatyS;;^^, thought of demoniacs, in flat and his angels." Inq, p. 205, 206. You have no right to avail yourfelf of the authority of the fatliers here fpecified, whofe demons were different from your's, and from thofe of other primitive v^riters. ^ ElTay, p. 48. ^ Inq. p. 200. F 3 contradiftion ( 7° ) contradlflion to your author. In a Word, from the exprefs teftimony of Juftin, it appears, that till the end of the fecond century, the univerfal opinion concerning poffeffing demons was, that they were human fpirits". This continued to be the general opinion even fo late as the age of Chryfoftom. For, though in order to difcredit the notion that the fouls of thofe who died by violence became demons, he fays, it was entertained by many of the mea7ier forf" ; yet, when he is fpeaking rnore at large o Notwithftanding this decifive teftimony of Juftin, you are pleafed (Inq. p. 20i.) to call him " an au^ fhority point blank againji myjelf^ with refpeft to the diilin(Sl;ion I make between demons and devils ; be- caufe I allow (EfTay, p. 49.) that he calls the devil a jdemon." I have all along admitted, that many held different kinds of demons, fome of whom were of human, others of a fuperior, origin. Between tbefe two fpecies there was a real difference. But though the term demon be not appropriated to a human fpirit, it was never applied to any other in relation to poffef- fions, in the age of Juftin, whofc authority (to borrow Vour own expreilions) is point blank againjl you, ^ EfTay, p. 50, note, tto? J\c» tw;' a^i^Erspwy, ;<. t. 7. concerning ( 71 ) concerning the converfion of human fouls into demons, without confining himfelf to the fouls here fpecified, he does not limit the opinion to the meaner fort, but rather afcribes it to the multitude % or bulk of rnankind : and more than thefe cannot be fuppofed to have yielded credit to pofTeffions. Plotinus reprefents thofe who pretended to cure difeafes by expelling demons, as admired only by- the vulgar y while they were defpifed by men of fenfe, who believed, that all difeafes proceed from natural caufes"^. Nor is it difficult to account for the op- pofition which Chryfoftom made to the general opinion concerning poifeffing de- mons. We have had occalion to obferve, that feveral philofophers, the latter Pla- tonifts efpecially, afferted the exiftence of a higher order of demons, than thofe who had once inhabited human bodies \ Some of them, and Porphyry in particular, y Tor? TToAAorc, Eflay, p. 52, note. ? Ennead. ii, I. ix. cap. 14. a Difiert. on Mir. p. 220, note, F 4 w^nt ( 72 ) went lo far as to maintain, in oppofition to the general fentiments of mankind, that the more immediate objedls of heathen wor- fliip were of a rank fu-perior to the human race ; and that thefe demons did fometimes perfonate the fouls of the dead, gods, and genii*. Now, was it not natural for thofe who had been educated in thefe principles, to preferve an attachment to them after their becoraing Chriftians^ ? Certain it is in fa(S, that many, even of the earlieft chriflian ^ Difiert. on Mir. p. 21c, note. ^ You fay, '* the Fathers had much better infl:ru6lors than thofe which lam pleafed to give them." Inq.p. 161. They had, I acknowledge, Mofes and the prophets, Chrill: alfo and his apoftles, for their infl:ru6lors ; ne- verthelefs, they were as liable to be biaffed by preju- dices as any other perfons, and were, in fa<5l, too often biafTed by their attachment to the gentile pihilofophy. From whom but the heathen philofophers did they learn, that demons of the higher order perfonate the fouls of dead men, procure themfelves to be worfhipped under their names, feafl upon the fleam of what was offered to them in facrifice*, and delight in blood and ordure ? Was it from the facred Scriptures that they learned, that demons were the offspring of angels by woi-^en I It was from the Jewifh rabbies and Gen- iile philofophers, that they borrowed almofl their whole fyflerfj '( 73 ) chriftian converts, though they adopted fbme new opinions, did not immediately lay afide their old ones, but preferved them even in oppolition to the vv^arm remon- ftrances of the apoPdes^ Nov/, if the Fa- thers were ferioufly perfuaded, that fuperior demons perfonated human fpirits on other occafions, it was not unnatural for them to conclude, that they might do the fame . in the cafe of pofTeffions. Many advantages arofe from this condu6l. Nothing could more effedually difparage the heathen gods, and the prophecies and miracles afcribed to them, than repre- fenting thofe gods as devils. Befides, by referring poiTeffions to this higher clafs of demons, th-e Fathers faved the credit of the fyftem of demonology. In your book upon Rede7nption (p. 134, 2d ed.), you acknowledge, that the Fathers had their defeSfs^ ^nd that they have taught cur modern divines a more judicious knowledge of the do^rines of chriftianHy^ than they had themfelves. * Dent, xxxii. 38. imports only the view with which libations and facrifices were offered to the fictitious deities of the Heathens, notwithftandin^ v/hat vou ;:ffert, p. 323. Compare i Cor. x. 21. ^ £fiay, p, 373, note (0- 'chriilian ( 74 ) chriftian martyrs. From the earlieft ages, j an opinion had prevailed, that the fouls of fuch, efpecially, as fuffered a violent death* were converted into demons "^^ and this opinion had preferved its ground in the time of Chryfoftom. Nov^, what could bring a greater reproach upon the martyrs, than the opinion of their quite changing their nature at death, and becoming mif- chievous fpirits ? Hence fprang the zeal of Chryfoftom to eradicate the notion, that pofleffing demons were the fouls of fuch perfons as fuffered a violent death. His warm oppofition to this notion is a proof of its general prevalence amongft Chriftians till the beginning of the fifth century ; and proceeded, perhaps, chiefly from mo- tives of policy \ He was in a manner forced ^ DifTert. on Mir. p. 2C9, and Lucian*s Phllopfeud. p. 346. ed. Amftelodam. ^ Though St. Chryfoftom fometimes (vid. in Matth. Horn. 28. al. 29. torn. vli. p. 336, cited in the Eflay, p. 51, note.) argues in general terms againft the opinion of the fouls of the deceafed becoming demons, yet at other times (De Lazaro, cone. ii. tom. i. p. 727, cd. Montfaucon.) he only oppofes this opinion as far at ( 75 ) forced into this oppofition to it, in order to remedy the inconveniences ariling from it with refpe61: to the martyrs. I have nov^^ examined all your objections againfl: the opinion concerning poiTeffing demons maintained in the EiTay ; and, I hope, confirmed vi^hat is there advanced ^s it refpe(5led thofe who died a violent death ; and feems even to allow, that the fouls of wicked men do become demons : " They are not (fays he) the foulsf of thofe who die by violence that become demons, but the fouls of thofe who live in their fuis." But this lan^ guage you reprefent (Inq. p. 212 ) as an eafy figure of fpeech, becaufe Chryfoftom adds, a t^; ^aia; avrm [/.erccQa^?,'. their nature 'not being changed^ but their choice being to imitate the malice of demons. St. Chryfoftom does not here retract what he had faid before, that the fouls of the wicked, not thofe of martyrs, became demons ; but afligns a reafon why this might be true j viz. " the |)revious difpofition and refolution of the wicked to imitate the malicloufnefs of demons, which could not be imputed to the martyrs." He next obferves, that the Scripture calls thofe the children of the devil, who are like him, and do his works ; which fhews, that men fo eminently good as the martyrs, could not without a change of nature, become demons or mif- chievous fpirits, though wicked men might become fuch without that change. ( 76 ) to fliew, that the Heathens, the Jews, the firft founders of chriftianity, and the primitive Chriftians, were all agreed in confidering them as human fpirits. But you reprefent this as a very ufelefs. undertaking. For you fay^, that inafmuch' as '^ thefe fpirits w^ere judged capable of entering the bodies of mankind, you would fain know where the difference lyes, v/ith regard to the argument, between fuch pof- feffions, and poffeffions by other evil fpirits/' Were the reality of pofleffions to be taken for granted, it would, I allow, .be a matter of very little moment, to determine who the poiTeffing fpirits were. But as the reality of poffeffions is the main point in queftion, it is of great importance to de- termine, v/hether the caufe to which they are referred, be capable of producing fuch cfrefe. If the pofTeiling demons fpoken of in the Nev/ Tefiament were heathen gods, that is, fuch human fpirits as were thought to become deities ; then the Scripture fur- nifhes us with two unanfwerable objeftions » Inquiry, p. 135, fee p. 168. againfl { 77 ) againft the reality of their pofleffions. For the Scripture both alTerts the utter im- potence of all the heathen gods^^ and gives fuch an account of the ftate of de- parted ^^ fpirits, as is abfolutely inconfiflent with their having any. power of entering the bodies of mankind. Both thefe ob- jediions were urged in the EfTay ; and I have now the fatisfad:ion to find, that the force of one of them is admitted by Dr. Worthington himfclf. For you treat the notion, of the fouls of dead men having power to enter the bodies of others, as the greateft abfurdity'. You likewife ob- ferve", that ** we read in Scripture oi f^e fpirits i72 prifon ' ; but we do not read of any human fpirits releafed from the prifon of flefh, being fuffered to roam at large, and to be made the fcourges and tor- mentors of living mortals/' With regard to the moral charaBer of poffeffing demons, though you knew I ad- g EfTay, p. 189, et feq. ^ EfTay, p. 190, 191. and DiiTert. on Mir. p. 161. i Inq. p. 17I5 172. J^ Ibid. p. 182. ^ i Pet, iii. 19. mitted ( 78 ) tnitted, that the New Tejiamejit did cert ahtly, on fome occajionsy by demonsy 7nean evil fpirits"^ ; yet you reproach me Wiih. feeming ^ Dlflert. on Miracles, p. 207, note (=) ; to which Verv note you refer your readers. Inq. p. 183. That I meant pofTeiEng demons, is plain from the reference ta Mat. ix. 34. See Effay^ p. 58. Neverthelcfs, you are, I apprehend, much miftaken in affirming, that demon is never ufed in Scripture but in a bad kvik. Inquiry^ p. 183, 184. Mr. Mede, whom you mifreprefent as being of the fame opinion with yourfelf, has fully proved, that in A6ts xvii. i8. i Cor. x, 21. i Tim. iv. I. Rev. ix. 20. demon is not to be taken for an evil fpirit, but according to the theology of the Gen- tiles, for a deified human foul, p. 634, et feq. But you think that even in Acl. xvii. 18. demon could not have a good meaning, becaufe the heathtn philofophers were but ill-difpofed towards Chrlft atidhis apojlles. Inq. p. 185. It v/as very natural for you to take it for grant- ed, that men will mifreprefent thofe whom they dillike : but I think it poffible that a Heathen might fcorn fuch a pradtice j efpecially in a cafe where the very abfurdity of it would prevent its ill eitecl. Notvvithftanding what I have feen in your book, I am dill perfuaded that this argument is generally conclufive. You plead, that ^i^ai^c^^^ana, was taken by the Heathens in a good fenfe^ but that^ ^mongft ChrlJIians, it was put for impiety. Inq. p. 134. How then vv^ould St. Paul be underftccd by the Heathens, when in addreffing them be ftyicd them ^gta-t^at/AOMre^a,- ? See Eilay, p. 208. t0 ( 79 ) to have a great teiidernefs for their moi'-at charaBer^'y and even with feeming to have a GREAT VENERATION for them'', Who grants you an indulgence for ufing fuch language, it may become you well to con- lider. — As to feveral of the epithets applied to demons in the Gofpels, I {till think, that they do not refer to thtiv p erf onal qua- lities, but to the effeBs they were fuppofed to produce. You fuppofe that fome devils are deaf 2^x16. diunb^, Yi^vQ fpiritiial hQin^ys corporeal organs} And v/as it revealed to the evangelifts, that the devils to whom you refer were deprived of their fpeech and hearing ? Is it not more natural to fuppofe, that the men faid to be poflefled by thefe de- mons, were thought to be thereby rendered dumb and deaf? That this was really the cafe, will appear by comparing the evangelifts Matthew and Luke together, in the account they give of the fame demonaic. Matthew'' fpeaks only of the demoniac as being blind and dumb : Inhere was brought wito yefus one pqff'ejfed with a de?nG?2 (in the original it is n Inquiry, p. 325. ° Ibid, p. 183. p lb. p. 51, 322. 'i ch. xii. 22, ( So ) /I defnonmc) blind and dumb : and he healed hm, infomuch that the blind and dumb both fpake and f aw. This man's diforder, as was fhewn in the Eflay% was that fpecies of madnefs called melancholy^ which fome- titnes renders men both blind and dumb, and was anciently afcribed to poffeffion. Accordingly, when the demon was gone out, or his diforder was cured, the man recovered his fpeech and fight. In Luke we read, 'Jefus ivas cajiing out a demon ; and it was dumb. And it came to pafs^ when the demon was gone otity the dumb /pake*. Explain the language of Luke in con- formity to that of Matthew, and his mean- ing will be, ** Jefus was curing a demo- niacal diforder, which had rendered the patient dumb. And no fooner was the diforder cured, than the patient recovered his fpeech." The Cambridge manufcript reads, Tpca^ip=Tai«t;Tw^a*f/toyt^ojtAsyo,-x&.'(^oj, AuQ, in- deed, it isfelf-evident, that Luke is fpeak- ing of the eifecl of the demoniacal diforder « p. 113— 1 1 6. * LulsQ Ki. 14.. upoa- ( 8i ) ttpon the patient. If the demoniac re- covered his fpeech at this time, he had certainly loft it before. When demons are called unclean, the reafon feems to be, that perfons under that melancholy and maniacal diforder, of which they were the reputed authors, were continually defiling themfelves with ob- jedls efteemed by the Jews unclean \ But you fuppofe thefe fpirits were called un- clean, as for other reafons, fo for this in particular, their inhabiting a mans belly^ and dwelling in that place which is the re- ceptacle of ordure''. You may more eafily quote an authority, than produce a good reafon, for this opinion, or for that which you next mention "" ; both of which fhock common {tni^ and decency too much, to require or bear a refutation. The very filthinefs of this part of your work fecures it from being expofed as it deferves. I cannot conclude this letter, without obferving farther, that from the principle here contended for ; viz. '' that pofTeflions ^ EiTay, p. 62. " Inquiry, p. 324. ^ Inq. P- 325- G were ( 82 ) were referred to human fpirits," it cannot be inferred, that I deny the exiftence of fallen angels, much lefs that I deny the exiftence of human fouls in a ftate of feparation from the body. You are pleafed to tell the world, ** that I have made fhort work with the devil and his angels ; and have done more than all the exorcifts put together ever pretended to : that I have laid the devil, and all other evil fpirits, banifhed them out of the world, and in a manner deftroyed their very exiftence''." There may be much wit, but indeed. Sir, there is no truth in this language. I have never denied ; nor could I, without great abfurdity, take upon me to deny, the exiftence of evil fpirits originally of a rank fuperior to man- kind. And, as we are ignorant of the laws of the fpiritual world, it would be great prefumption to take upon us to de- termine the fphere of their operation. That they have no dominion over the na- tural world, which is governed by fixed and invariable laws, is a truth attefted in the ampleft manner by reafon, by re- f Ap. to Inq. p. 332. velation. ( ^3 ) velation, and by our own experience. But the queilion is, whether poffeffions are re- ferred to fallen angels, or to human fpirits. To fay they are referred to the latter, is by no means to banifli the former out of the world. I do not remember, that Mede, or Sykes, or Lardner, were ever charged with, or even fufpedted of, what you im- pute to me, and what you might, upon the fame grounds, have imputed to them. But you go farther ftill, and affirm, that *' I feem to be perfuaded, that Beel- zebub and all other demons are non-en- tities^ y and that I have laboured to prove their non-exiftence and abfolute nullity*.'' You add, '' that if thefe dem.ons, or deified human fpirits are all annihilated, all other human fouls, after they have left the body, may be reduced to nothing." And you afk with feeming concern, what becomes of the doBnne of a future fate^ ? To the EJ/ayy and other writings of the fame ten- dency, you impute the revival and growth ^ Ap. to Lnq. p. 332. * liiq. p. 192, iec alfo p. 330. * lnq. p. 192. G 2 of ( 84 ) of the Saddiiccan creed, that there is neither angel nor fpirit^ . But is it impoffible for human fpirits to exift, unlefs they are turned into demons ? Does not Dr. Worthington himfelf allow, that the fouls of men furvive the diiTo- lution of the body ; and, at the fame time, deny their power of poffeffing mankind I If the dodlrine of the ^ffciy favours the Sadducean creed, that of the Inquiry does the fame. But you fay, the author of the Effay has laboured to prove the non- exiftence and abfolute nullity of demons. What he really attempted to prove, is, that thofe reputed demons to whom pof- feffions were referred, had no more power to produce thefe eifedis, than if they had no exiftence in nature^ But at the fame time hecontends for therealityof a feparateftate% and for the exiftence of thofe very fpirits which were falfely believed to be changed into demons, of whom St. James fpeaks un- der their vulgar denomination, and of whom he fays, that they believe and trembled <: Inquiry, p. 227. ^ Stri£lly fpeaklng, they had no exiftence at all as demons. ^ DiiTert. on Mir, p. 161. ^ Effay, p. 211. Nay, ( 85 ) Nay, notwithftanding all the pains you have taken to mifreprefent me as Sadducee, you were willing, in cafe you were charged with this mifreprefentation, to provide your- felf with a falvo, by faying % you perjuade yourfelf^ I did not mean to carry my argu- ment Jo far^ that is, fo far as to conclude againft the permanency of human fouls, after they have left the body : language, Avhich falls far fhort of what you know to be my avowed opinion, but which never- thelefs ferves to £hew, you did not really believe me to be a favourer of the Sad- ducean creed, though you were not very unwilling to convey that impreffion of me to others. I cannot conclude this letter, though already of too great a length, without taking notice of one farther argument that you have employed to difcredit the notion of poffeiling demons adopted in the Efiay ; viz. '' that taken from its infernal origin.'