DEC ^ y sec 554/ DEMONIACS. DiEMONIACS, AN ENQ^UIRY INTO TH;e HEATHEN AND THE SCRIPTURE D JE M N S. INWHICHTHE HYPOTHESES of the REV. MR. FARMER, AND OTHERS ON THIS SUBJECT, ARE PARTICULARLY CONSIDERED. By J O H N F E L L. ^idfuerum — euro l^ rogo i^ omnis in hoc f urn. HoR. LONDON: PRINTED FOR CHARLES DILLY, IN THE POULTRY- M.DCC.LXXIX. !;j93lO .X^:U3 1 CONTENTS. NTRODUCTION Page vli-xv CHAP. I. The Judgment of the Heathens concerning their own Gods, examined, and fairly ftated i — 33 CHAP. II. The Teftimony of Scripture concerning Heathen Gods — -_ ^ 34— 8d CHAP. III. Concerning the Heathen Demons, and the various Application of that Term among the ancient Greeks __ — _ 81—120 CHAP. IV. Concerning the Demons mentioned in the Gofpel, and the Application of that Term by the facred Penmen — — 120—166 CHAP. V. The Arguments alledged againft the Scripture Doc- trine concerning Dsemoniacs, examined, and {hewn to be inconclufive — — 167 — 242 CHAP. VI. The Principles on which Mr. Farmer denies the Agency of fuperior Beings withm the Limits of the human Syftem, examined, and fhewn to be either inapplicable to the Gofpel Demoniacs, or a flat Contradidion to the Holy Scriptures — — — 243—278 A3 CHAP. CONTENTS. CHAP. VII. The Scripture Dodrine concerning Angels both Good and Evil, and their Agency within the human Syftem, briefly examined and ftated ; to- gether with the Confequences of their In- fluence — ■ — 278—313 CHAP. vm. The Scripture Account of thofe Cafes which are termed Dsemoniacal Pofleffions j with an Exami- nation of the Caufe that hath been lately afligned for fuch Diforders 3^3— 340 C H A P. IX. 'The Scripture Doctrine concerning Dsemoniacal Pofleffions fhewn to be confiftent with many Appearances, both in the natural and nioral LWorld — — 340—376 CHAP. X. That the facred Penmen not only aflert but alfo pro- duce different Fads, in order to prove the Reality of Daemoniacal Pofleffions — 377-~399 THE CONCLUSION. A fummary View of thvfe injurious Confequences which have been alluded to in the preceding Work 400 — End 3NTR0DUCTI0N, [ vii ] INTRODUCTION. TT hath been affirmed by fever al learned writers^ that the D'^moniacs mentioned in the Gofpel^ were perfons labouring e'nly under natural difeafes^ fuch as a deep melancholy, mad- nefs^ or epilepfy, and not at all affe&ed by any evil fpirits. This opinion was intimated abovf an hundred years ago, by Mr. Jofeph Mede, and, about forty year's fince, urged with great vehemence by Br. Sykes ; when it was as warmly oppofed by fome other divines. The fame hypothefis was afterwards taken up by Dr. Lardner in his Cafe of the Demoniacs of the New Tcflamcnt -, and is now revized again and inforced by the Reverend Hugh Farmer, in his EfTay on the Demoniacs of the New Teftament ; the defign of which work is }d ffjezv, " that the diforde'rs, iiliputed to fuper- natural poffeff ens, proceed from natural C(iufeSy '* not from the agency of any evil fpirits *.'* • Introduftion, p. 2. A 4 Mh)ugh viii I N T R O D U C T lO-K. * 'Although we entertain not the leaft doubt con- cerning the reality of thofe damoniacal pojfejfions ajferted in t'.e Go/pel; yet the arguments, urged of late in defence of the contrary opinion, have excited our .attention and concern more than the opinion itfelf. It is not merely, therefore, the doSlrine in difpute that we judge to be of fuch dangerous tendency, but the principles on which it is grounded, the reafoning made ufe of for its fup- port, and the caufes affigned for thofe particular calamities, which are, by the facred penmen, afcribed to the influence of evil fpirits. 'The fubje£i, as it hath been managed by fome of the lafi writers on demoniacs, now becomes inter efiing^ and affects both the nature of morality, and the truth of the Holy Scriptures. As we wifh to avoid all mifreprefentations of other men^s fentiments, we hope that fome allow- ance, will be made for frequent and necejfary quotations, to make it evident that we do not im- pute to any author opinions which he never main- tained. For want of care in this refpe^l, ground- lefs prejudices are often raifed againjl thofe who are of a perfuafion different from our own. It would frequently fave much trouble, prevent many an unjufi cenfure, and throw great light iipon the fithjcB in debate J if thofe who differ in their fen- timentSy INTRODUCTION. ix merits^- when they write one againji another, would but calmly and exa5ily fiate the particular articles concerning which they really differ. We trujl that nothing will be advanced in the following treatife, which can be jujlly confidered as favouring ridiculous tales and lying wonderSy or as encouraging a vain and groundlefs fuperjli" tion ; fince our bufmefs is only with certain faSls related in the Scriptures. We fhall therefore endeavour , firjl, to Jiate and examine the hypo- thefes and arguments that are urged againji the plain and obvious fenje of holy writ concerning poffeffons by evil fpirits -, and then, conftder the principles and reafoning on which the poffibility of any fuch agency , as that fuppofed in demoniacal cafes, is abfolutely denied. The learned writers, who oppofe what is called the vulgar and abfurd notion of pofeffions, main- tain, that the more immediate obje^s of religious worfhip among the Heathens were dead men, or departed human fpirits ; that, the word damon is not only ufed by the Heathens themfelves for their deities, but alfo by the f acred writers for the objects of Pagan worjhip, which the prophets of God always affirm to be dead men-, that, the apojiks, when jpeaking of poffeffton, ufe this phrafe X INTRODUCTION. phrafe in the fame fenfe, and by demons under- fiand nothing more than the fouls of deceafed per- fons ; and thaty ftme the Holy Scriptures every where affure us^ that the Heathen deities or damons have no power to do either good or harniy much lefs to work miracles^ it follows^ that there never was, nor could be, a real demo- niac in the world *. Such is the reafoning which Is oppofed to the common interpretation of thofe paffages, in the Gofpely that relate to pojfejjions hy evil fpirits. l!he following examples will fuf- ficiently intimate Mr, Farmer's opinion concerning the Pagan Gods, " Notwithjlanding the magni- " ficent titles hy which the Heathens defer ib'e " their fupreme deity ^ yet they do at the fame ^' time inform us, that he had a father and a " mother, a grandfather and a grandmother, and " was of the fame kindred with the other gods *' of whom he was chief ^^ — It farther appears, " that deified human fpirits were (according to *' the Pagan fyflem of theology) affociated with ** and reprefented the natural gods, and that *' both were called by the fame names. I'he *' fun, or aether, or air, or whatever other • Lardner's Cafe of Dem. Difc. 2d. Farm. Eflay on Dem. p. 152 — 240. f On Mir. p. 176, ly?* " part INTRODUCTION. xi " p^ri of nature was efieemed the fupreme deity *' of the Pagans, was called in Egypt, Oftris % *' in Chaldea, and Phenicia, Bel or Baal j and in many other countries, Jupiter. NoWy it ii " univ erf ally known, thai Jupiter, BclandQJirH " had once been mortal men, who were fuppofcd ** to be advanced after death to a deified: fiatel " For the fame reafons therefore, for which thd *' chief Heathen Numen was ' 'calkd\ Ofiris, " or Bel, or Jupiter, he might be called a dietnon; fuppofing the word to denote- a ** deifed human fpirit. It was under this laft character that he was principally re^ ' garded by the common people *. — *That " the more immediate objects of popular ado- " ration amongfi the Heathens were deified ** human beings, is a fa6i attefted by all an- tiquity, whether Pagan, Jewifh, or iOhrif- " tianj.^* On this very principle, our author grounds dnd fupports y^> Efiay on the Demo- niacs of the New Teftament. In that trea- tife he thus Jkitis his fubjeEl, and introduces his arguments : " We have elfewherc % V.v- " amined the meaning On Detn. rejd ' On Dem. — p. 75, 1. 7, i>efore objefbs, rfa<^ the — p. 76, 1. 24, _/o/- diftributors, rea<^ dirtributers ; fo p. 98, 1. 3 — p. 78, 1. 2, /or wherever, read whereever — p. 80, 1. laft, after " Amen '." add *— p. S4, 1. 8, to exiftence," add 'I, and as a note, read % De Ifid. & Ofir. —p. 97, 1. 6, for Plutarch's, r ay7-.r jumble, add \, and at a note, read J Prior, -^p. 345, \. 13, zftex ort, place f, and ai a note, read -^ Dryden's Virgil'* Georgics — p. 348, 1. 2, after appear, fat *, and as a note, nad * Dry- den's Virgil's A^neid— p. 379, note, /or Dem. viii. read Dem. 8 — p. 384, 1. 27, for terms, read term— -p. 403, at the bottom, for § Pet, ii. 241 rttd I Pet. ii. 2^, CHAP. The Judgment of the Heathens concerning their oivn Gods, eocamincd and fairly fiated. ^. ^•^"Tr THOEVER is acquainted with \/ Vr the theogonies and anciLnt hifto- ries of their gods, prelerved a- mong the Greeks, and with the llory of Prome- theus, cannot well be ignorant, that thegreatcft part of thofe deities to whom the Heathens facriliced, were by them confidered as exifiing prior to the creation of man. This, indeed, is fufficiently clear from Hcfiod's theogony ; in the beginning of which he thus addreflctW the Mufes : " Hail, daughters of Jove, ce« *' lebrate the divine original of the immor- tals always exifting, who were produced " from the earth and Harry heaven *. More- * Theog. ver. 105. B '* over [ 2 ] '* over fay, how, at firft, the gods and the *' earth came into being, and the rivers, and *' boundlels fea with his reftlefs tides, and " the Ihining ftars, and the all-furrounding " heaven above, together with the gods, givers " of good things, who fprang from them ?'* To this the following anfwer is given : " Chaos " firft exifted, then broad- bofomed earth, " the fixed feat of all the gods, who frequent " the top of fnowy Olympus. But Love, " who frees from care both gods and men, *' and controuls the mind, is the beft of the " immortals. From Chaos fprang Erebus " and dufky Night, and from thefe came " iEther and fmiling Day. But firft the " earth, without mixing with another, pro- " duced the ftarry heaven commenfurate to *' herfelf j moreover (he brought forth moun- " tains and the barren fea. Then joining " afterwards with heaven, fhe produced " Ocean and all the Titans, among whom ** were Hyperion, Thea, and Japetus •, lovely " Tethys, Rhea, and Phcebe, crowned with " golden light -, and after thefe, crooked '^ Time, the laft of ail and moft dreadful of *' her children ^ From Ocean and Tethys, " eldeft of the Titans, fprang three thoufand * Theog. ver. 117 to 138. " rivers [ 3 ] rivers and as many fountains, the fons and daughters of Ocean, whom Tethys bore ^ But Rhea, mixing with Hyperion, brought forth the majeftic fun, and the bright moon, and Aurora, which fhines both on gods and men ^ From Rhea, fubdued by Time, came Vefta, Ceres, and golden footed '* Juno ; the mighty Aides, or invifible god, '* who inhabits the infernal manfions, of an ** unrelenting nature, and loud roaring Nep- tune, Ihaker of the Earth, and fcheming *' Jove, father of gods and men *." Japetus, joining with Themis, both chief Titans (or according to Hefiod*^ withClymene, a fountain, one of the daughters of Ocean and Tethys) had the divine Prometheus, who, being aflifted by the daughter of Atlas, a Titan, created mortal man. If any one fhould afk, what authorities had Hefiod to reprefent the world as raifed out of a chaos ; or how came he to refemble Mofes alfo in other things, as when he fpeaks of Bay and fhining Phcebe, before the fun and moon were produced; like our own country man, who, following t;he Scriptures, faith, • Theog. 