* For you tell us, // could proceed only from the father of lies y and that wicked fpirits infufe a belief of it into weakpeople^ , I intended to com- pliment you upon this notable difcovery, till s Inquiry, p. 192. ^ Inq. p. 206, 209. G 3 I found ( S6 ) I found you modeflly gave the honour of it to St. Chryfoflom, and very gratefully ac- knowledged your obligation to him for his information^ Still, Sir, I congratulate you upon your eafy and expeditious method of anfvvering the arguments of your op- ponents. You have only to call them fug- geftions of the devil; that is a fufficient refutation. Your opponents, indeed, might take the fame method to refute you -, but they are under lefs temptation to do it, and have fome regard to their reputation. Perhaps it would be a matter of prudence in you. Sir, to be fome what cautious how you claim too great a familiarity with the devil, and profefs to be let into his fecrets, and to know what particular opinions he infufes into the minds of men. You would not be open to the fame fufpicion, if, when- ever you were at a lofs to anfwer the reafon- ings of your opponents, yqu cried out witl:| the honeft quaker in the like diftrefs. Oh (irgumenty Oh argument y the Lord rebuke thee ! ^ I am. Reverend Sir, &c. * Inquiry, p. 210. LETTER ( 87 ) LETTER III, Reverend Sir, HAVING examined at large your notion of poffeffing demons, I pro- ceed now to confider your explication of demoniacal poffeJiion . You call your performance ^^ an im- partial inquiry into the cafe of the Gofpel demoniacs." But you have taken very little care to ftate their cafe v^ith precilion j and have, I apprehend, much miftaken or mifreprefented it. You had undertaken to produce ^* inftances from the New Teftament, of the devil's poffeffing men under different names from that of de- mon \" In order to make good this point, you found it neceffary to rank amongft de- moniacs, thofe perfons who were not really fuch. * See above, p. 48, and Inq. p. 152, 155— -159. G 4 You ( ?8 ) You mention Judas as *^ an in fiance that comes fully up to the cafe in point''." Satan, indeed, is faid to enter ^ Judas; but he was no more a demoniac than Ananias, ivhofe heart Sata?i had filled^. A great dillindion is to be made htiY^ctn fataiiical ^ Inquiry, p. 92. *= You afTert, (Inq. p. 95.) *' that the devil did //- Urally enter into the body of the traytor." I fhall leave this aflertion to the rebuke of Calvin. On John xiii. 27, he fays, Nimis vero infulfe delirant, qui diabolum fingunt eflentialiter, ut loquuntur, Judam intrafle Who is not furprifed to find you affirming, upon the authority of the moft fuperftitious amongft all the Heathens, that '^ evil fpirits take the opportunity of conveying themfelves into men's bodies v^hile they are at their meals ;" and confirming this fenfelefs opinion by a mifapplication of John xiii. 27 ? Inq. p. 164, 165. The evangelift, in the paflage to which you refer, does not fay, that fatan entered Judas with the fop, but after it. The delivery of the fop to Judas, was the circumfl:ance that exprefsly marked him out as the traytor, and expofed him to public difgrace ; and this fired his refentment to fuch a degree, that he could bear the place no longer. Finding that his treachery was difcovere^l, he thought that he might as well go ^nd receive the reward of it. In this manner, it is not improbable ; and at this time, it is certain, the ie?np' tation of fatan gained full adm'ijjion into his heart. ^ Ads v. 3. temptation ( 89 ) temptatwi and demoniacal pojfejjion. Nay, you do yourfelf admit % *' that many may be too much in the power of the devil, without being bodily pofieffed by him." Nor was the woman "= \y\\oxx\ fat an or the adverfary had ^^2/y^^, a demoniac; whether her infirm habit of body proceeded from the relaxation of her nerves, or was in- JliBed by an evil fpirit. This cafe was ex- plained in the Eflliy^; and is, in effedt, given up by yourfelf. For you fay\ *' this cafe, in flridlnefs of fpeech, cannot perhaps be called a pojjejjion fo properly as an ohjejjion. It would, perhaps, have beeji more proper to have obferved, that the miracle performed upon her, is not faid to confift either in the ejedlion or repulfion of a demon, but in 7naki?2g her Jiraight\ The language of Peter to which you next appeal'', yefiis healed all that were opprejjed of the deviPy muft not be explained by modern opinions, but by the fentiments of the ancient Jews, who conlidered all dif- e Inq. p. 156. § EiTay, p. 76—78. h Inquiry, p. 89. ^ Luke xiii. 13. ^ Inq. p. 156. ^ A6ls X. 38. See EfTay, p. 74. eafes. ( 90 ) cafes, cfpecially thofe of the mofl ma-^ lignant nature, as proceeding from the agency of fome fpiritual being"', adting as the inflrument of divine providence". But the Jews did not confider all that were op- prefied by an evil fpirit or difeafed, as being poffeffed by demons. Nor will you affii'm, that all the fubjefts of Ch rift's healing power were demoniacs. It is abfurd to reftrain the lanp-uage of the apoftle to any one par- ticular fpecies of diforders, it being his immediate dcfign to ihew, that Chrift de- monftrated his divine commiffion, by heal- ing (as St. Matthew" fpeaks) all manner of ficknefs, and all inanner of difeafe amongji n» See EfTay, p. 76. Lightfoot on Luke xiii. 11, 16. and Hammond on John vii. 20. n Non enim invenies Deum ullum opus feclfle, nifl per manus alicujus angeli, Maimonides, Mor. Nevoc. p. 200. We have feen, that, originally, the term fatan^ (which is equivalent to that of dcvU) when ap- plied to an angel, did not exprefs the malignity of his difpofition, but the nature of his commifiion, or his being appointed to acl as an adverfary. It is probable, however, that the Jews might confider the angel of affliction and punifhment as an evil being, but ftiil as acting by divine ccmmiffion. ♦ Ch. iv. 23. the ( 91 ) the people. In this fenfe the language of St. Peter is underflood by our befl inter- preters ^ And had you, Sir, when you explained it of fuch as were poffcjGTed by the devil, recolled:ed your own idea of pof- feffions, as not neceffarily importing any bodily difeafe, you could not have been guilty of fo great an abfurdity as that of making the facred hftiorian Hiy, what, in efted:, you do make him fay, that Chrift healed all who had no difeafe to be healed. No lefs abfurd is it to fuppofe% that St. Paul refers to what the ancients underftood by pofleffion, when he tells the Ephefians ", In time pajl ys walked^ accord'mg to the prince of the power of the air ^ the prince and leader of that fpirit or temper that now worketh in the children of difobedience, St. Paul is here defcribing the ftate of the unconverted Gentiles, and you fuppofe that he repre- fents them all as demoniacs', though no- thing p Omnes segri, qui ad Chriftum adducuntur, dicuntur infideri a dxmoniis. Hammond on John vii. 20. ed. Clerici. i Inq. p. 158. '' Chap. ii. 2. « This flrange miftake, I fuppofe, led you (Inq. p, 204,) to conclude, from the cuflom of the converts from ( 92 ) thing could be more foreign from his purpofe'. I have now examined, as I had before promifed, all the cafes that you have pro- duced, as inftances of the devil's poffeffing men under different names from that of demon ; and they ferve only to fhew, how- little you underflood your fubjedt. If the dodrine of the learned author, whom you cite with approbation", be true, ^* that dreaming is hwt p off ejjion in ileep;'' there is fcarce a man you meet with, who is not poffeifed. But v/hat has this to do with the demoniacs of the Gofpel ? The ancients, both Heathens and Jews, affixed as precife and determinate an idea from Heathenifm to renounce the devil at their bap- tifm, and from the ceremony of exorcifing the devil which preceded it, that the polTefling demons were, in the opinion of the primitive Chriftians, the devil and his angcis. But thefe renunciations and exorcifms have not the leuft relation to demoniacal pofleilion. They did not fuppofe the catechumen or convert to be mad but to be wicked, and as fuch under the power of the devil, previous to his baptifm. ^ This paflage is explained at large. DifTert. on Miracles, p. 155— i6i. " Appendix to Inq. p. 344 to ( 93 ) to demoniacal pofleffion, as they did to blindnefs, deafnefs, fevers, palfies, or any- other diftemper. And the demoniacs of the New Teftament are the very fame vv^ith thofe mentioned in other authors'". Both the Syrophenician v^oman, who was a Heathen, and the evangelifts defcribe the cafe of her daughter in the fame terms ^. The cafe alfo of the epileptic youth is re- prefented no otherwife by the e van p-elilis, than it is by his father, who was a Jew"", It would be as unreafonable to affirm, that the blind, the lame, and the deaf, who were cured by Chrift, were different from thofe defcribed under thefe terms in other countries, as to affirm this concerning de- moniacs. Accordingly the facred writers, no lefs than the ancient Jews and Heathens, diftinguifh demoniacs from thofe who la- boured under other complaints ^ Now, wherein did this difference confift ? By what fymptoms were they diftinguiflied ? 5= EfTay, p. 142. y Mat. xv. 22. Mark vii. 25. ^ Compare Mat. xvii. 15, 18, 19. Mark ix. 17 — 29. Luke ix. 37 — 42. ^ Mat. iv. 24. Mark i. 34. Luke vii. 21. ch. vlii. 2. You .J - ( 94 )' You all along confider demoniacs as per- fons who had a demon or devil in them : but this is a very defeftive account of them ; it is not a iufficient difcrimination of them, even on your own principles. For you fuppofe, that evil fpirits enter men with their food, in order to refrefh themfelves with the ordure of the human body. But no one who had a fpirit within him for fuch a purpofe, was, properly fpeaking, a demoniac. You fometimes fpeak of demoniacs as great and enormotis Jinjiers. In thefe fevere terms you reproach Mary Magdalen \ You reprefent demoniacs in general, as beijig much more under the do^iiinion of the devil than others'" ; and fay, that the end of all diabolical pojjej/ion muji have been to corrupt the hearts of men^. What you have ad- vanced on this point, is totally deftitute of proof. The gofpel never fpeaks of pof- fefied perfons in any terms of reproach. We read of one who had been a demoniac b Inq. p. 83. ' P. I5^j ^S7' compare p. 22c, 326. * Inq. p. 96. from ( 95 ) from his childhood" j and according to you, there was another, whom our Saviour called a daughter of Abraham^ Will vou deliberately affirm, that either of thefe perfons was a great and enormous finner ? Were we even to allow the truth of what you have advanced, ftill you have not de- termined what meafure of moral guilt is a certain fign of poffeffion. Nor have you pointed out any bodily difordcrs, by which poffeffion might be certainly known and diftinguiihed. You , fay, indeed, that it cannot be proved, that any one demoniac had any other inadmefsy or epilepfy, or other complaint, than fuch as appears to have been acliially caufed by pof fejton^. And when fpeaking of the Ga- darene demoniacs, you tell us\ Tou cannot difcover any infa?iity in either of theWy but what, in the language of the faculty, u^as fymptomatical, andfolely effeBed by the devils that pojefed them, Thefe expreffions im- ply, that infanity and other diforders might be the effed of poffeffion. But, ^Markix. 21. Tcc^ynl^-^ f Luke xiii. 16. «Inq. p. 9. '^F. 41, though ( 96 ) though you {^t^k Accordingly Apollonius thus addreffes a youth fuppofed to be poflefled : It is not you that rewle mey but the demon''. The reafon of this lan- guage is explained by what Apollonius adds, A demon agitates you""* The demoniac himfelf indeed is fome- times reprefented as fpeaking and adling ; T3ut it is becaufe he was the organ or in- ftrument of fpeech and adlion to the demon by whom he was infpired and aduated. In thefe different views, what was faid or done, was attributed fometimes to the one, and fometimes to the other. Nor is it unufual on other occafions-j to refer the fame act indifferently, either to the agent, or to the inilrument. The demoniac, during the tim^e of his poifeflion, was fo entirely out of his own power, and fo ab- folutely under the influence of the demon, that he was not conlidered as being him- YtQafxfi^uiVi Lucian Philopfeud. p. 337, torn. 2. ed. Am- fie!.' 1687. " s cry rxvra. l^flj-ii', «Aa' octifj'.uvj PhiloHrat, vit. Apollon. p. 157. ed. OJenr. Compare ?4ark i. 23 — 26. ^ ^u'i^uv iXxv.n oi. Philoftrat. ubi fupra. H 2 Mf. ( 100 ) felf, but rather as a demon, and was often addreffed under that very title ^. Demoniacs having been educated in the common opinion concerning the nature and reality of pofleffions, did (as it w^as natural to fuppofe they would) frequently fancy themfelves to be poflelTed. Accord- ingly we find them addreffing the fpirits that they fuppofed to be within them"", and fpeaking and adiing in conformity to the apprehended fentiments and inclinations of thofe fpirits % They either conceived of themfelves as being demons ; or fpoke in the fame manner as if they had been fuch, becaufe they confidered themfelves as fpeak- ing in their name, and under their in- fluence \ The peculiar fymptoms of demoniacal pofleffion were certain kinds of infanity, fuch as the ancients could not account for by natural caufes% and feemed to argue the feizure of the underftanding by a male- i -f:-' y Loquere larva. Plautus, Mercator, a6i:. v. fc. iv. V. 20. ^ Eiuy, p. 251. note {^), ^ Id. ib. note (g). ''See EiTay, p. 250—256. c'Id. p, 88. volent ( loi ) volent demon, who inftigated the unhappy- patient to every thing- that was extravagant, and injurious to himfelf and others. It has been fhewn ^ that amongft the Greeks, the Latins, the Jews, and other eaftern people % inianity was an infeparable effect of poiTeiiion : that amongft the primitive Chriiiians, reputed demoniacs were all mad, melancholy, or epileptic perfons^: and '^ EfTay, ch. i. fe£i. v. « With refpedl to the Turcs, the Arabs, and the Perfians^ in particular, my learned and worthy friend, Michael Dodfon, Efq. has referred me to the following paflage in Hyde's Rel. Vet. Perf. p. 400, ed. Oxon. 1760, which confirms what is advanced in the Eflay : Quod autem infani siftimarentur fandi, non eft mirum, cum omnes vates, tempore vaticinii, fere erant quafi ecftatici : et fane apud Turcas, qui de di6lis oraculis nihil unquam audiverunt, etiam hodie, quivis ma- niacus asftimatur fanctus, quia fpiritu (ut credunt) af- flatus et a6lus : unde fauftum ducitur talis hominis manicam tangere, vel eum tangere, qui eandem teti- gerat. Et talis ab eis Sz Arabibus vocatur — fpiritu ob- feffizs, a Perfis — daemoniacus, furens, feu — iurens Deo, numine ta6lus et afflatus, zvBso;, f See Eflay, p. 126, 127, and the paiTage from La6l:antius in particular, there cited, which explains the fentiments of the ancient Chrift:ans, both concerning the demoniacs of their own times, and thofe cured by H 3 Chrift, ( 102 ) and that fuch likewife were all the de- moniacs of the New Teftament". The fymptoms of the latter are the very fame with thofe of the demoniacs defcribed in other ancient writings -, and are all ma- niacal or epileptic. In fome inflances, indeed, no particular fymptoms are fpeciiied -, and hence you are forward to conclude, that fome demoniacs }iad no diforder of underftanding, nor any diflemper whatfoever. But you forget. Sir, that amongft the ancients, no man was thought to be pofTefTed, who was not infane\ Thefe two things, poffeffion and infanity, were fuppofed to bear to each other the relation of caufe and efF^fl: ; and it vv^as from the latter, that men inferred the former^. Hence it came to pafs, that to be poffeiTed, and to be mad, were ufed in a great meafure as equivalent expref- fions. So neceflarily was the idea of in- fanity connected witli that of poffeffion, Chrift. See alfo Beza, cited in the Eflay, p. 342, note (f), g EfTay, ch. i. fe£l. vi. *• EfTay, p. 78, et feq. * See Philoftrat. vit. Appollon, p. 157. that TO'1 tb/ - . a: - -o a uiff^rent caule"^. Wnen the evangeiiils, therefore, call any one a demoniac ; or fay, he had a demon, they by thefe very terms reprefent him as mad. Your notion of demoniacs, though it may be countenanced by a few moderns, is one of the moft glaring con- tradictions to the fentiments of the an- cients (who certainly beft knew their own meaning:') I have ever met with. If the demoniacs of the Gofpel laboured under no diftemper whatfoever, why is it faid, that they were cured, and made whole'^ -, and even that they were cured or healed of evilfpirits^? This language implies, that * Eflay, p. 84. ^ Mat. iv. 24. ch. xvH. 18. Lukevi. 18. ch. ix. 42. A61:. y. 16. Concerning the daughter of the Syro- phenician woman in particular, it is faid, fhe was made v/hole, Mat. xv^ 28. which ill agrees with your obfervation, (Inq. p. 82.) " that there is no one di- ftemper mentioned, as connected with this cafe." k Chrift cured many of infirmities^ and plagues^ wid evil fpirits^ Luke vii. 21. Certain zvomcn had been heakd of evil fpirits and infirmities^ ch. viii. 2. H 4 they ( 104 ^ they had fomc difeafe, and that the phrafe, evil fpiritSy did itfelf import a Ipecies of difeafes. And if that fpecies of difeafes was not maniacal, why is the cure of it defcribed by a refloration to fanity of mind' ? You contradl6l yourfelf, as well as op- pofe the truth, in the account you have o-iven of the nature of demoniacal pof- feffion. Though, when it ferved your purpofe, you maintain, that fome de- moniacs are mentioned without reference to any diftemper whatfoever'"' -, yet, at other times, your language plainly implies, that demoniacs, as fuch, were mad : for you reprefent their cure as confifting in their being refiored to their right jjiind"". When {peaking of the drowning of the fwine, you fay, *' that it proceeded from the rage, which the pofl'effion naturally produced in thcm'\" Now, if pofleffioa produces madnefs naturally ^ then every perfon that was pofTeffed was certainly mad ^ which * Effay, p. 103. "^ Inq. p. 9. '"* Inq. p. 220. " Inq. p. 30. is ( I05 ) IS all that we here undertook to prove. The prefent queftion does not concern the , reality, but the nature and fymptoms, of pofleffion. Even fuppofing poffeffions to be real, ftill it mull be allowed, that mad- nefs was their concomitant and efFe6h From hence it appears, that the queftion between lis, is not. Whether the pojjejjions mentioned in the Gofpel are real or imaginary^ ^ in your abftradled view of them, or with- out including thofe efreds which they were always fuppofed to produce, and which the very terms, demoniacal feizure or poJfeJJiGny were ufed to exprefs. The only proper queftion on this fubjedl, is, *^ Whether thofe kinds of infanity which were con- fidered by the ancients, as the fymptoms and evidences of demoniacal poiTeffion, were truly fuch 5 or proceeded from na- tural caufes.'' From the foregoing explication of de- moniacal pofleffion, we may alfo learn, upon what ground it was that the ancients diftinguiftied demoniacs from the difeafed, P Inquiry, p. i, and C io6 ) and even from lunatics. That the New Teftament itfelf makes fuch a diftindiion, I readily admit. The evangelift fays% "T^hey. brought to 'J ejus all Jick people^ that were taken with divers difeafes and torments y and (or ev^n^ thqfe which were pojjcffed with devils (in the original they are defcribed by one word", which lignifies <^^;;^^/7/^^j-), and thofe which were hmaticy and thofe that had the palfy. Hence you'. Sir, after many others, raife an objection againft the doc- trine of the Effay, under a miftaken ap-» prchenfion, that if reputed demoniacs only labpured under natural diforders, there could be no foundation for the diftindtion made in the Gofpel between their cafe, and that of the other perfons fpecified by St. Matthew. When pofleffions were diflinguifhed from difeafes ; by the latter, the ancients meaned fuch difeafes as afre£t only the bodyy or imply forne diforder in the corporeal fyftem y while the former fuppoied an 9 Mat. iv. 24. See EfTay, p. 64. ^ Inq. p. 7, & fecj. alienation ( I07 )♦ alienation of mindy fuch as did not proceed from any diforder in the corporeal fyftem, but from the immediate prefence and agency of a demon. This fuppofed dif- ference in the two cafes, is the ob- vious ground of the diftindtion originally made between poiTeffions and difeafes : a diftindion, however, that the New Tefta- ment does not always obferve. For. it fometimes comprehends poiTeffions under difeafes, or fpeaks of the latter as a diftin(fl fpecies of the former*. As to the diftin Inq. p. 117 — 123, " p. 123, by ( "5 ) by any of our corporeal organs, is too evident to require proof. You yourfelf were aware of this ; for you plead % that faBsy which are not ohjeBs offenfe, may not^ withjianding be fiifficiently attejled and afcer-^ tained by their effeBs and circumjiances : and you apply this obfervation to the cafe of poffeffions and difpofleiBons, which, you affirm^ ** might have been vijible enough in their effects and confequences^ T To render this remark ferviceable to your caufe, you fhould inform us, what thofe effedls and confequences are, which afcertain the reality of poffeffions and difpofleffions. This talk you have undertaken ; but, I apprehend, without any fuccefs* 'There are, you obferve% many pheno-- mena in the mate?'ial world which ejcape our fenfesy the reality of which notwithjlanding^ is