336 to 370, with their namej, ^ ThfO£. Ter, 371. * Ibid. 553. ' Ibid. 507, B 2 '--Ani t 4 ] And forthzvith light Ethereal, firfi of things, quint ejj'ence pure. Sprung from the deep -, and from her native eajl. To journey through the (e/y gloom began, Sphear'd in a radiant cloud : for yet the Suk Was not i fhe in a cloudy tabernacle Sojourned the while ' ? We anfwer, that to determine fucli matter* belongs not to our prefent fubjed:. *' There '* is no reafon to affirm" (as we are allured by Mr. Farmer V " that the poets invented *' what they fay concerning their gods." This is enough for us. Not that we mean to ailert, with that gentleman, v/hen fpeaking of their theogonies, " that their works are either " faithful records of ancient traditions, or " accurate reprefentations of life and man- " ners ^ i" becaufe fome periiups will infift upon it, that Hefiod's Foem really anfwers the character which the Mules give of them- felves, in the beginning of it, where they fay to him : " Shepherd, we know how to relate rnany *' falfe tales, refembling thole things w'liich " were originally true •, and, when v;t j-.leafc, *' we know how to explain the truth itlcU?" But the difcuflion of fuch things mull be left to thofe who arc of a more lively im.igin.uioi!, e Milton's Par. Loft, B. Vili. v. 243—249. ' DifTert. on Mil. p. 1 89, « lb;>l. i I. l! r 5 1 §. 2. It cannot but appear evident to an unbiafTed reader, that Hefiod profefiedly de- fcribes both the origin of the world, and of thofe gods by which it was thought to be go- verned in his time. His theogony contains the fame plan with that afcribed to Orpheus, and the firft poets ; and which alfo in ftili earlier times had been embraced by Sancho- niathan, the Phenician. They all attempt to explain things of no lefs moment than the original of their gods, the creation of the •vvorld, and the formation of man. Our poet alfigns to all his deities a beginning, Eros, or Love, excepted, whom he introduces as the firft agent, but fays nothing of his commence- ment j while at the fame time he affirms him to be the moft excellent of the gods. Now thefe very fame traditions were received and followed by the moft learned of the Greek philofophers, not even Plato excepted. Parm.enides, with many others, reprelents Love as the ekleft of the gods, and as the iirft caule of all things. T.he ancient Greeks acknowledged one fupreme deity, the Creator of the univerfe, whom ihey confidered as incapable of any evil, and to whom they arcribed every perfedion, while at the fame time, they worfliipped a multitude of other gods as intelligent be- ings, fuperior to tlje nature of human fouls ; and thought thefe deities to have been 1> :; brought [ 6 ] brought into being by the firfl: caufe, along with the different parts of nature, prior to the cxiftence of man. This is evident from thofe paflages in Hefiod's theogony, which we have juft quoted. The Supreme God is frequently defcribed in their writings by fuch names and epithets as fufficiently diftinguifli him from every created nature. Thus when he is called the firft cauje^ the firft mindy the uncreated, felf-fubjijting God ^, §. 3. But before we proceed any further, it will be neceflary to take fome notice of the following pafTage ; not more remarkable for the reafoning which it contains, than for the reprefentation which it gives of fome very an- cient nations. Mr. Farmer, after afferting it as a fad attefted by all antiquity, that the more immediate objedls of popular adoration among the Heathens, were deified human fpirits, introduces a quotation from Hero- dotus as his firft proof, and fubjoins fuch an inference as fuitcd his own purpole. He thus expreffes the whole : " Herodotus, when " fpeaking of the Perfians, i^ys, they have ^^ neither Jiatues, nor temple s, jtor altars. JVhat *' / take to be their reafon^ is, that they do not " believe, like the Greeks, that the gods are of the *> See many inftances in Cud. Intel, Syft. p. 404. " race [ 7 ] '.* race of men. Now, in as much as the Greeks " derived their religion from the Phenicians ** and Egyptians, and fpread it amongft the " Romans, there can be no doubt, but that " the gods of all thefe people were of human " race ^" As this paflage will be reviewed again, we fhall only obferve for the prefenr, that our author carefully omits the account which Herodotus hath given concerning the Perfian objefts of worfhip, becaufe that is a flat contradi6tion to his repeated aflertions. The hiflorian aUb is milunderftood, when he is reprefented as faying, that the Greeks be- lieved their gods to be of the race of men j for Herodotus intended no fuch thing, as fhall be fhewn afterwards. And, notwithftanding it is here affirmed as a matter of certainty, that the gods of the Phenicians and Egyptians were of the human race j yet we Iliall now prove, even from the teftimony of Herodotus himfelf, not only that the objedts of religious worfhip among the eaflern nations, were fuch gods as had never been men, but alio that divine ho- nours were not paid to deceafed heroes in thofe countries. The Perfians worfhipped the whole circle of Heaven, which they called Jupiter : they facrificed to the fun and moon, to the earth and fire, and to the water and winds : * On Mir. p. i86, 187. 3 4 thefe r. 8 ] thefe were originally their only gods -, but afterwards they added to the number Alitta, the Aflyrian Aftarte or queen of heaven, called in their own language Mitra . The Arabians acknowledged no gods befides the fun and moon, whom they called Ourotalt and Alilat ^ The only gods, in the manner of whofe worfiiip the Egyptians all agreed, were Ifis and Ofiris, the fun and moon. They paid no religious honours to heroes : they would not allow that a man could be be- gotten by a god, nor that the gods were con- verfant with men ". The inhabitants of Meroe in -Ethiopia worfhipped no other gods than Jupiter and Bacchus, that is, the heavens and the fun ". The gods, to which the Scythians paid divine honours, were only Vefta, Jupiter, whom they called Papaeus, and the earth, Apia, whom they confidered as his wife, and the fun and moon, named Oetofyrus and Artimpafa, and the powers of war, called by Herodotus, Her- cules and Mars, names which were never heard of among the ancient Scythians ; the Vcfta of the hiftorian is Tabiti, in their language *. The Maflagetes, their neigh- bours, and who refembled them in their habit and manner of living, adored no gods but k Ilerod. Ciio. ' Thalia. ■" Euterp. " Ibid, " Melp. the t 9 ] the fun only, to whom they facrlficed horfes, the fwifteft of animals to the fwifteft of all the gods '. The Getes efteemed the heavens to be the only deity \ The fame objedls of reh'gioLis worfhip pafTed from the ancient Scythians to the Goths and barbarous Ger- mans, our own anceftors, of whom Csefar thus fpeaks : " They account thofe only in the number of the gods whom they fee, *' and by whofe influence they are evidently *' afllfted, the fun, fire, and the moon ; " of the reft they have not heard any thing ** even by report '." The teftimony of Plato alfo on this occafion, is of too much impor- tance to be omitted. *' The firft inhabitants *' of Greece," fays he, *' thought the fun '* and moon, ftars and heaven, to be ibe only ** gods, as do moji of the Barbarians at this " time *." Here we have a fair confeflion, that the hero-gods, the latter deities of Greece, were either rejected or not known, even in the days of Plato, by the greateft part of the world : this, compared with tlie foregoing teftimonies, clearly fnev/s, that the fuperfti- tious objedls of idolatrous worlhip were ori- ginally the fame in all countries •, the fun and moon, the heaven and liars, and the earrh r Clio. q Ibid. ' De bell. Gal. lib, vi. » In Cratyl. * [ lO ] 'and fire, with water and winds. Thefe were the Cahiriy cr mighty gods of the eaftern nations ; the Confentes^ or co-operating gods of the Romans; called alfo dii penates^ by whom, according to their theology, men live, and move, and have their being. In the Scriptures they are ftyled the hofis of heaven -^ by the poets they are called the givers of good things ; and are thus named by Xenophon, the other gods who give to us good things^ and that too in diftinftion from him, " who formed and fuftains *' the world '." Mr. Farmer, therefore, to fay the leaft of it, fpeaks rafhly, when he fo often affirms, with refped to the Heathens in general, that the more immediate obje<5ls of their worihip were deified men, but more cfpecially, when he afierts it as a fad, atteft- ed by all antiquity, whether Pagan, Jewilh, or Chriftian ; for this hath nothing to fupport it, as is well known, but mere affirmation. §. 4. But we are told, " that deified human *' fpirits were (according to the Pagan fyfteni *' of theology) affociated with, and repre- *' fented the natural gods, and that both were " called by the fame names"." But where is « Mem. lib. 4, cap. 3. the t II 1 the proof of all this ? Such a fuppofition may be neceffary for a modern hypothefis, but hath it any foundation in faft ? Yes, furely ! " For Diodorus Siculus fays, that fome of " the earthly gods had the fame names with " the celeftial \'* That may be ; but were they always worjhipped together? were their altars and rites the fame ? and did the earthly gods reprefent the celeftial deities of the fame name ? This is the fad to be proved. It is faid : " Plutarch informs us that each demon *' was called by the name of that celeftial god " from whom he received his power and ho- " nour *." Suppofmg Plutarch to have ex- prefted himfelf in this manner, what does the evidence amount to ? Hath he faid that thefe miniftring demons were the fouls of deceafed men? that they reprefentcd the Deities from whom they received their power ; and that for this reafon they were called by the lame name ? Has he told us, that in confulting oracles, the fame facrifices were as much offered to the "demon as to the god ; or that thefe natural gods themfelves were never called demons, independent of their miniftering fpirits ? Now he affirms none of thefe things -, the pafifage therefore, is not at all to the purpofe. * Far. Mir. p. 179, note '. !* Ibid. p. i75> "°^^ '• But [ u ] But it may be faid, that although this or any other particular pafTage, fliould not be thought applicable to the prefent cafe ; yet it doth not therefore follow, that deified hu- man fpirits were jwi, according to the Pagan £ftem of theology, aflbciated with the natural gods. Very true. But what is meant by the Pagan fyjlem: The fyftem of theology among the idolatrous Greeks j or, a fyftem that is fuppofed to contain the theology of all the Heathen nations ? It does not appear that even the Grecians, who deified human fpirits, ever connected the foul of any hero with the worfhip of their natural gods. And in- deed we have at hand, a ftriking evidence of their general praflice in this refpedl : Hero- dotus^ on finding that the Egyptians placed a Hercules among their ancient gods, and that this Hercules was very different from the fon of Amphitryon in Greece, and a deity of great antiquity, immediately adds, " and, *' therefore, in my opinion, thofe Grecians *■■ act mofl rationally, who build temples to *' both i facrificing to the firft as to an im- '* mortal god, under the name of Olympian, •* and paying religious honours to the latter '* as an hero ^." We have here an inftance * Eaterp, full [ 13 ] full to our purpofe : Two gods of the fame name, the one a natcal and immortal deity, ftyled Olympian, the other an hero-god, ac- knowledged to have been once a mortal man ; each having feparate temples and diflincfl wor- Ihip, agreeable to the fuppofed difference of their natures and charaflers j and this fpoken of with approbation, as the general pradice in all fuch cafes ; while thofe who did other- wife, are reprefented as ading through igno* ranee, not knowing that the name in Egypt was ufed for a god of a different nature from that in Greece -, and therefore the hiftorian proceeds to a more full enumeration of Gre~ cian errors, concerning the Egyptian Her- cules. A more decifive proof cannot well be ima- gined, than this is, that the ancient Greeks were