incontrovertible. We cannot fee the windy but we hear the found of it, and feel its power. All men believe there is fuch a meteor as the wind, becaife they hear the • Inq. p. 3. P lb. p. 143, 144. ^ Inq. p. 144. I 2 found ( Ji6 ) foUnd of it, and feel its fenlible effects. And all men will believe the reality of poffefiions, when you point out, with clear- nefs and certainty, fuch effedls of them as equally fall under the notice of their fenfes. Inftead of doing this, you change the ftate of the queftion, and immediately add. If "We are to believe iiothing about fpiritual ieings, but what falls ufider our fenfes^ we 77iujl not believe jo much as the exijience of any of the77i. The queftion was not, whe- ther we may not have fufRcient reafon to believe the exiftence and agency of fpi- ritual beings, though they do not fall under the notice of our fenfes ; but whe- ther their poffeffions did, in their effeds and confequences, fall under the notice of our fenfes. *' No natural diftemper," you farther plead', ** could ever be attended with more dreadful agonies than thefe poffefiions were." Pray, Sir, inform the v/orld, by what criterion you diftinguifh agonies pro- duced by demons, from thofe which pro- ceed from natural caufes. You fpeak of a ' Inq. p. 145. variety ( 1^7 ) variety offimptoms' in the feveral cafes of the New Teftament demoniacs. But not- withftanding this variety, you have not pointed out one fure fymptom of pof- feffion. If you can not give us any fure fign of poffeffion, you muft be equally at a lofs to furnifh us with any fure iign of difpof- feffion. Self-evident as it is, that the ejeBion of a demon from the human body does no more fall under the notice of our fenfes^ than his entrance into it, yet you are pleafed to fay% that ** there is as much evidence that a demon is expelled, ariiing from the work itfelf, as there is from the cure of a difeafe ; the alteration produced being no lefs difcernible in the one, than in^ the other." Every one knows what licknefs and health are, and therefore can- not be ignorant what alteration is made in a iick man, when he recovers his health. But is pofTefiion as obvious to our fenfes as ficknefs is ? You do yourfelf plead', that many demoniacs do not appear to have any ^Inq. p. 145. «P, J44. t Jnq^ p. 9. See above, p. 96, 97. I 3 natural ( n8 ) natural diforder at all ; and you have not hitherto ihewn what other effeds are pro- duced by the devil's entrance into any one. How then can you determine what al- teration is made in him, when the devil is expelled ? Had I not good reafon then to call difpof- feffions, fuppofing them to be real, invifible miracles, and to affert that they cannot furnifli out any fenjible and public proof oi Chrift's power over demons"? Neverthelefs, you fay, thefe are downright afj'ertions againjl faBi as abwidantly appears from what has been already obferved^. Yjou will be al- lov/ed to life this language, when you have pointed out the vifible difcriminating effedis of difpolTeilion, conndered abilractedly from the cure of a diflemper. Till then, the moft prudent anfwer you can return to what 1 had urged to fhew, that the bare expulfion of a fpiritual and invifible being • from the human body, can carry no con- Vidion to mankind, is to affirm roundly, that it does not deferve to have any notice to be * EfTay, p. ?86 — 396. * Inq, p. 145, 146. taken ( ^19 ) / token of iff. This you have affirmed ; but J am perfuaded, you were fcarce fatisfied with yourfelf in fo doing. For you do take further notice of what you pretend did not deferve any. You take no fmall pains to iliew% what furely no one will deny, that thofe miracles could not be invijible^ which were fo ajlonipoing to multitudes y and which pro- duced faith both in the fpedlators and in the patients. But this faith and this aftoniihment were not, could not be, pro- duced, by what was not i^tviy the fup- pofed ejeftion of a demon ^ but by what was both k^xi and heard, the inftantaneous cure of madmen, or their reftoration to perfect fanity, at the fovereign command of Chrift. As to the confejjion of the devils themfelves, the dread and confufon they betrayed at Chrift's prefence, and their inftantly, though reluSiantlyy quitting pof- feffion j thefe things, which you urge as public proofs of their being difpoffeffed *, are the very points to be proved, What is y Inq. p. 146, * lb. p. 146— 151, and p. Ill, 112, 221. « lb. p. 146. wanted, 1 4 ( I20 ) wanted, is, fome authentic and fenfiblc evidence, that what you call the confeffiorj, confufion and reludance of devils, was not merely the language of the demoniacs, fpeaking under the influence of their dif- order, and a belief of their having demons in them, or of their being themfelves de- mons. You plead farther, that the de- mons "wcxQ literally incorporated^ wit k the demoniacs ; and by that means the miraculous difpQjfeJJions of them became objeBs of fenfe. You, perhaps, know what you meaned, when you fpoke (very philofophically, without doubt) of the literal incorporation of incorporeal beings with a demoniac. But as you have not attempted to iliew, how this incorporation renders the difpolTef- lion of demons objeds of fenfe, I need not inquire into your meaning. You allow, that there are many cowi- terfeit poffeffions': you ought, therefore, to have enabled us, clearly to diflinguiih betv/een thefe, and iuch as are real. This was the more neceffary, as you gravely tell US'*, that the Heathens "were ??7ijled by the ^ Inq. p. 146. *= lb. p. 34, 213. •* Appendix to Inq. p. 327. ignis: ( 121 ) ig7iis fafuiis of the demons theryifehes-y to judge concerning them otherwife than they really were in themf elves. Men are no match for fuperior beings ; and, therefore, if we are expofed to their delufions in this matter, who can point out the certain dif- criminating eifeds of pofleffions and dif- pofTeffions ? Who with fafety can truft his fenfes ? But as you were under no neceffity of incumbering your fcheme with this dif- ficulty, I fhall take no farther notice of it. In their own nature, polleilions and dif- ^ pofleffions, according to your account of them, are not objeds of fenfe -, and, confequently, are not proper fubjects of human teftimony. Even fuppofing them to be real facts, no man can pronounce them to be fuch, upon any evidence, ex- cept that of revelation. For as to reajon^ you have quite precluded it j the reality of demoniacal pofleffion being, according to you, no ?nore an ohjeSl of reafon, than mufick is to the deaf or colours to the blind\ The proper inference from hence is, not what you^ reprefent it^ viz. that the evan^ P Inq. p. 142. ^ lb. p. 143. ge/i/?s ( 122 ) ge/ijlf were very idle in attempting to give any tejiimony conceriiing the ejediion of demons y but that it is abfurd to fuppofe, that they did give their teftimony either to poffef- lions or difpollefiions, in the fenfe in which you explain them. They tell us, that they teftified only fuch things as they had heard zxiA feen^. You, on the contrary, make them teilify what they neither faw jior heard. It was not even poffible, that the evidence of fenfe fhould convince them, pr any one elfe, that a man had any demon ^t all within him ; much lefs that he had^ precifelyy?^^f;^ demons, or an entire legion. On this ground, therefore, your dodlrine could not be received nor recommended by the apoftles. How very foreign from the purpofe then is all that you\ after many others, have urged concerning the charadler and com- petency of , the witnefTes, and their peculiar recommendations, fuch as their being eye- witneffes of Chrift's cure of demoniacs, and their being commiffioned by him to perform the fame miracle, together with 5 I John i. I, 2, 3. ^ Inq. p. 117 — 123. Luke'^s ( 123 ) Luke's profeiTion as a phylician ? Neither did their general chara6ter, nor any of the peculiar recommendations of them here fpecified, make thofe things objeds of fenfe to them, which were not fo to other perfons. Nor can I fee any reafon to be- lieve, that the apoftles were better qua^ iified than others, to judge concerning the nature of any of thpfe difeafes, which were the fubjecfls of their healing power. Butj^^j-, you plead, may Jland upon the evidence of a divine tejiimonyy if t bey are re- corded by infpired and infallible njDriiers'\ By having recourfe to fupernatural in-, fpiration, you give up the natural qua- lifications of the v/itneiTes. For what oc- cafion could there be for a miracle to reveal to them fads, of which, without that miracle, they were capable and competent judges ? Either the one or the other of thefe points mud be given up. But, I ap- prehend, neither can be maintained. Ac- cordingly, I proceed to fhew, II. That the reality of poffelHons and difpoflefTions neither was, nor could fitly * Inquiry, p. 5, I18. ^ be. ( 124 ) be, eftablifhed by the authority of Chrill, ^nd his apoftles, conlidered as infpired and infallible perfons. You, Sir, have not fo much as at- , tempted to prove, that their infpiration ex- tended to the knov^ledge of the fecret caufe of thofe fymptoms which were deno- minated poffefiions. Neverthelefs, till you had previoufly eftablifhed this point, you had no right to appeal to their infpiration on the prefent occafion. It is the fault in reafoning t!iat logicians call begging the quejlion. You have no more reafon to fuppofe, that the apoftles were miraculoufly enlightened with the knowledge of de- moniacal, than with the knowledge of any other, diforders. Why then ftiould you urge their authority more in one cafe than ill the other ? There is no fort of evidence from the New Teftament, that demoniacal poffeffion, coniidered as the qaufe of iil^ fanity, was made the fubject matter of re- velation. It is never taught as a doftrine'^j fc You yourfelffay, (Inq. p. 6.) Matters of do£lr'me arc delivered in the Gofpels^ as doSfrine, Where is the doiSlrine of poffefiions (o delivered r nfever ( 125 ) never aflerted either by Chrift or his apoftles, when they were opening the con- tents of their conimiffion ; though they mofl faithfully revealed the whole counfel of God. Indeed, it is a fubjedl never pro- feffedly treated of; fcarce ever incidentally mentioned, but in relating the diforder and cure of demoniacs. It is not only groundlefs, but abfurd, to fuppofe that pofleffions, in the view in which we are here coniidering them, were made the fubjedl matter of revelation. For the miracles perform^ed upon the demo- niacs, like thofe performed upon other perfons, were defigned for the conviftion, not of believers, but unbelievers. They do not fuppofe faith in the authority of Chrift, but beget it. Confequently, the nature of thefe miracles is to be judged of by natural reafon alone ; not by an authority, which is not admitted previous to their per- formance. Scarce can you difhonour the iirft founders of our religion more, than by making them urge their infpiration and authority, in a cafe to which it could not extend. { 126 ) fcxtend, and upon perfons by whom it was not yet acknowledged. Thefe confiderations weigh much with me ; and were inlarged upon in the Effay '. You have returned no anfwer to them"" ; and till you do, I cannot but be of opinion, that the queftion concerning poffeffions, conlidered as a queftion of philofophy, neither is decided, nor could, with pro- priety, be decided, by the authority of the infpired teachers of chriftianity. This is a fufiicient anfwer to your queftion, *< Were not the difciples to be trufted with this efoteric doctrine ?" From hence it follows, that whatever opinion the evangelifts entertained con- cerning: the reality of pofTeflions, is to be ^ E%, p. 358—3635 and p. 363—369. °» This is the more remarkable, as (Inq. p. 133.) you quote the words which introducQ thefe confi- derations. You allow that Chrift and his apoftles had BO divine warrant to change the vulgar language, in defcribing the cafe of the demoniacs. But had they any direSf revelation concerning their real cafe ? To fay their lang'uage correfponded to what you mean by the truth of thhigs, is taking for granted the very point to be proved. confidered ( 127 ) Confidered as their own private opinion • in the philofophy of which we have no more concern, than we have in the phi- lofophy of St. Paul, when he faid, that which thou foweji is not quickened^ except if die"". With the higheft reverence, let us receive all thofe truths which the mef- fengers of God have taught us in his name. But it would put an end to many controverfies, were it carefully confidered, that on points not included in their com- miffion, thefe melTengers of God have n<3t interpofed their authority; nor can we^ therefore, on thefe points, be determined by it. But if pofi^effions and difpoffeffions, ac- cording to your abfl:rad:ed view of them, are not the fubjedls of any teftimony, whe- ther human or divine; you will naturally alk, hov/ is the language of the New Teflament concerning them to be under- ftood ? I anfwer, juft as the fame language was commonly underftood in the age in which the Gofpel was publifhed. For » I Cor, XV. 36. See EfTay, p. 319, 320. III. The ( 1^8 ) III. The language of the New Tefta-. ment relative to poffeffions, did always^ imply certain outward and fenlible fymp- toms and effedls ; it was ufed principally to exprefs thofe fymptonis and efFecfls ; and commonly without any other intention. I . The language in queftion did alwa;ys imply certain outward and fenlible fymptoms and efFeds. The dodlrine of poffeffions, and the language founded upon it, were not introduced by Chrift and his apoftles ; hut had, long before their time, been fa- miliar, as well amongft Gentiles as Jews. By numerous paffages from the writings of both, it has been fully jfhewn, that de- moniacal poffeffon, notv/ithftanding the modern idea you have affixed to this phrafe, was anciently thought to produce, and was* ufed to exprefs, fome maniacal diforder°. The latter was included in the former : or, in other words, to fay of any one, that he had a demon, vv^as to affirm that he was mad. And his being mad, was the fole ground of his being thought to have a • See above, Letter III. p. lOO, ct feq. and EiTay, ch". i. feci. V. vi. demon. ( 129 ) demon. As poffeffion implied madaefs, fo dirpoflfeffion implied fanity, or the recovery of the underflanding. If the demon left a man, or the caufe of infanity was re- moved, the effed: ceafed. Not only did the language of the New Teftament re- lative to poiTeffions always imply ; but farther, 2. It was, in common life^ principally intended to exprefs certain outward and fenfible fyniptoms and effecfls. The direct and immediate intention of every one in ufing it, was to defcribe theie effects ; ex- cept in cafes, in which men were profeiTedly ftating their opinion on the fubje(5t^ and ailerting the dodtrine of poiTeffions. The New Teftament itfelf vvill furniili us with proofs of this point ; proofs taken from perfons contemporary with our Saviour, and who lived in Judea, or the countries bordering upon it. A woman who was a Gentile faid to our Saviour, My daughter is grievoujly vexed with a demo?i^* A Jew likewife ufed fimilar language. My fon i^ f Mat, XV. 22. K fore ( 130 ) fore . vexedy and hath a dumb fplrity and wherefoever the dumb fpirit taketh him^ he teareth him^ and he fometh, and knafl^eth with his teeth'^. Now, did either of thefe perfons intend to bear their teflimony to pofleffions, as fadts they could afcertain ? The language they ufe was, no doubt, ori- ginally built upon the docSrine of real pof- feffions ; and they might themfelves be of opinion that this docftrine was true ; but their diredl and immediate defign was, to defcribe thofe maniacal and epileptic fymp- toms with which their children were af- fected : which was all the information they could give to Chrift. Now, when the evangelifts ufe the fame language, concern- ing the fame perfons, affirming concerning one, that he had an unclean fpirit' ; and concerning the other, the fpirit tare hiniy and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foming^ 'y why fhould not this language, when ufed by the evangelifts, be under- ftood in the fame manner as when ufed by "1 Mat. xvii. 15. Mark ix. 17, 18. ' Mark vii. 25. ' Ch. ix. 20. See Eflay, ■P- 35i« other ( i3i ) other perfons -, that is, not as a profeffion of their faith in the reality of poffeffions, or as an aiiertion of what they were ig- norant of, but as a defcription of what they did know ; namely, thofe fy mptoms which were obvious to fenfe' ? If the phrafes, having a defnon, being torn or convulfedy and thrown on the ground j by a demony were dircdly intended to ex- prefs certain outward efFed:s ; it is rea- fonable to fuppofe, that all other fimilar expreffions were ufed with the like defign. That expreffion in particular concernino- * When the father of the epileptic youth fald, My Jon hath a dumb fpirit^ could he take upon him to affirm, that the fpirit was dumb ? His meaning is, that his fon was rendered dumb by his diforder. "Why then ihould not the evangellfts, when they ufe the fame lan- guage, be underliood in the fame manner ? Never- thelefs, you make them alTert, that fome devils are dumb. See above, p. yg. As to the daughter of the woman of Canaan, you afk, Is it tojftble to conceive^ that ^11 this (the account of her poiTefTion and difpoiTciHon) was no more than a piece of fcenery ? You could not have afked fuch a queftion, had you confidered, that as the woman's intention was to defcribe the diforder of her daughter, fo Chrid's intention was to give afTurance of "her cure. K 2 on^ ( 132 ) one demoniac, he was driven of the demon into the wildernefs'', muft be underftood as a defcription of the effedls of his diforder ; efpeclally, as the word demon often de- notes the diforder itfelf, without including the caufe ; as will be fliewn in the fequel. Again, if having a demon^ be a phrafe that was intended to exprefs infanity ; ha- ving an unclean^ a deaf, a diitnby demons or a fpirit of Python, muft have been intended to exprefs different kiftds or fymptoms of in- fanity; efpecially as we know% that dif- ferent fymptoms of this diforder were afcribed by the aticients to different fpirits''. For the fame reafon, having feven de- mons, or a legion of them, muft have been intended to denote different degrees'^ of in- fanity. Accordingly, we find, in fa). «= Thus in Matthew (ch. viii. 28, 29.) we read> that the demoniacs cried out \ but when they faid. What have we to do with thee^ is'c, they manifeftly fuppofe themfelves to be demons, or nothing more than their organs of fpeech. See Mark v. 8. Luke viii. 29. . The ( H^ ) When Mark^ for example, fays% All the demons be/ought Jtfusy he muft mean that the demoniac did this under the paroxyfm of his diforder, and in the name of thofe evil fpirits by which he believed himfelf to be poffeffed, or with whom he con- founded himfelf. Such an outward fup- plication as this, the evangelift was able to atteft. Farther he could not go, without the warrant of ail immediate and mira- culous revelation* to which he does not lay any claim. But not only does the facred hiftory re- prefent demons as fpeaking to Chrift and his apoftles, but alfo reprefents the latter as addreffing themfelves to the former ^ You afk, Can it be fuppofed that our Lord would addrefs the mans dijlemper, as a real ferfon^? This queftion has been fo often The cafe of thefe demoniacs is confidercd at laro-e. Effay, p. 226, et feq. and will be further animadverted upon when I come to examine your reafonincrs upon it. A fimilar cafe occurs, Mark i. 23. 