not accuftomed to affociate deified human fpirits with their natural gods, in religious worfhip •, and that they did not confider their primary Deities as reprefented by the heroes of the faaie name. But if the phrafe. Pagan fyjlem^ is to be underftood as including the theology of all the Heathen nations, then it will appear with flill greater evidence, that nothing can be more groundlefs than this fuppofition, *' That deified human fpirits '* were affociatcd with the natural gods in rcli- [ 14 ] '* gious worfhip ;" for the eaftern nations, as we have feen, whether polilhed or barbarous, paid no religious honours to deceafed men. Nay even the Egyptians, who firft enlarged the eaftern idolatry, and were confidered as -the inventors of that dodrine which relates to tranfadlions with the gods, by the mediation of others, yet refufed religious worfliip to all heroes. The Grecian idolatry was fcarcely known in the eaft, and afFedted but a very fmall part of the world, till after the over- throw of the Perfian empire ; nor was it ad- mitted among the Romans, for above an hun- dred and feventy years after Romulus. TnS •reafon why it was offenfive to other nations, we iliall prefently fee. But it is ftill urged, " that the ancient na- *" tions gave the names of their kings to the ele- *' ments of the worldy which were their natural "" deities, whom alone they acknowledged to *' be ftriiftly and properly gods/" What are wc to infer from this paflage : That the ancient na- tions never confider their heroes as gods ; and that thofe deities, whom they acknowledged to be ftridlly and properly gods, had never "been men ? By no means ! What other in- ference can be fairly drawn from it with pro.- y Farm. On Mir. p. 179, note '. 9 priety^ I i5 1 priety ? A very different one furely. Do not the words clearly intimate the following pon- clufion ; that fince the ancient nations gave the cames of their kings to the elements of the world, they were ever afterwards worfliipped together ? We can difcover no foundation for any fuch inference ; and befides, we have feen that the contrary is true -, and it hath been fhewn from the confefTion of the Greeks themfelves, that the eaftern nations, in the height of their power, did not worfhip hero- gods. However, as the names of differenc deities and men have been blended together, and by this means occafioned errors, and fometimes favoured mifreprefentations, wc fhall endeavour to give a clear and fatisfaftory view of this matter. § 5. There were many different gods of the fame name, whofe rites were different. As for inflance, the Supreme Deity is fome- times mentioned under the term Ham- mon ; Jupiter, the head of the created gods, was very often worshipped under the title of Hammon -, and divine honours were frequently paid to the fun alio, under the name of Hammon; yet the Heathens nei- ther confider the fun as the fupreme deity, nor as th« head of their created gods. There . were C .6 ] were alfo.many different names of the fame god, and different rites belonging to each name, while at the fame time, but one deity was worlliipped under thofe feveral names. The fun was frequently honoured as Ham- mon, fometimes as Horus, and alfo as Apollo, ind at other times as Beelfamen and Bacchus ; the moon as Diana, Lucina, Hecate, and Aftarte ; and the earth as Vefta, Rhea, Cy- bele, and Ops. '1 he fame names, which were given to the chief of the created gods, were often applied to the fupreme deity -, but this was always done in fuch a manner as to (hew clearly, that the firft caufe was meant, and not a created power ; as when he is ex- prefsly fly led Jupiter the origin of all things j the fource of nature, unbegotten, and felf- cxifting. • The very fame epithets of power and domi- nion which belong to the firft caufe of all, were fometimes applied alfo to Jupiter, the chief of the created gods -, but then it was always clearly fliewn, that he only was meant, who is the fon of Saturn, and not the maker of the univerfe. Thus, Ilorate, * *"' We know **■ that he took off the impious Titans with f* fwift lightning, who rules alone over the » Hor. Lib. III. Od. iv; v. 42, &c. 6 '" earcfi I 17 ] *' earth and fca, and infernal kingdoms— ^*^ that horrid troop, relying on their own " flrength, had flruck terror into Jove." Now, to alTert that in the former of thefe examples he is called the fource of nature, who had once been a man, and that in the latter, he is reprefented as being filled with terror, whom the Heathens confidered as the creator of the univerfe, mult be an evident proof, cither of very great inattention to the language and defign of ancient writers, or clfe of that kind of prejudice which admits of no cure. Ovid very carefully .diftinguiifhes between the maker of all things, and Jupiter the fon of Saturn, whom yet he defcribes as chief of the created gods, and governor of the world j but he never ftyles him, Ille opifex rerum^—mundi fabri- cator, nor afllgns to him any power, till the different parts of the world were fettled, and the feveral orders of beings adjuflcd ; then, he reprefents him as the head of created deities, and puts the world under their government. And while he is defcribing an affembly of the gods, concerning the wickednefs and def- tru(5tion of mankind, he feizes an opportunity of complimenting the Emperor, and compares his dignity to the pre-eminence of Jove. Ho- race alfo in the foregoing paffage, but with t i8 r greater elegance, intimates a comparifon be- tween Jupiter, who, through wifdom and pru- dence, defeated the Titans, and Auguftus, who, by his fuperior condud, had become vic- torious over all his enemies-. But neither Ho- race nor Ovid ever meant to compare Auguftus with the fupreme deity and creator of the univerfe : fuch a thought deftroys the allufion :• their language is confined to him, whom the law of their own. twelve tables reprefents only as the prefident of the eternal damons^ or of the dii confentes ; and their compliment to the ' Emperor implies no more than this, that as Jupiter was appointed by the creator of the world to prelide over the other gods, fo Auguftus was appointed by Jupiter and the gods, to prefide over all the princes of the earth : and that as Jove, fo aUb the Emperor,, obtained this honour from fuperior wifdom and juftice. We fliould not have been io minute on this ar.ticle, had not the very learned Dr.. Leland ' confidered the above-mentioned- paf- fage in Horace, as a defcription of the fu- preme deity of the Heathens. Whatever comes from the pen of fo great a man, carries a The Advantage, 5cc. of the Chriftian Revelation, 8vo. vol. i. p. 114. with. [ 19 J vvith it an idea of refpedable authority, wc mnfl not, therefore, even venture to deviate, -without making at leaft an apology. § 6. The names given to the firfl objeas of idolatrous worfhip were fuch as denoted power, influence, and the exercife of rule and government. And it has been thought by fome very learned men \ that this circum- ftance, as well as the worfhip of the heavenly bodies, arofe at firft from a corruption of thofe divine traditions, which were carefully preferved among the patriarchs, concerning the creation of the world; agreeably with which Mofes thus exprelTeth himfelf, " And God .** made two great lights ; the greater light to ^^ rule the day, and the lefler light to rule the '^ night : he made the ftars alfo. And God 1^ fet them in the firmament of the heaven, 1^ to give light upon the earth, and to rule ^^ over the day, and over the night, and to divide the light from the darknefs'.'* From certain traditions of this kind, it hatli been fuppofed that the firft idolaters imagined that a rfal dcminion and authority over the day and night was, by the creator of the world, ori- ginally committed to the fun and moon, as in- ^ Owen Theologoum. lib. iii. cap. 5. *^ Gen. chap, i, C 2 telligenf [ 20 ] telligent beings •, and that hence they were loon confidered as rulers of the world. Be that as it may. Ancient idolaters did un- doubtedly attribute authority and rule to the fun, moon, and other parts of nature •, and therefore honoured them with fuch names and titles as were expreflive of their fuppofed dignity and influence, in producing thofe things which are neceflary for the fup- port of life. Now it was very common in ancient times, and particularly among the eaftern nations, to join the names of their re- fpeflive gods with thofe of their princes ; as Afdrubal, Hannibal, Adrammelech : hence it came to pafs, that fome of the firft He- roes bore the very fame names which be- longed originally to the natural or primary gods. But we are not hence to infer, that for this reafon they were alfo objedts of re- ligious worfhip i or that fuch of them as were raifed by their fupcrftitious votaries to divine honours, were affociated with the na- tural gods, and confidered as their reprefen- tatives. By no means. We have fcen that Hercules the Hero was carefully diftinguiihed from Hercules the Olympian God, and never worfbipped as his reprefentativc. A Tufcan prince, in the days of Tarquin, was called Lar Porfcnna j [ 21 J Porfenna * j but it does not follow from this circumftance, that he is to be looked on as one of the Lares, or houfhold gods of the Ro- mans, or that he was fuppofed to become, after death, one of thofe fpirits which drive men into madnefs. The fame cuftom of giving divine names to their children, prevailed even among the Hebrews themfelves ; as may be (een. almoft in every book of the Old Tefta- ment. Now fliall we conclude, that the fupreme deity, or that the more immediate objcds of religious worfhip in ancient times, were originally men, becaufe feveral kings and princes had been called by the fame names ? Such an inference is too ridiculous even for fuppofition itfelf. And yet it doth not ap- pear how the following pafTage can be con- fidered in any other light : " The fun, or *' aether, or air, or whatever other part of na- " turi was efteemed the fupreme deity of the *' Pagans, was called in Egypt, Ofiris ; in " Chaldea and Phenicia, Bel or Baal •, and in " many other countries, Jupiter. Now it is " univerfally known, that Jupiter, Bel, and *' Ofiris, had once been mortal men, who were *' fijppoled to be advanced after death to a * Plutar. Poplicol. C 3 !* deified [ 22 ] " deified ftate. For the fame reafon, there- " fore, for which the chief Heathen Numen ^' was called Ofiris, or Bel, or Jupiter, he " might be called a demon, fuppofing the ^' word to denote a deified human fpirit *.'' But it is univerfally known, that no part of nature was ever confidered by the Heathens as their fupreme deity ; that the Egyptians, under the names of Ofiris and Ifis, worfhipped the fun and moon, and never paid any reli- gious honours to Hero-gods ; and that under the name Bel^ the Chaldeans alfo worfhipped what had never been a m.an, as did the Greei-i.s under the term Jupiter. But omitting thefe things, which of the following fhall we affert as mod probable ? That the primary gods of the Heathens, ru- ling, as they thought, in the elements, were ■without names, till m.en honoured them with the titles of their deceafed kings ? Or, that the names of different gods were given to princes and their children ? Or fhall we rather affirm, that the world never thought of wor- fhipping either the fupreme deity, or the pri- mary gods, till they began to pay religious honours to the fouls of deceafed mien, under thofe exalted ideas ? And that the true Goc| '^ Farm, on Mir. p. 179, i8o. was [ 23 ] •was. "never heard of under the character af sLordy and Righteous King^ before the days of Belus, king of Affyria, and Melchizedek, king of Salem ? We might as well alTert, that Jehovah was never confidered either under the idea of a living god, or father, till the death of Abijah, the fon of Jeroboam j and that the God of Ifrael was ever afterwards joined in