26. Luke iv. 33. ^ Mark v. 12. *^ See above, p. 113. anq. p. 15, ajlfwered. ahfwered, that you ought not to have re- peated it, without attempting^ at leaft, to fhew the infufficiency of former replies'^ From Chrift's addreiSing demons, rebuking them, and iffuing forth his commands to them, you.:Can no more infer that he con- £dered them as intelligent agents, than you can infer that he regarded the winds and feas, and fevers, as fuch, becaufe they are faid to be rebuked by him, and to obey his commands* I add, that there was a pe- culiar propriety in Chrift's addrefling the demons, on all thofe occafions on which fuch addrelles were intended to have .an cffeft upon the demoniacs, who, on the principles explained above, would apply to themfelves what was faid to the demons, whofe organs only they conceived them- selves to be. Thus, when the demons were commanded to hold their peace, and forbidden to proclaim Jefus as the Meffiah; thefe commands were intended to filence the demoniacs (for reafons elfewhere'' ex- plained) and perhaps were even addreiTed s See E%, p. 355— 35^- ^ ^^' P- ^49^ to ( H3 ) to them ; a demon or {pint being fome- t^mes put for the perfon fuppofed to be in- fpired by him*. As to demons being commanded by Chrift to ccme out ; this language was explained above ; and, there- fore, I only obferve in this place, that the command could be defigned only to evince Chrifl's pov^^er and authority to effedl that cure, -f- which was implied in, and-expreffed by, the expullion of demons. The people underftood the language of Chrift in the fenfe in which it is here explained ; for at , the fight of the miracles performed upon the demoniacs, they cried out with afto- nifhment, IFttd authority co7n?nandeth .he even the unclean Jpir its ^ and they do obey hi?nK V/hat did, or could, raife their aftonilhment on thefe occaiions, but the vifMe miracle, the inftantaneous cure of the demxoniacs, together with the fove- reign manner in which it was performed. It is the very language they ufed, when Jefus rebuked and calmed the raging ele- ments. What manner of man is tloisy that * See EfTav, p. 252—256, and p. 277, note (*). t See EfTay, p. 357. ^ Mark i. 27. even ( 144 ) e*ven the 'winds and the fea obey him ^ I In both thefe cafes alike, the people were ftruck only with what they heard and faw ; this, therefore, is what their language was intended to exprefs'. If the feveral foregoing obfervations are juft, they ferve to confirm what was elfe- where™ offered to prove, that the language of Chrift and his apoftles relative to pof- feffions and difpofleffions, was, in common life, ufed principally, at leaft, to defcribe certain outward fymptoms, or the diforder and cure of demoniacs, and not to declare men's fpeciilative opinion on this fubjedl. It may, however, be objefted, that, though the language under confideration exprelTed certain outward fymptoms, it included alfo their apprehended caufe. I proceed, there- fore, to fliew further, 3. That the language of Chrift and his apofues relative to demoniacal poffef- k Mat. viii. 27. i In the lame manner, we (hould explain the lan- guage of the Seventy, Lordy even the demons (the dif- orders afcribed to demons) are fuhje^i to us, through thy name, Luke x. 17. "" EiFay, p. 339—358. fions. ( H5 ) feffions, was commonly ufed with no other defign, than to defcribe thefe outward fymptoms ; or, in other words, that de- moniacal pofieffion expreffed madnefs ia general, without including the caufe of it, and even when it was expreflly referred to a different caufe from the agency of de- mons. It was obferved above", that it is very common to give to an effed: the name of the caufe to which it is afcribed. By Ceres, Bacchus, Venus, Minerva, Neptune, the Heathens very frequently meaned corn, wine, pleafure, wifdom, the fea° ; though they are really the names of the deities that refpedVively prefided over thefe things. Whenever the fuppofed caufe or author of any thing is put for the thing itfelf, the caufe or author is not included. When Ceres, for example, ftands for corn, and Bacchus for wine, corn and wine alone are intended ^ Now, there is juft the fame reafon for defcribing certain kinds and de-^ ^ P- 135- "" See Cicero de Nat. Deor. 1. ii. c. 23. with the note of Davis, No. 4. r* Eflay, p. 342, note C*). - M grees ( h6 ) grees of infanity by the fpirits to whom they were referred. Accordingly, we find, in fad:, that de- mon (which was the name of thofe evil fpirits who were fuppofed to caufe mad- nefs) and demoniacal poffeffion, were ufed merely to exprefs madnefs, ^Yithout taking the caufe into the account. Inftances of their being fo ufed by the Greeks % and alfo by the Latins', were produced in the Elfay. The fame modes of fpeaking were familiar amongft the Jews. We are ex- prefsly told, that they gave the names of demons to diftempers'. Jofephus (in a paflage cited in the EfTay, which you were pleafed to overlook, as you have almoft all thofe things which ftood moft in your way) fays concerning certain demagogues, that they perfuaded the multitude to be poffeff'ed by demons^ 'y when all that he meaned, was, q EfTay, p. 82, note (»). Beza, even when defend- ing demoniacal pofleflion, admits. Nam et Graeci me- dici quoddam iftiusmodi furoris naturalibus remediis fanabilis genus ^xi^.^nov vocant. EfTay, p. 343. ' Eflay, p. 324, 325 ' Id. p. 85, 86. ' Actty,(»i»v TO 7r?;?9&v otnTTn^ov, Bcl. Jud. 1. 2. C. 1 3. §• 4. €( that ( UJ ) *' that the people were worked up into a phreiify by the artifices and eloquence of their leaders." This is a clear proof, that in the age and country of the firft pub- lifliers of the Gofpel, pojjejjion by demons Was ufed to exprefs infanity, even in cafes in which that infanity was afcribed to a different caufe from pofTeffion. Demons and demoniacal poffeflion having been put for the effeB they Vv^ere fuppofed to pro- duce, or that /pedes of madnefs which was afcribed to them, lofl, in time, their ori- ginal and limited fignification % acquired a larger meaning, and were ufed for madnefs in general ; from whatever caufe it pro- ceeded. Examples of this nature in our own language, muft occur to every one* Lunacy, which at firft denoted that pe- culiar kind of phrenfy over which the moon was fuppofed to have an influence is now ufed for phrenfy in general. St. Anthony's fire, and St. Vitus's dance, ftill exprefs certain diforders, but without any reference to the faints, from whom they " Other fimllar examples maybe feen. EfTay, p. 340, «t leq. the reafon of which is explained, p. 34.0, 344. La at ( 148 ) at firll borrowed their refpe6tive deno- minations. In what manner then are the terms, demons and demoniacal poffeffion, to be underitood in the New Teftament ? How can their meaning there be afcertained ? I know of no better method of doing it, than by interpreting them agreeably to the common ufe of the fame terms amongft the ancients, amongft the Jews in particular, fuch as lived in the age in which the Gofpel was publiihed j and in correfpon- dence to the known forms of fpeech in all nations. Interpret the language in queftion by this rule, and you mufh allow, that the evangelifts included in it certain outward fymptoms and effects ; that their direft and immediate intention in uling it, was to defcribe thefe effects ; and that they had no farther intention. It was thus ufed even by thofe who believed (as Jofephus did) the reality of poffeflions. Befides the reafonablenefs (I might fay, the neceffity) of fuppofing, that all writers ufe cuflomary forms of fpeaking in their ordinary fig- nification ; there are three farther reafons for ( H9 ) for concluding, that the evangelifts have done fo on the fubjed: before us. For Firft of all, there are inftances in the New TeftaiTient, in which demons or evil fpirits, and havmg or being pojje (fed by them, cannot reafonably bear a different inter- pretation from that here afiigned to thefe expreffions. When the Jews reproached John with having (or being pojfeffed by) a demoji^'y why fhould w^e not underftanci thdin in the fame {z:\k as we do Jofephus in the forementioned paifage from him, that is, as deiigning merely to reprefent him as a perfon difordered in his under- ftanding, from whatever caufe his diforder might proceed ? Their objedion againft Chrift, He hath a demon, and is mad^^ ought to be explained in the fame manner; the difcourfes of Chrift appearing to them to argue an alienation of mind. Thofe who thought m.ore favourable of Chrift's difcourfes, replied, Thefe are not the words * Mat. xi. J 8. ^ John X. 20. On this pafTage and Mat. xi. i8. lee EjlTay, p. 97, note ("). 1^3 of ft^. ( }5o ) of him that hath a demon'^ \ meaning here- by, that they obferved in Chrift's difcourfes no ligns of a difordered underftanding. To come ftill nearer to our purpofe, wheri Luke fays, "J^^fus was cajiing out a demoJZy and it was dumb'' -, we muft by demon un- deriland a diforder^ that was fo called from it's apprehended caufe ; unlefs we will re- proach the evangelift with teaching (with- out any divine warrant) that there arQ dumb fpirits. Befides, this fame evan- gelift (whofe language, you, Sir% after others, contend, is more correBy as well as more phyJicaU than that of the other evan- gelifls) tells us more than once% that Chriji cured or healed maiiy of infirjnitiesy and plaguesy and evil fpirits. Would a corred: and phyfical writer ufe fuch lan- guage, if evil fpirits were not a fpecies of difeafes, as much as infirmities and plagues I Now, if you grant, as I think you muft, that, on fome occafions, the evangelifts certainly do by demons or evil fpirits, mean 2 John X. 21. * Luke xl. 14. *> See above, p. 80. ^ Inq. p. 121. ^ Luke vii. 21. ch. viii. 2. the ■*• ( I5X ) the difeafes imputed to them, why may not this be the cafe on all occafions ? That this is really the cafe univerfally, feems to me highly probable from this farther coniideration ; viz. that in de- fcribing the New Teftament demoniacs, they are to be confidered only as hijioriansy whofe proper bufinefs, and avowed pro- feffion and deiign it was, to relate fadts, of which they were competent vv^itnefTes, and concerning which all other perfons were to judge as well as themfelves. Had they affumed the charadler of profeiTors of fcience, they might have attempted to account for the fecret caufe of thofe diftempers which were cured by Chrift ; or had they profeffed to have received an immediate revelation from God concernins: the reality of pofieffions, they might have urged the beil: authority in fupport of it. But they affume only the charad:er of well- informed and faithful hiftorians; and, therefore, what they atteft concerning pof- feffion s, can not be confidered as a fpecu- lation of philofophy, nor as a didlate of jnfpiration, but merely as a defcription of L 4 outward ( 152 ) outward facfls, which fall under the im- mediate obfervation of our fenfes. The diforder and cure of demoniacs are fadls of this kind ; and they were, as we have feen, commonly defcribed in the very fame language which the evangelifts employ. If you go farther, and make them aifert poffeffions and difpofleffions, according to your merely modern inter- pretation of them, you (though without ligning it) injure their charadler as hiflo-^ rians, who in the relation of fadls are never to exceed the information they profefs* to have received. A third reafon may be affigned for re- jedling your interpretation of the cafe of the Gofpel demoniacs, and for afferting mine, viz. the uniform dcdlrine of the apoftles, and other prophets of God, concerning the utter inability of demons and all the heathen deities, to do either good or harm to mankind, Your account of poffeffions fuppofes their having an amazing power over the bodies and minds of men, together with the fatal exercife of it. On the other ' Luke i. I, 2, 3. hand| ( 153 ) hand, the apoftles reprefent them as vanity and nothing^ And, therefore, by the pof-^ feffion of demon, and their difpoffeflion, they could only mean to defcribe a certain diforder, and it's cure. If the feveral obfervations that have been offered under this head are juft, then the language of Chrift and his apoilles, on which you build your dodrine, can yield it no manner of fupport j and the fad:s which they atteft, are very different from thofe which you wifh to eftablifli by their authority. But, in your opinion, the cvangeliils v\^ere very reprehenfible, if they are not to be underfiood in the manner in which you explain them, as afferting the doftrine of real poffeffions. I proceed, therefore, to fhew, IV. That they might defcribe the dif- order and cvire of demoniacs in the po- pular language, that is, by poffeffions and difpoffeffions, without making themfelves ^ EfTay, p. 189, et feq. Your obje6lioriS againft this part of the EfTay will be confidered in a fubfequent letter, anfwerable ( 154 ) anfwerable for the hypothefis on which this language was originally founded. Three reafons incline me to this opinion, pxclufive of thofe already offered under the feveral foregoing heads, which alone would be fufficient to eftablifh it. For, if the cvangelifts had neither any natural nor fu- pernatural qualification to atteft poffeffions pr difpoffeflions, in cafe they are to be un- derftood otherwife than of outward fymp- toms ; and if the very terms themfelves were commonly employed merely to de- fcjibe thefe fymptoms, exclufively of their caufe ; how can they be anfwerable for that fpurious doctrine which you father upon them ? Neverthelefs, for the fuller vin- dication of the evangelifts, I fhall mention fome farther reafons for believing, that they had no intention, by the language they ufed on the fubjed; before us, to eilablifli the dodrine of poffeffions. I . It is cuftomary with all forts of per- fons, to fpeak onmanyfubjeds in the popu- lar language, though admitted to have been originally grounded on a falfe philofophy. Examples of this kind will immediately occur ( 155 ) occur to your own thoughts ; otherwife^ you might find them in the Effay^ Now, if you can not deny the fadl^, can you affign a good reafon, why the facred writers fliould not ufe the faine kind of liberty as all other perfons do, and adopt cuflomary modes of fpeaking, without any thought of giving their fancftion to the opinions to which they owed their rife. 2. Certain it is, in fad:, that the facre4 writers do, in feveral inftances, adopt the popular language, though grounded on opinions now known to be erroneous, without any defign of eftablifhing the truth of thofe opinions. I here affirm no more than what Chriftians of the greateft emi- nence, both ancient and modern, have admitted' 5 than what you, likewife, do admitj, « Eflay, p. 315, et feq. ^ You even admit, that God has mi profejfedly made any difcoveries of nature. Introdu<5lion to The Scrip- ture-Theory of the Earth, p. 2, 3. , ^ To the conceiiions of antient or eminent Chriftians on this fubjedl, taken notice of in the EfTay, p. 318, note (''), p. 321, note (p), p. 329, note (^), p. 335, ^Qte C), and p. 338, note (y), I v/ill add two pafTages from ( is-J ) admit, even in a work written on purpofe to defend the philofophy of Scripture •" ^ and than what has been {hewn to be true in many remarkable inftances \ After what from Jerome. He fays, (in Matth. c. xiii.) It is the £ufio7n of the Scriptures^ for the hijlorian fo to relate the opinion men had of many matters^ as at that time thofe matters were by all people taken to be. And again, (in Jerem. xxviii . ) There are many things in the holy Scriptures^ which are fpoken according to the opinion of the time in which they were done^ and not according to their reality. ^ In the introdu6lion to your Scripture-Theory^ p. 7, 8, you fay. The Scripture accounts of fome phenomena may not always^ perhaps^ feem reconcilable to our notions of the laws of nature. But this may proceed from our ignorance^ or our prejudice ; or^ at leaji from a condefcenfon tOj and a compliance withy the weaktiefs and poverty of our under- fiandingSy and with the notions which tve receive from our fenfes ', which ofte?i renders it proper ^ if not neceffary.^ that matters Jhould be expreffed according to the fyflem of ap- pearances ; as is the general praSiice at prefcnt^ though vje live in a philofophical age ', the popular language being al- ways the beft u?id(rfiood j and therefore the mojl proper con- cerning fubjeSts incidentally mentioned^ and not profeffedly treated of \ zvhere there is no necejjity of combating received notions y which are merely fpeculative^ and attended witb ?io ill confequence^ moral or natural. Bui thefc ctifes^ you add, feldom happens ^ and where they do^ are eafily difcer ti- ed. Iwas willing to tranfcribe this pafTage at large, a$ I had cited only a part of it in the title page. ^EfTay, p. 317— 3-3- has ( ^57 ) has been already offered on this fubjeft, I will only take notice of one inftance, which will be fufficient to fhew, that your rea- Ibning, if it proved any thing, would prove too much, and conclude againft yourfelf. It was generally fuppofed by the ancients, that the earth was placed in the centre of the univerfe j and that the fun, the planets, and the fixt ftars, did all move round the terraqueous globe in twenty-four hours* On the other hand, the true fyftem of the world fuppofes the diurnal and annual mo- tions of the earth, while the fun refts in the centre of the planets that furround him. Neverthelefs, in dired: contradi(flion to this fyftem, the facred v/riters affert both the immobility of the earth, and the motion of the fun. God laid the foujidations of the earth, that it Jhould not be moved for ever"^. The fun rifeth"" ; and goeth down^ and haft eth to the place where he arofe" : he Cometh forth out of his chamber, his going forth isfrofn the end of heaven, and his cir^ "^ Pf. civ. 5. See alfo Pf. cxix. 90. Ecclef. i. 4. Pf. xciii. I. " Gen. xix. 23. * Gen, XV. 12, 17. Ecclef, i. 5. cuit ( 158 ) cuit unto the e?tds of it^. Many other ex-^ preffions in Scripture relative to the fun % contradi6t the docflrine of modern philofo- phers* Accordingly when this doctrine was publifhed, or rather republifhed, to the world by Copernicus, and confirmed by others, it provoked the rage of bigotry as much as the antidemoniac fyftem can do. Twice was the famous Galilei charged with herefy, and committed to the prifon of the holy office', for maintaining that the p Pf. xix. 5. *^ jofh. X. 12, 13. 2 King. XX. 10. If. xxxvlil. 