divine worlhip with that prince, becaufe his name fignifie^ 'Jehovah^ my Father ! Berofus, a Chaldean by birth, and Prieft of Belus, reprefents the fenfe of the ancient Chal- deans concerning the origin of things, in the following manner : " That there was a time when all was darknefs and water; but that Belus, who by interpretation is Jupiter, cut- ting the darknefs in the middle, feparated the earth and heaven from one another, and fo framed the world ; and that this Belus alfo formed the Stars and the Sun ^" Now can any one imagine that Berofus, by Belus, in this paiTage, meant a certain man who reign- ed in Chaldea? Or that he who created the heaven and the earth, received his name from fome petty prince in the time of Abraham ? Surely not. In what light, then, muft we confider the foregoing palTage; wherein we ^ See Cud, Book I, chap, iv, p. 3U. C 4 ,apc [ 2+ ] arc told, " that whatever part of nature was " efteemed the lupreme deity of the Pagans, " was in Chaldea called Bel ; and that Bel '* was univerfally known to have been a mor- " tal man j he might therefore be called a dsemon, fuppofing that word to denote a " human fpirit ?" Can we look upon this, to fay the lead of it, otherwife than as a very unfair abufe of words ? By fuch kind of rea- foning, we might foon prove the god of the Jews to have been a man, and that their princes were really thought to be gods : For the word El, by which the true and ever bleffed Deity is fo often named, is applied to angels, princes, rulers, and judges. But after all, it is not in this^gentleman's power to prove, that religious honours were ever paid to any deceafdd man, under the names of Bel or Ofiris J nor can he bring any decifive evidence to Ihew that fuch worfliip was ever paid to a human fpirit, under the term Jupiter. And eould the contrary be fhewn to be true, yet it would not at all ailed the fubje6t in difpute, iince the Heathen nations worfliipped many gods that had never been men. §. 7. The Grecian and Roman writers in general, when they fpeak of the formation of man, do not reprefent him as created in the [ 25 1 image of the fupreme deity, but in the like- nels of the gods who rule the different parts of nature. Hence that of Ovid : " which the fon of lapetus formed into a likenefs '* of the gods who rule the world ^ ;'* and chat curious workmanfhip of Vulcan, men- tioned in Hefiod, which he moulded into a beautiful form refembling the immortal god- deffes, divine virgins **. Such was the com- mon creed both of Greece and Rome, with refped: to the origin of mankind. And con- cerning it, a very eminent Heathen makes the following remark : " I do not under- " ftand why Epicurus fhould rather choofe '* to fay, that the gods are like men, than '* that men refemble the gods. It may per- " haps be afked, where is the difference ? for " if we be like them, then arc they like us. ** I grant it: but thus much I affirm, that " the fimilitude was not derived from men " to the gods, fmce the gods always exifted, " and were never born after the manner of ** men. The immortal gods therefore, were *' in that form which we refemble, before ** men were honoured with it : for this reafon " their form ought not to be mentioned " as human, but ours ihould be fpoken of » Meta. Jib. i. * Oper, & Dier. ver. 60. as I 25 ) *' as divine ^" It is indeed as evident and •plain, as any thing of ancient times can be, that the Heathens did believe thofe being.s ■which they worfhipped as immortal gods, and rulers of the world, to have exifted before the creation of man. Nor did the Greeks iuppofe that gods and goddelTes arofe fi'om the different fexes of human nature, but that the human kind was formed according to their likenefs. How far this opinion contributed to the worfhip of decealed heroes among that people, and what influence it had in their figurative defcriptions concerning the origin of their gods, and the world, and in the fables of the poets, v/ith refped to the manner of their exiftence, are not objeds of our enquiry ; fmce it is not our prefent bufmefs to trace the origin and progrefs of any fpecies of idolatry, but to ftate it as it was. Thus much is cer- tain, that this peculiar notion of theirs was the foundation of what is called Hellenifm, or the Grecian idolatry, as diftinguiflied from the more extenfive and ancient fuperftition of Other Heathens. The Egyptians firft ereded altars and ftatues to the gods, and carved fymbolic figures, in which they were followed by feve- 1 Cicer. de Nat. DeQi, lib. i. § 32. ral [ 27 ] ral of their neighbours; while many others cenfured their practice in this refped. Yet they, as well as all the reft of the Heathen nations, had a rooted prejudice againH: this fingular opinion of the Greeks. The Egyp- tians would not allow, that the ornamented images which they fet up, bore any refem- blance to the real form of their gods ^ ; nor, that any god had ever put on the form of a man. So great was the Perfian zeal againfl the ufe of fuch things in religious worfhip, that Cambyfes fpared not the idols even of Egypt, but commanded the images of the Ca- birian gods themfelves to be thrown into the fire \ although they were fymbolic of his own deities -, nor did his fuccefTors, for the fame reafon, fhew the leaft refped to the fuperfti- tion of Greece. " The Perfians neither made " images, nor built temples, charging thofe '* with°great folly who pradice fuch things ; " for this reafon," fays Herodotus, " as I " fuppofe, becaufe they did not believe the " gods to have a nature refembling that of " man, as the Greeks do "* ." Herodotus did not mean to fay, that the Greeks looked upon all their gods to have been of the Jiuman race, as Mr. Farmer would make ? Herod. Euterp. ' Idem. Thalia. ? Id. Clio. lis [ 28 ] us believe ", contrary to their own teftimony ; the word which the hiftorian ufes, intimates no fuch thing, but only that they had man^s nature ° : For the Greeks believed the gods