8. *■ Galilei was not releafed from prifon, till he had en Dr. Worthington, as cited above, p. 155, note ('•), M themfelves ( l62 ) themfelves anfwerable for the falfe opinions that iirft gave rife to them." Why dopro- teftants, who have no faith in popifh faints, as w^ell as papifts who have, ftill affirm concerning any one, that he has St. Anthony's fire; or that he has St. Vitus's dance ? Why do even thofe phy- ficians who deny the influence of the moon over the diftemper called lunacy, never- thelefs, affirm concerning certain patients^ that they are lunatic ? Why do thofe who laugh at the notion of the incubus or night- mare being an intelligent agent, as well as Dr. Worthington, who very gravely de- fends it^, fliil ufe the terms to exprefs a bodily indifpofition ? Wherefore, to this very day, do aftronomers, that have adopted the iyftem of Copernicus, fpeak of the fun as rijing^ fetting, and ??ioving ? Becaufe in all the inilances here mentioned, the lan- guage correfponds, though not to the truth of things, yet to common conception and outward appearances. Thefe popuhr modes of fpeech are underllood to exprefs thofe appearances only ; and being ufed only in ' " '^ Inq. p. 129. defcribing ( i63 ) defcribing them, no one is fo abfurd as to mifconftrue them into aflertions or decla- rations of men's real opinions on the fevera! fubjed:s to which they refer. This again is as juft an anfwer to Dr. Worthington as to pope Urban. To iave a demon y was a phrafe that was as much underftood to ex- prefs an outward effed: amongft the an- cients, as the phrafe^ to have St. A7ithonys fire, is fo underftood amongft us. The former, therefore^ might be ufed by thofe who did not believe in the power of de- mons, with as much propriety, as the latter is by thofe who do not believe in the power of St. Anthony. You are not to learn any man's fyftem of aftronomy ot phyfic^ from his defcribing certain ce- leftial appearances, or bodily diftempers^ in the language of the vulgar; but from the account he profeffedly gives of that fyftem. Proceed, Sir, by the fime rule in judging of the real fentiments of the apoftles on the fubjedt of poffeiiion; form, your judgment by their profefted dodrine concerning demons, not by their ic- fcriptions of demoniacs -, \n which they Jvl 2 mighty ( i64 ) mighty very innocently, adopt the pb» pular language, without defigning to efta- blifli the docflrine on which it was originally founded. This they have done on other fubjefts : they might, therefore, do it on this. They have done it on all fubjedls not included in their commiffion\ 3. There * Some have thought, that though our Lord might conform to the cuftomary language of his country, in matters of little or no moment, fuch as the true fyftem of aftronomy ; yet, that the cafe is widely different with regard to things of great importance^ fuch as miftaken notions of demons, which are the fources of endlefs and hurtful fuperftitions. To which I anfwer, that // is i?npoJftble for God^ or thofe infpired by him, to //V, on any occafion, or with refpecSl to' any matter whatfoever. And were it polTible, that the fpirit of God fhould become a teacher of falfehood in matters faid to be of fmall importance ; who is to judge whe- ther the fubjed be of fmall importance or not ? Scarce would any two perfons agree in their opinion about it. You fometimes plead, that the vulgar phrafes of the fun's rifmg and fetting, kc have no relation to re- vealed truths. Inq. p. 129. The fame thing is equally true with refpedt to the vulgar phrafes concerning pof- felTion by human ghofts ; except that the latter, li- terally underftood, are dire^ly repugnant to revelation. You think " the former never had any effed upon m.o- rality." Inq. p, 129. But the faife philofophy oa which ( i65 ) 3. There is one very peculiar reafon fbr believing, that the founders of chriftianity did which they were built, was the occafioii of great im- piety. It was this falfe philofophy (which had con- trived (o many ec^entricks and epicycles, in order to ac- count for the motions of the heavenly bodies) that gave occafion to that well-known faying of a certain mo- narch, If he had been of God's council when he made the heavens, he would have taught him hoiv to have mended his work. But whether any of the vulgar phrafes, and thofe in particular which refpecl pofleffion, do relate to religion and morality, (as you fuppofe, Inq. p. 12S, 129.) or do not ; the Scriptures do not profefTedly war- rant the philofophy on which they were firft founded. You make a diftin^lion between a few terms which took their rife from a miRaken philofophy ; and many whole paflages in four different authors (Inq. p. 128, 129.). According to this do6trine, a prophet may af- firm what is falfe, if he does it in a feiv terms, not In ?nany whole paflages ; and four authors, it feems, mufl: not take the fame liberty as a fmaller number. But in reality, more than four of the facred writers, befides the evangelifts, have very innocently adopted the po- pular language on fubje^ls of natural knowledge ; a:nd in very many whole paflages. Once more, you under- ftand St. Vitus's dance as a dcfcription only, but de- moniacal pofleflions in the Gofpel as narrations, Inq. p. I2g. But if it be affirmed qf one perfon, that he has St. Vitus's dance ; and of another, that he has a demon ; why fhould not both thefe affirmations be equally underftood as defcriptlom only ? In one word, M 3 aflign ( 1 66 ) did ufe the popular language on the fubjedt of pofleflions, without intending to efta- blilh the popular hypothefis concerning it, becaufe it is allowed that they do, at other times, fpeak both of demons and bodily diforders, in mere conformity to the vulgar opinion concerning them, without deiign- ing to give their fandlion to it. Our Sa- viour affirms, that when the unclean fpirit is gone cut of a man, he walketh through dry. {places. According to your mode of ex- plaining Scripture, *^ here is a plain ni^r- ration of a fad, aqd no intimation given that it is to be underftocd otherwife." Ne- afiign a good reafon, why he who declared in the plaineft terms, God caufeth his fun torife^ might not alfo declare, / caji out demons. The authority and teftimony of Chrift can no more be urged in cne cafe than in the other. To thofe difpcted to urge it m either cafe, I know of no (atisfa^lory snfwer but this, that neither was phyiic nor aftronomy any part of his divine com- mifiion. The objcdHon I have been confidering, pro- ceeds entirely on this abfurd fuppofition, that God ought to interpofe, in order to rectify every error of importance. (See Efiay, p. 369, 370.) In the prefent cafe, however, God has interpofcd with the defired view^ as is fliewn in the EfFay, p, 370 — 376 ; and, confe- tjuently, your ob^^flion is without foundation. verth el efs. ( i67 ) verthelefs, every one mufl fee, what Vi- tringa'' exprefsly admits, that it is only a popular opinion, which, whether true or falfe, equally ferved the purpofe of our Saviour^ which was, by the caf^ of the relapfing demoniac, to illuflrate the cha- racter of the Jewifli nation. The fame evangelifls who affirm, that the people brought to Jefus de?noniacs% do alfo affirm* and in (what you call) the iifual Jlile of hijioryy that they brought to him lunatics'^. Now this laft expreffion does as plainly aifert, that the perfons to whom it is ap- plied were under the noxious influence of the moon ; as the former expreffion does that the perfons it defcribes were under the noxious influence of demons. But did the evangelifl:s in the former cafe intend to exprefs their own belief of a lunar influence over difeafes, and to certify to the world fuch an influence as a fad; ? Were they ever thought to have any fuch intention ? Without fo much as inquiring, what their private opinion was, men clearly faw (for in this ^ EfTay, p. 329, note {"), M 4 cafe^ ( i68 ) cafe, their prejudices did not intervene, they had no favourite hypothecs to fup- port, and therefore they faw clearly) that the evanc-elills had no other defign than to defcribe, in the common and v/ell-under- ftood phrafeology of the age in which they lived, epileptic iymptoms, w^ithout, per- haps, fo much as thinking of the truth or falfehood of that hypothecs upon which the language was originally founded. It is precifely the fame with refped: to all thofe expreffions which affert or imply the real influence of demons over certain fpecies of infanity. By this time, I hope, it appears, how Jnconclufive is all your reafoning in favour of the dodlrine of poiTeffions, drawn from the language of Chrift and his apollles. In your laborious examination of the hiftory of the fpveral demoniacs fpoken of in the New Teftament, you all along take it for granted, that the demoniacal pofr feffions and difpolTeffions there mentioned, arc fo many fads, in the fenfe in which you explain therri. Upon thefe fads, you build your dodrine, which, you think, can not be difproved, till the fads are difproved. ( i69 ) proved*. And in fo much hc^ftewere you .to produce your witnefles, and to difplay iheir qualifications, that you did not duely confider what they were able, and intended, to atteft. The pofieflions and difpoffeffions fpoken q{ in the New Teftament, were certainly real facts ; but not in the {Qnfe which you contend for, as importing the entrance of a fpiritual and invifible beino- into the human body, it's rejidence there, and it's expulfion thence. Such fa(5ls, fup- pofing them to be real, are not objeds of {i^vik, and therefore can not be proper fubj^fis of human teftimony. Nor could the apoftles atteft them, in virtue of any fupernatural revelation 3 v/hich neither was, nor could fitly be granted them for fuch a purpofe. Neverthelefsj they were perfed:- ly qualified to atteft demoniacal poffeflions* and difpolTeflions, as thefe terms imported the diforder and cure of demoniacs. In this fenfe, and in this alone, thefe terms were ufed on all occafions iimilar to thofe pn which the New Teftament writers em^ * Inq. p. 139, 140. ployed t 17^ ) ployed them. And in no other fenfe could they be employed by thefe writers. The terms took their rife, indeed, from a falfe bypothefis ; but the apoftleS;^ by adopting the terms, can not be conlidered as making themfelves anfwerable for the bypothefis on which they were built ; efpecially as the former were ufed exclufively of the latter. With how little reafon then did you reproach the author of the Eiiay with building upon this principle, that it is al- hisjcble to frofefs one tkingy and believe the contrafY'y a?zd that it is lawful to dijjernble the truths and even to lie for it ^ ? But how do you prove^ that this principle may be de- duced from my premifes ? You prudently fave yourfclf that trouble ; and undertake a more eafy taik, that of largely expoling^, what you were fure no one would attempt to vindicate, the abfurdity and profligacy of ihc principle itfelf. Here, Sir, you come off with triumph, where you had no adver- fary, but were only beating the air, and combating a phantom of your own ima- « Inq. p. 124, 126. ^Ib. p. 126, 12.7. f inq. p. 126, et leq,, gination. ( lyi ) ■ gination. All that I contend for, is no more than what you yourfelf admit, and what indeed it is not poflible for any one to deny, that all men, on fome occafions, life the popular language, though they rejeft the hypotheiis on which it was builtc Might not I then exclaim as you do, ^* By what canons of criticifm, by v/hat figure in rhetorick, are any writers to be under- flood in a fenfe diredtly contrary to that in which they- exprefs themfelves ^ ?" If you offer any juft vindication of yourfelf, you will thereby vindicate me. With how little reafon likev/ife do you reprefent me as impeaching the character and credit of Chrifl and his apollles ' ? If I have done this, fo has Dr. Worthington ; fo have all thofe Chriftians who adopt the true fyflem of the univerfe ; and all v/ho allow that in any inftance, (and there are none who do not allow that in feveral in- ilances) Chrifl and his apoftles exprefs ^ Inq. p. J 25. fee alio p. 128. i According to you, I do, in cffe£i^ tell the evangeltfts^ thot they record ujitruths ; and tell Chriji himfelf^ that he did not do the things ivhich he ajfumed to do. Inq. p. 127. themfelves ( 172 ) themfclves according to common concep- tions or outward appearances, and not to the truth of things. Were there any force in your declamation againft me, with re- fped: to this matter, it would conclude equally againft yourfelf, and the whole body of Chriftians, as well ancient as mo- dern. You fay, / mujl jiijiify them, (Chriji and his apojiles) in that refpeci, (in not thinking as they fpake and wrote , on the fub- jed: before xx^Jfrom the like manner offpeak- ing and writing, iifed by them, on other oc- cajioris ; or by producing fornewhat jHmilar to it out offome other grave authors of antiquity : which you think can not be done, not (even out of writers of romances, for even thefe muft be underilood as they write''. Your argument is built on this falfe fup- pofition, that thofe who adopt the popu- lar language grounded on opinions which they believe to be erroneous, are guilty of infmcerity, and of fpeaking differently from what they think. But are you liable to the charge of falfehood, only becaufe you fcruple not to fay, the fun rifes and fqts. •^- Inq. p. 14O5 141. though ( 173 ) though you believe it does neither ? ^No, Sir, you ufe the vulgar language v^^ith per- fed: innocence, becaufe it exprefles certain outward appearances ; and you have no in- tention in uling it to contradid: your phi- lofophical faith. In like manner the evan- gelifts, fuppofing them to believe, that neither demons nor the moon have any influence over difeafes, might, v^ithout the leaft infincerity, reprefent fome per- fons as demoniacs and lunatics, becaufe this reprefentation was both defigned and underftood merely as a defcription of cer- tain outward appearances and eiieds. Their language on this fubjed has been juftified by the like manner of fpeaking on other fubjeds, ufed both by themfelves, and all other perfons, by what you allow' to be the general pra5iice at prefent, though we live in a philofophical age. Indeed, Sir^ it is you who leiTen the charadcr and tef- timony of the apoftles j for you fuppofe them to bear their teftimony to fads, which they were neither naturally nor fu- pernaturally qualified to atteft. But ac- '^ See above, p, 156, note (''). cording ( 174 ) » cording to the explication given in the Effay of the fads in queftion, the teftimony of the apoftles deferves the higheft credit, becaufe they witnefs only what they were compe- tent judges of, viz. the fymptoms and cure of infanity, which fell under the notice of all their fenfes. Equally ill fuppdrted is another charge which you advance againft me and others who differ from you. In the moft tragi- cal ftrains do you complain of us, as cru- cifying the So?i of Gody and as abiijing his word"^, and abufing language to fuch a de- gree, that we may as well throw our Bibles away". The language of the Bible, like that of all other ancient books, is not to be explained by the fentiments of the mo- derns, but by the ufe of the fame language in the age in which thofe books were writ- ten. The former was the Gourfe which you have taken, by which you (I will not fay, have abufed, but) have mifinterpreted the Scriptures. The latter courie is that which I purfued; and it is the only one ^Inq. p. 82. • lb. p. 128. that ( ^75 ) that can give the natural and genuine fenfc of the language of the facred writers. I will only take notice of one objei^ioh more, viz. that Chrift, by ufing the po- pular language concerning demoniacal pof- feffions, did certainly countenance ° the popular fuperftition, which is fuppofed in the Effay to be a groundlefs one. Would hey you a(k% who was truth itfelf, give 'iiny cou77tenance to a falfekood ? Would he confirm^ and even heighten ity and that both hy word and deed ? 'The thought is irnpious to the hiji degree. In reading your Inquiry^ I fo often met v/ith declamation, where I 'expelled an argument, that I w'as not much furprized at the paffages kit cited. Surely, Sir, no man ever doubted of its being highly impious, to reproach Chrift with counte- nancing and confirming falfehood. It wa^ in order to clear him from fuch undeferved reproach, that I (hewed at large in the EiTay, that the ufe of the popular language concerning demoniacs, does by no means imply an approbation of the do6trine of * l^q- P- 39^ 82, 131, 132, 133. p P. 82. polTeffions, ^ ( r76 ) pofleflions ; and confequently can not givrine. It was alio fhewn% that the apoftles of Chrift have in the moft effeftual manner fubverted the dodlrine of demoniacal poffeffions, and thereby guard- ed men againft thofe vile fuperftitions which will for ever attend it, by conftant- ly inculcating this momentous truth, that de7nons are nothing in the world. If you would fpeak to the point, prove, if you are able, that every one who ufes the po- pular language on any fubjedl, makes him- felf anfwerable for the erroneous fyilem on which it is built i prove, alfo, that the falfehood of poffeffion is not an obvious and neceffary confequence of the nullity of demons. When you have done this, 1 promife to become a convert to your opi- nion. In the meantime, I am. Reverend Sir, Yours, &c. s Efiay, p. 370— 37^- LETTER ( ^n ) LETTER V. 'Reverend Siry ~~ I JlTH your main argument (which t vs^as coniidered in my laft letter) you have intermixed other proofs of the reality of demoniacal polTelTions ; which, though they are of inferior moment, I (hall not pafs over v^ithout notice. You plead, that if the ejedlion of evil fpirits (in the fenfe in which you explain this matter) had not been real, the Sad* ducees, when they faw the apoflles under- take to efie(fl it, would have declared, that the doctrine of poffeffion was no more than a vulgar error^. You likewife fuppofe^ that Herod, when he received Chrift's rneffage, I cajl out demons , would have ex- pofed him as a falfe pretender, had the ternis ** Inq. p. 98 — 100, N admitted ( 178 ) admitted of two fenfes, one of which muftbe falfe^ This objedlion fuppofes, that Herod and the Sadduces underilood Chrift, as you do, that is, as aflerting the reality of pofTef- fions ; and that they were able todemonftrate the falfehood of this opinion. But in truth neither Herod nor the Sadducees could object in the manner you fuppofe ; becaufe there could be no poffible doubt about the miracle in queftion, the cure of demoniacs ; nor was there any ambiguity in the terms that defcribed it ; for they always expref- fed a reftoration to a ftate of perfeft fanity. On my interpretation, there was no ground for any cavil -, on your's, there was room for this unanfwerable objection, viz. that Chriil and his apoftles appealed to an evi- dence, which is not an objedl of knfQ, nor (by your own account^) ofreafon. You think that even the Pharifees might have charged Jefus with fiam miracles^ if he pretended to caji out devils, when he did not^. Again, you miftake the meaning of calling out demons, and urge an ob- ^ Inquiry, p. lO. * See above, p. 121. "^ Inq. p. 60* jedtion ( ^79 ) jedlion againft me, which concludes only againft yourfelf> who place the miracle in the diflodging of a fpiritual being from the human body ; which any bold impoftor might pretend to effect. You very juftly obfervCj that the objedion of the Pha-^ rifees, that Chrift caft out demons by the affiftance of their prince, is grounded upon a fuppojition of the reality of whatever dif pojfej/ions it is levelled againft" . But would this have been admitted by the moft ma- licious adverfaries of Chrift, if the difpof- feffions in queftion had been iyivfible mi- raclesy as on your principles they certainly were ? In this cafe, they would rather queftion the truth of the miracles, than run into that great abfurdity of referring them to Beelzebub, as the only method they had of invalidating the evidence ariling from them, confidered as publick teftimonies to Chrift's divine commiffion. As to our Saviour's refutation of the ca- lumny of the Pharifees^, from which you * Inq. p. 49, 50. f If Satan cajl cut Satan^ l^c. Mat. xii. 25 — 3O. Luke xi. 15 — 23. N 2 largely ( i8o > largely argue'; you have taken no notlcd of what has been urged'' In reply to your argument : viz. *' that our Saviour in re- futing the Pharilees, was addreffing men whom it was more eafy to lilence than convince ; and who did not acknowledge his divine authority; and therefore very properly, and agreeably to his cuftem on other occafions, argues with them on their principles, and not at all upon his own*." You slnq. p. 55, 56, 57, 59, 60. ^ EiTay, p. 331, note (^)i and Differtation on Mi- racles, p. 388. i You, Sir, admit, (Inq. p. 55.) that Chrift, in one of his arguments, reafons with the PhariTees on their own principles. If he did fo in one argument, why might he not do the fame in the others ? When he faid, If I hy Beelzebub cajl out demom^ by whom do your fons cajlthem out? you allow that he refutes the Pharifees with their own opinion. Why then fnould you argue from the reit of his anfwer, and particularly from the parable of the ftrong man armed, as if he was inftru6t*. ing the Pharifees in his own opinion, not availing him** fcif of theirs ? What has been obferved above with ^ refpc(5l to the Pharifees, ferves to fhew, how very in- confiderately it has been faid, that Chrifl, inftead of refuting their calumny, fhould have denied the prin- ciple upon which it is founded, and told them plainly, that ( i8i ) You often draw arguments in favour of real poffeilions, from fome circumftances in the cafe of particular demoniacs. \¥ith- out having recourfe to the interpofiiion of fome fuperior being, you cannot, it feems, account for their uncommon exertions of ftrength" ; nor for their knowlege of Jefus as the Mefiiah'. I w^ill not here repeat what was offered in the Eflay to invalidate the force of both thefe arguments, becaufe you have fcarce taken any notice of it"". What jhat there were no real pofTeffions ; fince the leaft re- fle6tion may ferve to convince us, that the avowed enemies of Chrift, and fuch thefe men were, would not have been determined by his authority. ^ Inq. p. 33, 107. That extraordinary ftrength which you urge as a proof of pofTeilion, the moft emi- nent of the faculty (whom you advife your readers tp confult) have pronounced 3. fy?nptom of mzdnefs ; as (you well know) was fhevvn in the Eflay, p. 275, 276,. Infanorum funt haec om.nia. Dr. Mead, Medica facra, p. 66. Wetftein on Mat. viii. p. 354, 355. 1 Inq. p. 20, 108. The knowledge which the de- moniacs had of Jefus was accounted for in the Eflay, p. 242 — 249. ^ Indeed, with regard to the demoniac at Ephefus, you fay, that as a demoniac he very probably had heard of Paul'. s curing fuch in th^ name of Jefus -^ for which very rcafon^ the N 3 demon ( i82 ) What hope can there be of bringing any controverfy to a final period ; or what one good end can be anfwered, by your re^ peating old objections, without either giv-^ ino- them any new force, or fhewing the infufficiency of the anfwers that had been returned to them ? Had you duely con- fidered, th'4t madmea are often diftinguilh- ed by the quicknefs of their conceptions, d(;?npn who pojpjjed him mad^ the man ahvays avoid St, Paul. Inq^ p. 109. This is making hiftory, not ex* plaininn- ite With regard to one demoniac, that at Gadara, you tell us, (Inquiry, p. 19, 20.) he ran to Jefii^, be^auf^ he was poflefred and impelled by the devil'; but you thjnk the demoniac at Ephefus was pof- ■;fe{red, becauf^ (as you venture to aiHrm, though the hiftoiy tell 3 }ou the contrary, AS:, xvi. 18.) he always avoided Paul. How happy are you in being able to turn every thing to your advantage ! As to the Gada«f rene demoniac, you affirm, " he had always lived in defolatc places ;" (Inq. p. 20.) in dire^ft contradi(Slion to the evangelifts, who tell us, his diibrder often left him and returned. See Eflay, p. 246, and alfo Bez4 on Luke viii. 29. As to Chrift's not having been in this country, fee E Hay, p. 246. Why might not a Gadarcne know Jefus to be the Mefliah, as well as the Canaanice upon the coaft of Tyre ? Mat. xv. 22. As to the cafe of the man in the fynagogue, fee Effay^ p, 243 — 245, to which you have made no reply. as ( i83 ) as well as by their bodily ftrength ; that their diforder is often partial and tem- porary ; and that the paroxyfms of it do not obliterate former opinions and impref-^ lions ; had you attended withal to the par- ticular circumftances of the gofpel de- moniacs, (fome of whom did not require to be confined) you would have eafily ac- counted for their language and behaviour, without having recourfe to any fupernatural agency. You lay Angular ftrefs upon feveral cir- cumftances in the cafe of the Gadarene de- moniac. I will not here ftate his cafe at large, becaufe this was done in the EiTay ^ whei*e I both propofed the difficulties of the common opinion concerning him as a real demoniac"; and attempted to account for his behaviour on the fuppolition of his being merely a madman % though ftrongly polTeiTed with an opinion of his having demons within him. You have taken much pains to vindicate the popular opinion concerning this reputed demoniac ; though « pfTay, p. 259—265. • P. 266 — 275. N 4 you ( i84 ) you have taken very little notice of what was urged againft it. I fliall make a few remarks on what you have offered ; omit- ting only thofe particulars which have al- ready been confidered. I . It is obvious to remark, that the very attempt to make this man's difcourfe with Chrift appear rational, carries abfurdity upon the face of it. It was from a man's talking and ading irrationally, that the an- cients concluded that he was polTeffed; as appears from the whole current of anti- quity. To the numerous proofs of this point adduced in the EiTay'', both from heathen writers and from the evangelifts, I would here add one from Philoilratus, who afTigns this reafon for believing that a certain youth was pofleiled, viz. ** his laughing at things at which no other perfon laughed, and then fuddenly crying, without any reafon for it ; his fpeaking to himfelf, and fmeine^" 1^ the fame author, as was ob~ p Efiay, p. 80, 81, notes (^ '^). p. 93, et feq. & p. 'i f'i? X TB yap \(f OK hoilq in^oc, v.a, uiTt^u'hiv Ic To xT^xetv^ ierved ( i85 ) ibrved elfewhere% a mother being afked, :why fhe thought her ion poffeffcd by a demon, replied, *' becaufe the demon takes away his underftanding.'* You, Sir, on the contrary, would eitabliih the certainty q( demoniacal poffeilion from the oppofite principle, a perfon's fpeaking the words of truth and fobernefs. Thus you argue not only with refped: to the pythonefs, or raving prophetefs at Philippic but to the Gadarene demoniac alfo^ of whofe ipfanity ^ Eflay, p. 93, note (^). ^ Inquiry, p. 105. In the fame place, you fay^ ' that it is a flrange proof of infanity, which is fetched from her fleady repetition of that which was none other than a great and mcft indubitable truth : which yet is the only evidence that is hinted at or infinuated, Eflay on Demoniacs, p. 107." In no part of the EfTay is the truth uttered by the pythonefs, reprefented as any evidence of her infanity ; and in the vefy pao-e to which you refer your readers, two other proofs of it are urged, viz. ^' her defcription as -a. pythonefs ^ which exprefled the fpecies of her infanity ; and the manner in which file followed Paul for many days." As to the truth itfelf which flie fpoke, it was obferved, that it did but ill fuit an evil fpirit ; and does therefore but ill ao-ree to with your notion of her being poflefTed. Concerning this woman's cafe, fee EfTay, p. 105, et fe 2Q, 22, give ( i87 ) give me. Sir, if I fay, that of all the wild imaginations that ever entered the rnind of man, I know not one that, in abfurdity, exceeds the fuppofition, that fuperior ^n^. telligences would, in a dired: and formal manner, enter into a conteft with the power of their creator, who can annihilate, in a moment, all the creatures he ha§ made^. 3. Farther, you fuppofe, that the devil impelled the man to run and worjJoip Jefus^ with intent i^^-to flatter him into fome indul-r gejice towards him"^. This fuppofition very ill agrees with that knowledge of Chrift y In the Appendix to your Inquiry, p. 319, you fay, '' the devil contrived to croud a vt^hole legion into the bodyof one man. "This remarkable expreilion puts me ii^ mind of a queftion formerly debated in the fchools, viz. ^' Hov^ many thoufand devils can dance upon the point of a needle, withoutjoftling one another ?" You, Sir, I imagine, would have determined this very philofophical and edifying queftion, in favour of thofe vi^ho main- tained that only a few thoufands could do it. For you fuppofe, that fix thoufand fix hundred and fixty-fix devils, however fkilfully arranged, would be crouded in the whole body of a man. 2 Inq[. p. 20. which ( i83 ) which you afcribe to him. Could he think, that the Son of God was open to the flattery of an infernal fpirit ? This flat- tery of the devil does alfo ill agree with your notion of his having a mind to try what numbers could efi^edl. You fay, "^loe devil p-ahied all his powers, fimmoned bis forces together' , — in order to dijpute the fojjcjjton of this fmgle perfon^ , Neverthelefs, he neither made any reflflance; nor could, according to your account of him, have any thought of doing it. For you tell us*', he knew it ivas to no purpofe to make any attempts upon the Saviour of the ixorld, having been fo lately foiled by him in the wildernefs. In a word, his impelling the man to run to Chriil:, is very abfurd ; for hereby he himfelf knowingly ruflied into the prefence of his judge and avenger, whofe difpleafure, you acknowlege, he had incurred % and whofe power, he knew, it would be in vain for him to refift''. 2L, By the deep^ which the demons be- fought Jefus that he would not compiani;! ^ Appeiidix. p. 318. 319. ^ Inq. p. 22, & p. 17. 1%. ' hiq. p. 18. * lb. p 22. them ( i89 ) them to go out into, you tell us% you are inclined to thinks that they meant the fen or-. lake of Gennefareth adjoiniiig ; into which they hadfome apprehenfions of being fentenced. Here it is natural to afk, had the demons (whom you confider as bodilefs^ and fpi-- ritual bcijigs) any fear of being drowned ? Or, had they only (that fymptom of one fpecies of infanity in human beings) a hy- drophobia, or dread of water ? Or, fince you tell us they love ordure, did they fear being fentenced into the water, on account of it's cleanfing quality ? Laftly, fince they had fuch a dread of water, (to whatever caufe you afcribe it) why did they, after they had entered the fwine, precipitate themfelves into that very fea, v/hich they earneftly v^afhed and prayed to avoid- ? So far « Inq, p. 27. f lb. p. 203. g To remove this difficulty, you allege, that the drowning of th-: fwine zuas contrary to the intentions of thg unclean fpirzts^ to whom it is not afcrihed ; hut that it proceeded from the rage, which the pojfejjion naturally pro- duced in them. Inq. p. 29, 30. But, on your prin- ciples, the demons did certainly bring on themfelves the evil they deprecated ; for the fv^^ine had no infanitv, but ( I90 ) far am I from being able to difcover any marks of fuperior intelligence in the lan- guage and condu6t you afcribe to your devils, that I am inclined on this occaiion to adopt your language '^ on another, with fome variation. Search Bedlam ^ and in- quire of all the faculty there ^ whether they ever knew y or heard of any man, however foolijh or mady that could be paralleled in point of folly and madnefs, with the devil; if your account of him be juft. 5. One thing more I mufl take notice of, viz. -*' Your faying that the hiftory of the Gadarene demoniac opens fuch difcoveries into the world offpirits^ as are not to be met but what was folely effeSied by the devils that pojjejfed them 'y agreeably to the account you give of the men, p. 41. Could you avoid this difficulty, your prin- ciples would lead you into a greater. For if a few demons in each of the fwine naturally produced fuch a degree of rage, as the demons themfelves could not controul ; furely, a whole legion of them muft naturally produce an inconceivably greater and more uncon- troulable degree of rage. Confequently, the demoniac in whom the legion was, did not fpeak and a£l undef the influence of the devils, but of that madnefs, which was the natural eiFect. of diabolical pofleffion. h Inq. p. 33. . with ( 191 ) mth elfewhere in holy writK But thefe difcoveries, according to your account of them^, were made by the devil, when he faid, My name is legion \ and our Saviour had no other concern in them, than barely alkinp- the devil his name. The exfraor^ dinary revelation^ (as you call it) concern- ino- the number of our fpiritual enemies, was contained in the anfwer. Have you not read, that the devil was a liar from the hegijining ? Do not you yourfelf, when you want to difcredit any opinion, tell the world, that the author of it is the father of lies"^? Never thelefs, when you like the opi- nion which he is fuppofed to teach, then the fame father of lies becomes a teacher of truth, and we are required to receive doftrines upon his teftimony\ Indeed, J lb. p. 32. ^- lb. p. 24, %%, Vinq. p. 25. ^ See above, p. 85. "P. 334. What was merely the language of the demo- niacs, you often fpeak of as the confeffion and teftimony of the devil : (Inq. p. 25, 102, I13, II4» ii*-» 279.) And you think it ftrange^ that mm in thefe days fhouU have the hardinefs to cavil at difpujfejfions^ which were aitejled by the devils themjekes^ p. 116. You here both mifm- terpret ( 192 ) Indeed, Sir, the more I examine tha hiftory of the Gadarene demoniac, the more clearly do I difcern the abfurdity of the popular explication of it j and the ^more difpofed do I become to have re- courfe to that given in the EJj'ayy which may eafily be cleared from your objedlions**. The very circumftances in this hiftory that you terpret the fa6l, and appeal to the authority of a perfon, that neither bore his teftimony, nor deferves any credit. Nor are you very confiftent with yourfelfin reprefenting the devil fomecimes as attefting difpofieilions, and Ibme- times as endeavouring to perfuade men, that there never were any real pofTelTions ; Inq. p. 213, 301, 316, 327. You feem to think, that evil fpirits were mo'ved to bear their teftimony to God's meffengers, p. 102 ; and that their confefiions were extorted from them, p, 113. But neither Chrift nor his apoftles would ever accept what you call their teftimony ^ and therefore they could not be conftrained by God to bear it , as is fhewn, Eflay,, p. 248, 249. ^ • You think that Chrift's anfwer to the demoniac, ^^i?, implied no more than ^^/vw/^/V^; ; (Inq. p. 28.) It was a word that exprefied ChriiPs fovereign command, and therefore attended with efficacy. I will tranfcrib'e Beza's note on Mat. viii. 31. Pcrmitte nobis ahlre^ iTriT-s^ov y\y^v u'mX^iTv Vulg. mifte noj, i. TrsfM-^^ov viuotc, ut, etiam apud Marcum fcribitur. Ridiculi funt igitur ^ui permifllonera voluntati oppoiiunt. 'I hat there was 410 ( 193 ) you and other learned writers urge as proofs of pofTeffion, are mentioned in the New Teftament as illuftrations and evi- dences of the higheft degrees of infanity. You urge with peculiar triumph the cafe of Simon Magus as a proof of pofTcflion^. The account given of him in Scripture '^ is, that he pracSifed the arts oi for eery ^ and ho agency of evil fpirlts on this occafion, and that the deftru6lIon of the fwitte was calculated to corre(5l the falfe notions entertained of demons, was (hewn, Eflay, p. 299—303. But you are offended, that the fwine grew mad, juft when the demons are fald to enter them, Inq. p. 36, 37. The entrance of demons was the very defcription o'f their becoming mad. You would have had our Saviour drop a hint^ that might contribute to the cure of the fuperftitious notions of demoniacal pofTeffions ; Inq. p. 39. Would the Ga- darenes have takeyi the hint ? fee Eflay, p. 373, note C*). You fay, do you not know, that common mad7iicn are oh- ferved to frequent foUtary and unclean places^ though they are jit habitations for unclean fpr its \ Inq. p. 43. De- moniacs fancied themfelves to be poflefled by fuch fpirits, and a6ted accordingly ; fee Eflay, p. loi, note (0. Laftly, you obje Inq. p. '162, c p. 142. ^ P. 150—1720 • Ijiqc p. 143- ^P. i7r. tural ( 199 ) tural reafon leaves us as ignorant of the powers of the human foul in a ftate of feparation from the body, as it does of the powers of fallen angels. The fubjed of poilefiions is not fo en- tirely out of the province of reafon, as you faw fit to reprefent it. For, thon?^h it leaves us ignorant of the world of fpirits, it brincrs us acquainted with the material fyftem, and the laws by which it is go- verned ; particularly with thofe laws which God has impofed upon the human fyftem. Reafon fliews, that thefe laws are as fteady and invariable, as thofe of any other part pf nature ; and confequently are not im- peded or controuled in their operation by the agency of evil fpirits, in the manner your dodlrine fuppofes. Your dodlrine can never be reconciled v/ith ih.2it Jixed order of caufes and efFefts, which prevails throughout the univerfe. It is alfo charge- able with this farther contradiction to na- tural reafon, that it fuppofes the human fyftem to be governed by different laws in different ages ; which there is no more reafon to beUeve, than there is to believe O 4 the ( 200 ) the fame concerning the fun, and moon, and all the hoft of heaven. Thofe ma- niacal and epileptic fymptoms, which, in times of ignorance and fuperftition, were afcribed to demoniacal poffeffion, are com- mon in all ages ; and yet are not, in this inlightened age, referred to the fame caufe; no, not even by Dr. Worthington^. Can yau ferioufly perfuade yourfelf, that the very fame eiFefts proceed in one age from fupernatural, and in another from naturalj caufes ', according as men are funk in bar- barifm or emerge from it ? Men may be more or lefs acquainted with the laws of nature, in difFereni: periods of time; but the fupreme legiflator and governor of the univerfe is without any variablenefs, or fliadow of turning. Should you ever come to be better re- conciled to reafon, than you appear to be at prefent, I would beg you to weigh the force of the various arguments from reafon*", fuggefted in the Eilay, agalnft the reality s You, Sir, (in Inq. p. 213, 337, 338.) admit, that in thefe days, we fee no certain inftances of poireflion. ^ Efiiiy, cli. i. fe£l. 9. of ( 2GI ) efpofleffions. I fhall here take notice of one of thofe arguments, becaufe the force of it feems to be, in fome degree, admittea by yourfelf. It was fhewn', that thofe dif- orders of the underftanding formerly im- puted to pofTeffion, the very alledged fymp- toms and proofs of it, proceed from phyfical caufes. Amongft thefe caufes, violence of paflion was particularly fpeciiied in the Ef- fay\ Now, you cite, with approbation^ an author, who fays, '' that thefe diforders of reafon (that is, fuch as he calls the eifeds of an unnatural occupation by fpirits) ap- pear after grief, love, or fome great difap- pointment, iave difco^npofed the bi^ain.- Here it is very natural to afk, and I hope. Sir, you will excufe the liberty I take in afking you. What occafion is there to have recourfe to an unnatural occupation of fpirits, in order to account for the diforders of reafon, when love, grief;* and great dif- appointments have difcompofed the brain ? If it be allowed, that the diforders of reafon fucceed thefe paffions and great difappoint- ' Efiay, p. 159, et feq. ^ P. 160, \ Inquiry, p. 272, 273. ments;^ ' ( 202 ) ments, is it not natural to fuppofe, that the former were caufed by the latter ? We can never prove that there is any relatiori between caufe and effect, if effects which Uniformly fucceed the operation of certain eaufes, are not produced by them. Nor are we ever to admit more caufes of things than are neceffary to explain the pheno- mena. However you may dread being brought before the bar of reafon, you venture neverthelefs to appeal, IL To Experience. On this you af- firm^ the demonology of the ancient Heathens and Jews was, in part, grounded". And you ftrenuoufly contend, that the notiofi of po^UeJJions in general could not have fprung from any other fource than that of reality''. Pray, Sir, confider what it was the Heathens and Jews experienced, in the cafe of fup^ofed pofleffions. They ex- perienced in themfelves, or obferved in others, maniacal and epileptic fymptoms. From whatever caufe thefe fymptoms pro- •■ Append, to Inq. p. 327. Inq. p. 79, 80. » Inq. p. 34, 35, 312. ceededj, ( ^n ) ceeded, their obfervation and experience did not carry them beyond the fymptoms themfelves. It was from thefe alone-, that the ancients concluded, that thofe afFeded with them were poffelfed. Poffeffion, there- fore, is not a matter, that they could judge of by their experience. Their opinion of it's reality was a concluiion of their reafon that very reafon which you decry as a poor judge of thefe matters, or rather as no judge at all, and which is fo blind as hardly to fee the things before it. In your reafonings on this fubjed;, you are chargeable with the fophifm, which logicians call, the ajjignation of a falfe caufe. Every thing urged by you or others, in order to ihew, that if wicked fpirits had never given any proof of their power, the belief of it could not have prevailed fo generally in the world, has no other foundation than this deceitful argument. The opinion or belief in queftion was, it may be allovi^ed, found- ed in fadls; but in fadls that were at- tributed to a wrong cayfe. If you alk, '' How can we account for jhe prevalence of the notion of demoniacal poffeffions. ( 2<54 ) poflffions, if it had not been founded in truth ° ?" I anfwer, Firft, That the mere prevalence of an opinion, though we fhould not be able to account for it, creates no proof, nor even prefumption, pf it's truth ; as all thofe muft allow, who confider what ab- furdities in point of fpeculation, and what ill-grounded relations with refped; to mat- ters of fadt, have compofed the creed of the world. Had the Heathens adted ra- tionally, the reality of poffeffions might ^ You, Sir, of all men living, fhould be the lafl: to propofe fuch a queftion as this. For you maintain, that the devil infufes into the minds of men a perfuafion, that fome human fpirits polTefs mankind j Inquiry, p. 2C6, 209. (cited above, p. 85.) Now, if the devil infufes this perfuafion into the minds of men, why may \iQ not alfo infufe a belief of the reality of pofleifions, however groundlefs it maybe? Indeed the latter is manifeftly included in the former. You, therefore, have accounted for the belief of pofTeflions, without fuppofmg it to be founded in experience. And to me it feems lefs unlikely, that the devil ihould infufe a belief of the reality of poffeffions, (in cafe they had beea afcribed to him) than that he fhould perfuade men (as you fuppofe he does, Inq. p. 213.) to believe there never were any real poffejfions at all ; ancj thereby leff^n men's idea of his own power. haye ( 205 ) have been inferred from their general belief' of it. But in this, as in a thoufand other inftances, they became vain in their ima- ginations y and their foolijh hearts were dark- ened^. If no opinion could ever obtain amongft mankind, but what w^as founded in truth, how could error and delufion take place in the world ? How came that very opinion which you treat as abfurd and monftrous, (viz. that pofleffing demons were human fouls) to prevail amongft the vulgar Heathens and Chriftians, which you admit it did^ ? Secondly, It is not altogether impoffiblc to account, in fome degree, at leaft, for the rife and fpread of demoniacal poffeffions amongft the Heathens, from whom it was propagated amongft the Jews. The Hea- thens deified every part of nature, and fup- pofed every event of life to be under the diredlion of it's peculiar prefiding divinity. Their difeafes, in particular, they referred to the agency of their gods. The fymp- toms of maniacs and epileptics feemed to them to argue, not only fome interpofition, P Rom. i. 21. «. Inquiry, p. 206. but ( 206 ) but the immediate prefence of a deity, fujt* pending the exercife of their underftand- ings, actuating their bodily organs, and urging them to a condud: injurious both to themfelves and others. Thefe fuppofed effeds of their power being evil and mif- chievous, were afcribed to a malevolent caufe. For the Heathens thought, that from a being perfectly good, nothing but good could proceed ; and that the evils in the world proceed from gods elTentially cviL Amongft their gods, they ranked the fouls of departed men. Thefe gods, they imagined, were more likely than any otherSj to intereft themfelves in human affairs ; and were difpofed to do mankind either good or harm, according to their refpeftive charafters. To whom then were they fo likely to afcribe pofleffions, as to the fpirits of wicked men ? They believed thefe fpirits to be capable of actuating the human fyftem ; and the very belief of their power prepared them to exped: the dif- plays of it. They were likewife of opinion, that v/icked men carried with them thofe malignant paflions into the other world, which ( 207 ) which maxle them delight in the mifery of their fellow-creatures here. Hence it pro- bably came to pafs, that maniacal diforders were afcribed to the poffellion of fuch de- mons as were of human extra61. Recoiled:, Sir, the weaknefs of man's reafon, the ftrength of his paffions, the creative power of his imagination, (which perpetually miftakes phantoms for realities') together with the debaling and inflaving influence of fuDerftition, and the numerous artifices of pagan politicians and priefts to impofe upon the credulity of the people; and you will fcarce wonder at the prevailing belief of the power qf evil human fpirits; the proofs of which few had the ability to detect, or the inclination to examine, or fo much as the courage to fufped:. Notwithftanding the ftrefs you fome- times lay upon the experience, which, in your opinion, mankind had of diabolical polTeffions, yet you feem to have diilruiied r At enim Pythagoricos mirarl oppido folitos, fi qui^ fe negaret unquam vidifTe daemcnem, fatis, ut reor, idoneus auctor eft Ariftoteles. Apuleius in Apol. So- cratis. the ( 208 ) tiie force of this argument, when you faid, that demons are too fubtil for the eye of reafon, to have any dijcer?jment ofy though fomewhat aj/ijied perhaps by a wretched expe- rience of their malignity\ Accordingly, you look out for a new auxiliary, and that is, III. Tradition. You allow, " that the notion of demoniacal poffeffions had long obtained before our Saviour's time";" *' that it was not peculiar to the Jews, nor particularly grounded upon the jewifh Scriptures''; and that it had overfpread the gentile world''.*' In order to account for the prevalence of this notion, you tell us, *^ that the demon ology of the ancient Heathens was grounded, partly, upon tra- dition, derived from the fall''; and that ** the beft notions which they had of evil fpirits, were drawn from the jewifli Scrip- tures, and thofe notions much corrupted*.** « Inq. p. 162. "Id. p. 139. » p. 79. y P, 80, 314. 2 Appendix to Inquiry, p. 327. In another place (Inq. p. 153.) you fay, " The tradition concerning an evil principle undoubtedly originated from him,'' the devil, » P. 319, I fhould ( 209 ) I fhould not have taken notice of thefeJ a.flertions, which are fcarce confident with one another, and totally deftitute of proof, had not many learned writers, as Well an- cient as modern, maintained that the Hea- thens derived their notion of rebellious angels from the tradition of fome original revelation, or from the jewifh Scriptures. We are told, that Plato /earned from the 'Egyptian myjieriesy that God had formerly thrown many bad fpirits fro^n heaven^ who, ever Jince^ had been the enemies of mankind : that the Pythagorean defcription of the fall of thefe fpirits refembles that of Scripture : that Pherecydes Syrus fpeaks offuch a fall of demons or fpirits ; and that Ophtoneus was the chief of that arfny^ which rebelled againf the fiipreme being^ . A learned modern^ af- firms, *' that the giants attempting to fcale heaven, is probably the fcripture dodrine of fatan's rebellion mythologized**/* Plu- tarch b Marfilius Ficinus, cited by Crito, v. i. p. 2?c. <= The author of Crito, p. 265. See alfo, p. 232, 240. ^ Eufebius, (Prspar. Ev. 1. v. c. iv. p. 186.) and many others maintaija, that the hiftory of the giants iu ^ the ( 2IO ) tarch* compares perfons in debt to ttiofe demons of Empedocles, which, he fays^ were driven by the anger of the gods, and fell from heaven ; than which, fome thinky we can not wifh for a clearer defcription ot the devil and his angels. Nor is the great Dr. Cudworth^ fingular in fuppofing, that Titan's being caft from heaven, was nothing elfe, i^ut the fall of angels poetically mytho^ logized. Thefe eminent writers fpeak the general fentiments of Chriftians in all ages. Many of the early converts to the Gofpel had a flrong relilh of the legends of pa- ganifm, and endeavoured to perliaade the Heathens, that the ground of them was explained in Scripture. Succeeding writers have been milled by their too great de- ference to the opinion of the ancient Fa- thers. Though 1 feel the weight of thefe great authorities, I fhall, from a fmcere defire of the book of Gerfefis, gave occafion to the fables of the Heathens concerning the giants fpoken of above. * In lib. 9r£gi t5 yM h'ty ^ccni^sa^on f Intelledual fyftem, p. 817* better (211 ) better information, take the liberty of pro-* pofing the following queries : I. Is it i-eafonable^ to fuppofe, that fu- pefior created intelligences fliould enter into a formal conteft with the omnipotence of their creator, in the manfier thefe pagan hiftories (literally underfteod) imply ? I do not think that the Heathens confidered them in atiy other light, than as fables or allegories -, nor can I difcover any good reafon for" attempting to explain them as real fadls. 2* What politive, of even pfefumptlve, evidence i^ there that the Heathens bor- rowed their fables concerning evil fpirits from the jewifh Scriptures ? In the New Teftament, indeed, repeated reference is made to angels that finned, and that kept not their firft ejlate or principality. But the Old Teftament contains no account of the fall of angels > much lefs does it reprefent them -as fcaling heaven, and being thrown down from thence. There is not even the mdft diftant reference or alluiion to % See abiove, p. 1 86, 187* P2 fuch ( 212 ) iach an event, in any of the jewifli pro-^ phets**. How then is it poffible, that the Heathens fliould borrow from their writ- ings, opinions which they do not contain ? Not to add, that the opinions in queftion prevailed over the eaft' from the earlieft ^ You do, indeed^ fuppofe (Appendix to Inquiry^ p. 2^7, 228.) that there is fome allufion to Satan's being caft down out of heaven, in If. xiv. 12, 13, 14, •and that he is there called Lucifer^ ?.ndifon of the morn- ing. But when you had not an hypothelis to ferve, your good fenfe led you to explain the prophet, as he had been univerfally (I believe) explained, till the time of Athanafius. You fay (Boyle's Leftures, v. ii. p. 270, 271.) Heaven is fomeiimes ufed fyniboUcally for ti place ^ as by the term^ it miifl he meant to fignfy^ of great elevation and dignity ; lut yet confined to this earth heloiv. How art thou fallen from heaven^ O Lucifer ^ fon of the morning I fays the prophet^ of the king of Baby Ion j with regard to his being dethroned from his earthly kingdom, (Compare Eflay, p. 334-) Nay, in the very place, (Appendix to Inquiry, p. 228.) in which you fay, that Ifaiah alludes to this catajtrophe (that which befel the angels, when they were cafl: out of heaven), you ac- knovvlege that the prophet* s thoughts were occupied about other matters. Why were not your thoughts occupied upon the fame fubjeds as the prophet's were ? Why do you avowedly pervert his words \ * I fay this, on the fuppofition that fome degree of credit is due to the eaftern hiftories. See Holwell's Tra£ls, v. tii. p. 13, et feq. ages, ( 213 ) ages, long before the publication of the jewifh Scriptures. 3. Is it not certain, that the Jews bor- rowed their demonology from the Heathens ? Many proofs of this point were produced in a former letter'' 5 to which a thoufand more might be added. The evidence of it is fo glaring, that it forced from you a confeiTion, that the jewifh doftors were, on one occafion, obliged to the heathen de- 7nonology\ If you fay, that the demono- logy of the Heathens, in cafe it was not borrowed from the jewiih Scriptures, might be grounded upon tradition, derived from the fall ; I afk once more, 4. What evidence is there of fuch a tradition ? I am far from taking upon me to fay, that there w^as not an early re- velation of the rebellion of angels, and their expuiiion from heaven. But hitherto, this point has been afferted only, not proved. If you look -into the heathen records, you will find no tradition of any original re- velation with refpec^t to the fubjedt before us. Uncertain as traditional evidence is, '^ P= 43, et feq. ' ^ Inquiry, p. 48. P 3 yet ( 214 ) yet your opinion wants even this fupport amongft the ^eathens. Befides, if there had been fuch a revelation as that you fpeak of, would It not have been very furprizing,' that it ihould be preferved amongft the idolatrous Heathens, and not noticed at all by Mofes, nor by any of the fucceeding prophets ; though the Ifraeiites were fepa- rated from the reft of the world, with the exprefs intention of making them the de- poficaries of the oracles of God ? Till you can fupport what you have faid on the fubjecl of tradition with fome degree of evidence, I (hall be in danger of regarding it as a mere hypothefis, to which you have recourfe from fome imagined convenience only. After all, could you prove what vou have afferted, concerning the fources from whence th^ Heathens derived their demonologyi what end could this anfwer? It would neither determine whom the pof- feffing demons were reputed to be, nor eftablifli th^ reality of their poiTeflions. IV. You endeavour to fupport your doc- trine of diabolical poffeffions., by argu- mients drawn from revelation ; fuch part$ ( 215 ) parts of it as have not hitherto come under confideration. I cenfidered this fubjeft in the Eflay jipon the foot of reafon, as well as re- velation ', but fo far am I from fiyingfrom the latter^ as you*" mifreprefent me, that I am not unwilling, that our refpediive opinions fhould be tried by this fingje teft, and to abide the iffue. You are pleafed to affirm, that the deny^ ing of diabolical pojfejjions Jlrikes at the whole ^economy of revealed religion''. Confident af- fertions, unfupported by proof, do not de-». ferve a refutation. It was obferved in the Effay% that poiTeffing demons being the fouls of departed men, the denying their power to enter and torment the bodies of the living, could no way affecft the doctrine of fallen angels, nor any other dodlrine that might be grounded upon it. The queftion before us has no relation to any fpirits but thofe of human extradl. And I am perfuaded no judicious advocate for the power of the devil to tempt mankind "^ Inquiry, p. 143. n lb. p. 13^. ® Eflay, p. J 46, 147. P4 ■ to ( 2l6 ) to fin, will reft the proof of it on paffages that refer to a fubjecft totally different, th^ power of demons or heathen deities to de- prive men of their reafon. The objecftion is fo very wide of the mark, that it feems rather defigned to inflame the prejudices, than to convince the judgment, of your readers. You farther plead, that the cajiing out ' devils was a greater and more Jignal mirsicle^ than the healhig of any difeafe^J' Were we even to allow, (what you can never prove '^) that the former requires more pov/er thari the latter ; y&t inafmuch as the bare dif- poiTeffion of ^ fpiritual being is not an objedl of fenfe, it can not carry any con- viiflion to mankind ; much lefs equal con- yiftion with the miraculous cure of a difeafe'. When you mention it as a ftill farther recommendation of difpeiieffions, in your 'vievs^ of them, that they were miracles per- formed upon the fouls, as "well as the bodies of77ien^y you forget that the explication of ? Inquiry, p. 217. '3 See Eflay, p. 396, 397, ^ Effay, 397, 398, ' Inq. p. 220, 1 15. thei^ ( 217 ) ,t?betn which you rejecfl, lup.pofes the 7nind as well as the corporeal fyftem, to be r^ ftored to a ftate of pej fevious fenfe of the latter. The paiTage to which I refer is in Paul's epiftle to the Corinthians, We know that an idol is nothing in the werld'\ The Effiiy'^ afferts, that by an idoly we are here to underftand a f EfTay, p. 189, 190. i P. 233, et feq. ^ P. 193, et {eq. ^ I Cor. viii. 4. ^ P. 194. heathen ( 223 ) heathen demon or deity; and fupports this opinion by the natural import of the original word*, and by the un- doubted application of it in ancient writers'", as well as by feveral very great authorities " ^ but more efpecially by the occafion° on which it is here ufed by the apoftle. You, Sir, on the contrary maintain, that by an idol^ we are to under- ftand the material image. The firft reafon you affign for this opinion is^ that the Corinthians, though they might know^ that idols of wood and ftone were (as the i j't^wAov;. See Le Clerc*s Supplement to Hammond on I Cor. viii. 4. °^ Effay, p. 194, 195, and Elfner on i Cor. viii. 4, n Le Clerc, in his Latin verfion of Stanley's Hiftory cf Oriental Philofophy, p. 176, after fhewing that the Heathens called the ghofts of the dead u^o^Aa ; and that the Jews and the Chriftians applied the term i'tow^ov to the pagan gods themfelves, and not to their images only, adds, Hinc videtur etiam Paulus, i Cor. viii. 4. dixiffe t't^wPvov effe a^sv, idolum efie nihil, hoc eft, evanidam umbram. I had referred you to feveral interpreters in fupport of this opinion, EfTay, p. ig^ . and yet you fcruple not to affirm, that thsy (the com- mentators) all UNANiM0USLY/tt/)/)<7/^, that bj the idol is meaned^ the material vifihk image^ Inquiry, p. 196, 197^. * Effay, p. 196. P Inq. p. 193, apoftls ( ^^4- ) apoftle fpeaks*') duml^, yet they could not know that the gods themfelves were dumb. On the contrary, you add, they were often fup-^ fofed to fpeak. The Corinthians in their Gentile flate, like other Gentiles, might fuppofe that their gods fpoke and con- verfed with men ; but at their converfion to chriftianity*, they had been taught, that their former objedls of worihip were void of all the powers afcribed to them; a izn-^ timent often inculcated by the Old Tefta- ment writers', in paflages which you greatly pervert, when you confine their meaning to the material idol. You could not have fallen intofo egregious a miftake, had you confidered, that the Heathens themfelves were not fo abfurd, as to be- lieve that merely material images poflelTed fenfe and reafon, andfpeech': that their belief q I Cor. xii. 2. * That the apoftle is here fpeaking of the knowlege peculiar to Chriftians, is (hewn, Efiay, p. 229, et feq. r Pf. cxxxv. 15. Pr. cxv. 3. Hab. ii. 18. s Arnoblus (adverf. Gent. 1. vi.) makes the Hea- thens fay, in their own defence, Neque nos aera, ne- que auri argentique materias-' eas elie per fe decs. ( 22 5 ) belief was, that the gods were brought into thefe images by facred dedication, and kept their refidcnce there': and that in virtue of their being inhabited by the gods, the images were to be regarded and wor- fhipped as gods". It is in dired:oppofition to this opinion, that the prophets re- prefent the heathen idols or gods as mere fenfelefs materials ; thefe materials, as they were not really inhabited and ani- mated by any deity,' nor indued with any divine power, being the only objcds of their worfhip. In this view the repre- fentation of the heathen idols or gods as only gold and lilver, wood and ftone, and We do not think brajs and gold and filmr^ and other ma- terials of images^ to he of thetnfelves gods. ^ Eos in his colimus, eofque veneramur quos dedi- catio infert facra, & fabrilibus efficit habitare fimu- lacbris, fay the Heathens in Arnobius, ubi fupra. " If idols are nothings fays Celfus, (apud Origen. c. Celf. 1. viii. p. 393.) 'what harm can there be to join in the public fejlivals ? If they are demons^ then it is certain that they are gods^ in whom we Jhould co?ifide. You re- member that Stilpo was condemned by the Athenians to banidiment, for denying the Minerva of Phidias to be a real divinity. See Gqr. xxxi. 19, 30. ch. xxxv. 4. Exod. xxxii. I. Levit. xix. 4. Dan. v^4. Q_ the ( 226 ) the work of men's hands, was forcible and ftriking. But what fenfe is there in af-- firming concerning a merely material idol, that it is mere matter'' ? You objedl to my fpeaking of the heathen demons or deities as nullities, and mifre- prefent me as aflerting, abfolutely, their non exiftence^, though I had explained my meaning to be, '* either that they had no exiftence,*' (<7J- demons they had none) ^^ or that they v/ere of no»more account, than if they did not exift^" What lefs could the apoftle mean when he faid, *^ an idol is nothhig in the world ?" You had no oc- caiion therefore to expofe the abfurdity of inferring- from this text the non-exiftence either of material images or of human X I do not know, why you quoted Chryfoftom, with approbation, (Inq, p. 195, 196,) who, in anfwer to that queillon, Have graven images no exigence F re- plies, they are only Jiones and demons ; unlefs it was to ihew that he underftood the apoftle in a fenfe different from what you do, and contradidled all the prophets of God, who taught that graven images were not in- habited by demons, nor indued with any fupernatural power. y See above, p. 83. ^ Eflay, p. 224. % fpirits, ( 22; ) fpirits. Ridicule mifapplied always returns upon it's author. After all, you feem to acknowlege every thing that my argument requires, viz. ** that the material images tiDere i^eprefentations of fictitious deities^ which i?i truth are no gods ^ and equally impotent and infignificant as the images themfehes^. And you elfewhere allow % (what indeed it would be abfurd to deny) that the facred writers, and Paul in par- ticular, do, by the term demon, de- fcribe the heathen gods, fuch as their wor- ihippers took to be deified human fpirits ^ Let us now fee how far this coniiils with a a P. 196. "p, jgo^ jgj^ ^ Hereby, I acknowlege, you contradi£l yourfelf : for you mod commonly contend, that by demorl in the Nev/ Teftament we are to underftand the dev'il^ or one of his angels, Inq. p. 186. I will not on this occafion adopt your polite language to Dr. Grey, (in your book upon Redemption, p. 403, note ). What muji the reader think of a man that thus glaringly contradi£is himfelf far the fake of ca^ 'uilling at another ? But I will fay, that it is difficult, even for men of learning and ability, when they have adopted a falfe hypothefis, to be always confident with themfelves in their defence of it, 0^2 belief ( 228 ) belief of the reality of demoniacal pof- feffion. If the demons or deities of the Heathens were, as you you rfelf are forced to allow, as impotent and iiijignijicant as their images ; then thefe deities have no more power to enter and torment the bodies of men, and to deprive them of their reafon, or, in other v/ords, to poffefs them, than the images have. Now, is it not a neceffary, and moil obvious, confequence from hence, that there never was, nor can be, a real demoniac ? Had I not reafon to affirm, that Chrift and his apoftles had entirely fubverted the doftrine of pofleffions'' ? Ne- verthelefs, you exclaim, (with due re- verence, we mufl prefume,) Good God I "where is this to be feen ^ I anfwer, in all thofe paflages of Scripture which affert the utter impotence of all the demons of the Heathens. It was moreover Ihewn in the EfFay, that God's infpired melTengers, by ellablifliing the nullity (or if that word offends you, the tiothingnefs) of demons, with refpedl to any power over mankind, * EiTay, p. 314. ^ Inquiry, p. 198. took ( 229 ) took the moil proper and eiFedtual method of overturning not only the doctrine of pof- fefiions, but all the other fuperftitions grounded on the contrary opinion^. You have attempted to evade this evidence by faying% '^ that poffeffions are not fo pro- perly matters of dod:rine, as matters of fa<3:." But I have {hewn you in a former letter, that you muft have miiinterpreted the fadls which you allege^ becaufe your interpretation of them is a moft glaring contradiction to the dod:rine of all God's prophets. 3. Demoniacal polTeffions, if your ex- plication of them be juir^ deftroy the evi- dence of revelation, or the force of thofe miracles which were wrought to atteft it's divine original. If all cffe&s prodoced in the fyftem of nature, contrary to the ge- neral laws by which it is governed, or (in other words) to the fixed order of caufes and effeds, are proper miracles ^ then fupernatural poffeffions certainly come under this denomination. For they fuppofe that evil fpirits infii£l bodily difeafes, de- f E%, p. 370—376. g Inquiry, p. 198, 199. 0^3 pnve ( 230 ) prive men of their reafon, render them biind, deaf and dumb, and produce other maniacal and epileptic fymptoms, by their own immediate agency, contrary to the ge- neral laws by which the human fyfl:em is governed, or to the fixed order of caufes and efFeds eftablifiied in that fyfcem^. Now, if evil fpirits can perform miracles, how fliall we fupport the authority of thefe ^vorks ? How Ihall we vindicate the repre- ^ It may be objected, that we have not a fufficient knowledge of the laws by which the human frame is governed, to enable us pofitively to determine, whether poffeffions be contrary to thofe laws. I freely acknow- lege, that had the jqueftion concerned any fecret in- fluence of fpiritual invifible agents on the human mind, I could not pronounce fuch an influence miraculous, becaufe I could not prove that it was contrary to the laws of nature, having no know'lege of thofe laws by which the world of fpirits is governed. But the queftion concerns outward and fenfible eiFecls, ma- niacal and epileptic fymptoms, (always included in pofTeflions) which were often attended with blindnefs, dcafnefs, and other bodily diforders. Now thefe dif- orders are known to proceed from a bad habit of body, and other natural caufes. And therefore were they to be produced by the fupernatural agency of demons, fu- perfeding the operation of natural caufes, they would ,be undoubted miracles. fentation ( 231 ) fcntatlon made of them in Scripture, as works appropriate to God 3 or the ufe which the Scripture makes of them, as in themfelves authentic and decifive evidences of a divine miffion* ? That I may not repeat what was urged in the Eflay on this fubjea*", I will only add, 4. Your explication of demoniacal pof- ffeffions cafts the greateft refledlion upon the charader and conduct of Chrift and his apoftles. I do not mean, that you. Sir, or others in your way of thinking, defign * Neverthelefs, you contend, (Inquiry, p. 189.) that the zvorktng of miracles is afcrihed to the fpirits of demons^ Rev. xvi. 13, 14. without taking any notice of what was faid in the EiTay, p. 45, note (s), and p. 218, to explain this pafiage. How could you argue from the literal i^^i^ of this paffage, when you call it an ay.i- hlemattcal reprefentation of v/hat John faw in a vifton ? Inq. p. 188. RecolletEt your own explication of Rev. xiii. 33, 14. in your Boyle's Led, v, ii. p. 342. k See ElTay, p. 184, and p. 406, concerning the evidence of miracles in generaf. How much your rea- fQning difcredits the miraculous infu£tion and cuts of difeafes, in particular, is fiiewn, EiTay, p. 403. On the other hand, it has been fhewn, EiTay, p. 408, that the true explication of the dernoniacs of the Gofpel, cftablifhes the certainty, and difplays the full glory, of the miracles performed upon them, CL4 t» ( 232 ) to afperfe the firft founders of chriftianlty. Nothing certainly can be farther from your thoughts. It may, however, deferve to be confidered, how far you may really do, the injury you did not defign. Our Sa- viour told the unbelieving Jews, the works that I do in my Father s namey they bear witnefs of me, Amongft thefe works, he reckons his cafting out demons, to which he refers his moft malicious enemies', Herod and the Pharifees, for conviflion. Now, if you place this miracle in barely ejefting a fpiritual and invifible being from the human body, and reft even the fadl itfelf, his being ejefted, upon the tefti- mony and authority of Chrift, you make him offer his enemies an evidence of his miffion, which in itfelf could carry no convidlion, (and which therefore would have been received as an infultjj and you make him urge his authority before he had eftablifhed it, and in order to fupport the proof he gave of it to thofe, by whom it was not acknowledged. According to ^ Mat. xii. 28. Luke xiii. iz. vour < 233 ) your mifreprefentation of him, our Saviour, inftead of laying, with refpedl to difpof- feffions, The works that I do, they bear witnefs of ?ne, ought to have faid, I bear wit?tefs of my works. But no fuch ab- furdity can be fixed on him, who was the wifdom of God, as well as the power of God. With refpeft to th.e apoftles and evan- gellfts, confider, I intreat you, in how odious alight you place them. They pro- fefs to give us a hiftory of the great fads upon which chriftianity is founded; and tell us that they were careful to relate only fuch as they were either eye-witnefTes of themfelves, or concerning which they had received certain information from others. But I have already fliewn, that you make them atteft fadls, which, fuppoiing them to be true, could not be known to be fo, unlefs by fupernatilral revelation, which the evangelifts did not pretend to. You fink the character and credit of the evan- gelifts in another view: for you make them refer to a fupernatural agency, thofe maniacal fymptoms which are known to proceed ( 234 ) proceed from natural caufes ; and thus to give a fallacious account of the con- ftitution of nature"", and fet reafon (our only inftrudlor in natural things) at va- riance wdth revelation. Nor is it merely in thefe views, but in many others, elfe- where taken notice of", that your doc- trine has expofed chriftianity to contempt ; and not only afforded matter of impious mockery to men of a profane difpofition^ but (I fpeak it from knowlege) proved a tumbling block even to ferious and up- right minds. Why fliould you incumber chriftianity with diiiiculties that do not belong to it ? But nothing, it fliouId feem, appears to you fo dreadful °, as admitting two pro- politions, " EfTay, p. 402. " That your opinion creates a groimdlefs dread of demons, and is a fource of thofe cruel fu perditions, which chriftianity was defigned to abolifh, is fliewn^ Eflay, p. 399, et fcq. ° The ground of this dread feems to be, an apprehen- fion that denying the power of demons, is the fame thing as denying the power of the deviK But pofleilions do not furnifh any convincing proof of the interpofition of any evil fpirit, (as is fhewn, EfTay, p. 386, et feq.) and bear no relation to the devil, who has a different office ( ^35 ) poiitions, which obviate all the difficulties mentioned above, and from v/hich no iingle inconvenience can arife. One of thefe propofitions, is, that the demons to whom poiTeiiions were referred by the an- cients, were human fpirits ; the other is, that by the poiTeffions of demons and their difpofleffions, fpoken of in the New Tefta- ment, we are to underftand the fymptoms and cure of reputed demoniacs. The firft' proportion is efcabliflied both by the general declarations of the ancients, that pojjejjing demons were the fouls of the deceafed -, and by feveral particular inflances of perfons faid to be polleffed by demons, when it appears that thofe demons were thought to be human fpirits. Nor have you. Sir, been able to produce either one office affigned him, that of temptifig men to fin. But •by your ranking him amongft the demons fpoken of in the New Teftament, you annihilate his power in this refpCiSl : for thofe demons are nothing in the world. If you would not commit the crime you are pleafed to impute to me, that of laying the devil ^ and hanijhing him put of the zvorld, (Appendix to Inq. p. 332.) you muft allow, that he is a fpirit diilind: from thofe called demons in Scripture, general ( 236 ) general declaration, nor even one particular inftance, to the contrary, from any writer either before, or during, the time of Chrift, or in the ages immediately fuc- peeding it. Nay, after your laboured at- tempt to difprove this propofition, you do, to my apprehenlion, admit its triith, when you fay^ that the lai'vce. were fuppofed to caiife madnefs -, for the larvae are exprefsly defcribed by the Heathens as mifchievou^ human fpirits ; and they anfwer precifely to the poffeiling demons of the New Teftament*^. As to the fecond propofition juft now mentioned, viz. *' that the poireffions and (difpofleffions fpaken of in the New Tefla- ment are defcriptions only of the fymptoms of reputed demoniacs and their cure; it has been fliewn that they were fo under-* ftood in the age of the Gofpel ^ and proved p Appendix to Inq. p. 313. •3 See above, p. 38, note {*), and p. 39. It fhouM have been obferved above, p. 64, note (*^), that th« late bifhop of Rochefter, in his note on i Cor. x. 20. fiiews, that by ^«»//.o»ja there, are not meant devils^ but affjKcifi, or the e;^£//5 of dcceafed men. from from a variety of confiderations, that they muft be fo underftood in the hiftory of the life of Chrift. It has alfo been fliewn, that the evangelifts by defcribing the dif- order and cure of demoniacs in the vulgar language, did not make themfelves an- fwcrable for the hypothefis on which it is built, and that they have done every thing they could fitly do, to guard againft every fuperflition grounded upon that hypothefis, by eftablifhing the utter inability of de- mons to do the leaft good or harm to man- kind. I muft add, that fliould you be able to overturn the firft of thefe pro- pofitions, that would not afFed the fecond. For though the notion of poflefling demons maintained in the firft propofitlon, fur- niilies one diftind argument' againft the reality of poflefiions ; yet independently of that argument, the reafoning under the fecond propofition preferves it's force. In other words, whoever the poffeffing de- mons of the ancients are fuppofed to be, whether human fpidts or fallen angels, the demoniacal poflTefiions and difpofleffions ^ See above, p. 76, 77. mentioned ( 23S ) mentioned in the New Teftameilt, can not be underftood in a fenfe different from that in which they are here explained. One would imagine, that you yourfelf defpaired of carrying your caufe by fair argument, and wanted to preclude all reafoning upon the fubjeft, when you refolve the op- pofition to your opinion into a diabolical ap^ency. The devil anfwers all your pur- pofes. Sometimes he confeffes his own difpofieffion ; and at other times, he per- fuades men, there never "were any real pof^ fejjions at all^. I have now examined your feveral ar- guments in fupport of the reality of de- moniacal polfeffion, whether contained in your Inquiry; or in the Appendix' to it, palling * Inq. p. Ii6, & p. 213. ^ III cafting my eye over your Appendix, I obferved the following pafTagc, p. 291. " The having familiar fpirits, implies pofTeflion, or at lead obfeiHon, in the very term." Divination by oh, or (as that word is rendered in the Englifh tranflation) a fa'niiliar fpirit^ is a thino- very diftinft from what is called in the Gofpel, beino- poffefTed or vexed with evil fpirits. I take no notice of the very faife reprcfentation you have made (p. 262.) of the explication I had given of the Hebrew word ( 239 ) paffing over only thofe things that have no immediate relation to this fubjed. In the management of your argument, you have taken a very large compafs, and difcovered confiderable ability, and addrefs ; and, in my opinion, made as good a defence as the cafe admits'. And had not your zeal been word ob, which mufi appe:;r to every one who will confult Differtation on Miracles, p. 273, and p. 478, where he will alfo find a fufficient anfwer to your ar- gument from it in fupport of real poiTeffions. As to the punifnmcnt inRiSicd upon thofe who pradifed di- vination, it was accounted for, in the fame Difiertation, p. 277. Againfl- whom can your wit be levelled, when you talk of the abfurdity of punifhing any one for the unfavourable make of his body ? There is one capital error runs through your whole fyftem of demonology, viz. " You fuppofe that the magic of the Heathens in all it's various branches produced fupernatural effe6ls.'* But the Scripture, on the other hand, reprefents their magic as founded wholly on human impofture; and all the gods to whom the magicians addrefled themfelves, as utterly impotent and infignificant. DifTert, on Mir. ch. iii. feci. 3. ^ Soon after the publication of the Eflay, there ap- appeared an anonymous pamphlet, entitled, J Dif- Jertation on the Demoniacs of the Gofpeh : An advertife- ment prefixed to it, informs the reader, that it's beino- o printed at that time, was owing to fome things having lately # ♦ ( 240 ) been fometimes too ftrong for your can- dour", your performance would not have been liable to any cenfure. We lately been ptiblijhed contrary to the doclrine therein con- tained. But as this Diflertatlon is very general, and does not attempt to anfwer any of the reafonings pe- culiar to the Eflay, and indeed does" not contain any thing, but v/hat maybe found in your work, and irt. much earlier publications^ I ihall take no farther notice of it. " To the inffances of your want of candour taken notice of in my firfl: letter ; many others might have been added. I confefs, I was totally at a lofs to account for your many grofs mifreprefentations, fo much beyond all example, till I found you countenanc- ing the principles of deception. Appendix to Inquiry, p. 275. Though Micaiah faid, in exprcfs terms, 2 Chrcn. xviii. 19. 1 faw the Lord fitting upon his throne^ you fay, yci^p-'rptme it-4s-JiQt necefifary to fuppofe^ that Micaiah had in reality any fitch i)lfion \ foT^that he himfielf^ in order to undeceive Ahab^ if pofiftble^ fnight have contrived this in-^ Tiocent and well-meant fiSiion. I do not think that fuch a fiction (or falfehood^ for fuch it would have been, if the prophet had not really had the vifion he affirmed he had) can be juftified by any goodnefs of in- tention. Your maxim would deftroy all confidence amongft mankind ; and acting upon it in controverfial writino^s, is the ready way to defeat the valuable pur- pofes that might otherwife be anfwered by them. As to Micaiah's vifion, (which was a figurative repre- fentation ( 241' ) We are both of us thoroughly perfuaded not only of the truth, but of the im- portance, of our refpedive opinions. It is therefore not only the right, but the duty, of each of us to defend his own. What ground then for refentment can there be on either fide ? If writers mean only the advancement of truth, what can tempt them to have recourfe to mifreprefentation and calumny, in order to bear down an opponent ? Though truth be more pre- cious than rubies, it is not of equal value v/ith integrity. However laudable it may be to contend earneftly for the faith, our zeal muft not deftroy that charity or bene- volence to the whole human kind, which fentatlon of God's providence in permitting Ahab to be deluded and undone by his own falfe prophets) it was certainly a real one ; as appears from the accom- plifhment of the prophecy it contained, as well as from the teftimony of Micaiah himfelf. The real injury you have done to the prophet of God, gives juft occalion to retort upon you thofe harfti cenfures (cited above, p. 170, 171.) v/hich you very improperly paffed upon your opponents ; but it becomes me rather to leave you ta your own rejlecfhr.s^ as you exprefs yourfeif upon another occafion, Inq. p, 38. R it ( ^42 ) It IS one of the greateft offices of faith to promote. Differences of opinion, with refpedt to matters of doctrine, as well as forms of worfliip, will always fubfift ; but they need not produce, and, in well-dif- pofed minds, do not produce, any abate- ment of aifedion. I am, with all due r^^'* Z^:. -^nd with the jQncereft wifhes for Reverend Sir, youi moft obedient fervant, Hugh Farmer. J^ / N I S^ ERRATA. Page 30, line 5, over epithet put C'). 54) 1. 7 J fron^ the bottom in the note, dele on. — 65, in note C^), and p. 79, note (*), for ibid. read id.— In note (^), p. 65, and i;i note (p), p. 79, for ib. r. id. *— . 67, 1. 3, in the notes, for revertantur r. rever.** tatur — 1. 4, for revertatur r. revertantur. »_ 112, note (O3 dele Inq. — 134, 1. 4, lor countenance r. authorize. — 152, 1. II, for figning r. defigning. ,1 140, 1. 7, after the wo^d diforder, add, *' When it is faid, that the unclean fpirits crying, (that is, caufing the demoniacs to cry) with a loud voice, came outy A6t. viii. 7. the meaning is, that the diforder imputed to, or defcribed by, unclean fpirits, left the patients. The other errors being of little confequence, or jeafily difcovered, the candid reader is defired to corre(J ^nd excufe« Publijhed by the fame Author., I. A Dissertation on Miracles, de- figned to ihew, that they are arguments of a divine interpofition, and abfolute proofs of the miffion and doftrine of a Prophet. II. An Examination of Mr, Lemoine% Treatise on Miracles, III. An Inquiry into the Nature and Deftgn of Christ's Temptation in the Wil- derness. — The 3d edition, with ad- ditions. I¥. An EssAV on the Demoniacs of the New Testament. «• -^;-''-.;^ mi^ vVm; US'' . . r ■ ■ -^ ■ - ff^.