in their form to refemble men, and the god- defies women ; and they confidered the form of the gods in this particular, to have been the original pattern according to which hu- man nature was made. And indeed this very idea runs through Homer's poems, and is the ground work of his machinery, with refpedt to the gods. Nor was this notion confined to the Grecian poets, ir met with a favourable reception among the philofophers, and from the Greeks, with other things, was received by the Romans. But the Perfians looked upon fuch an opinion as truly ridiculous. The Scythians were of the fame mind, as alfo their defendants, the old Germans, of whom Tacitus thus fpeaks : " They think it ** a pradtice unworthy the majefty of the gods, *' to enclofe them wichin walls, or to repre- " fent them with a likenefs to the human *' countenance : they confecrate groves and " forefts, and call them by the names of the " gods ; whofe fee ret abode they approach *' with reverence only ?." The religious ? $6p § 3> of this chap. • ivS^wwo^ysaj, p De Mor, Germ. pradlicQ [ iQ 1 pracftice of the old Italians was the fame, before it was corrupted by the more depraved fyftem of the Greeks. " Numa forbad the ** Romans to reprefent god in the form of " man, or other creature : they indeed built " temples, but for the firft hundred and " feventy years made no image, becaufe they " thought it great impiety to reprefent " the mod excellent beings, by things fb " bafe and unworthy, and fuppofed that " it was by the underflanding only men " could form any conception of the divi- " nity ^'» Many other teftimonies to the fame pur- pofe might be produced, were it needful : Enough hath been faid to fhew, that the more immediate objedts of Pagan worfhip were not the fouls of deceafed men ; that even the pradice of the Egyptians, in erecting or- namented ftatues to their gods, was never ge- nerally received ; and that the cuftom of the Greeks, in paying religious honours to de- parted heroes, was defpifed by all the crreat nations among the Heathens, the Romans excepted. § 8. Mr. Farmer takes up fuch an idea of the Grecian idolatry as fuits his own purpole, < PlHtar. Nun. ani t ,?o ] and then without fcruple fets it before us as an authentic pattern of the fuperftinious vvor- Ihip of all other nations in the world. This is undoubtedly a Ihort way of ftating the fubjed, but upon trial it will be found nei- ther a juft nor decifive one. And befides, were we to allow the Grecian idolatry to have been a ftandard for other nations, yet, when fairly examined, it would not anfwcr the end which he hath in view •, becaufe it evi- dently appears from the Greeks themfelves, that no opinion can be more erroneous than this, " That all the Pagan deities had once bten " men." Every one of thofe arguments there- fore, which have been urged on this prin- ciple againft daemoniacal pofleffions, mull utterly fail in their application, becaufe o-rounded on a fuppofition which is contrary to fa6ts ; as is clearly fnewn from the united teftimony of the mod ancient Greek wri- ters. We cannot tell what apology to make for our author, • while he afferts, times without number, that the more immediate objedls of eftablifhed worfliip among the ancienc nations, •particularly among the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, were dead men •, *" even after himfelf » On Mir. p. 183. n had f 3. ] had confefled, that " Sanchoniathon reprefents " the moil ancient nations, particularly the *' Phenicians and Egyptians, as acknowledg- " ing only the natural gods, the fun, moon,. " planets, and elements *." How could he iirft record fuch a teftimony as this, and then a few pages afterwards advance the follow- ing contradiction : " Now, inafmuch as the '' Greeks derived their religion from the Phe- " nicians and Egyptians, and fpread it " amongft the Romans, there can be no " doubt but that the gods of all thefe people " were of the human race«!" Now there can be no doubt but that the Greeks them- felves have declared, that neither the Egyp- tians nor the Phenicians, nor many other eallern nations, ever worfhipped fuch gods as had been men : And with any one who can repeat fuch aflertions as the above, notwith- ftanding the authorities acknowledged by him- felf, it is in vain to reafon. § 9. We cannot clofe this chapter, without ©bfervlng what an affeding pidure ancient idolatry gives us of the depravity of man- kind. They liked not to retain god in their thoughts, and therefore could not be eafy till 8 On Mir. p. 173. t Ibid; p. 187. fomc [ 32 ) fome excufe was found out for afcribing to the creatures thole honours which are due to the creator only. Soon after the flood, men be- gan to think it tedious and difagreeable to ap- proach their maker, to fupplicate his mercy, and to acknowledge his goodnefs, although they could eafily pay religious worlhip to the fun and moon, and with tokens of reverence, confefs their fancied dominion in the heavens, and falutary influence on the earth. Nay, fo vain did they become in their imaginations, that while the worfliip of the true God was ofFenfive, they could yet bow down before the works of their own hands j and at length the Greeks and Romans not only deified hu- man fpirits, but even ranked in the number of their gods bafe fl:rumpets, and the meanefl: of knaves ; and all the Heathens in every pe- riod of their fuperfliition put a religious fandlion upon the vileft pradices. Idolatry, indeed, is in its very nature the nurfc of vice ; becaufe it cannot exifl: without a denial of the ftrongelt moral obligations. Nothing can be more repugnant to reafon, and the firfl: principles of natural religion. That which fetteth afide our mod folemn duties towards God, muft in its confequences be pernicious to the interefl:s of mankind-, 9 the I 53 ] the religious worfhip therefore of any creature is the height of wickednefs. Hence the extenfive influence of this crime, which was a continued oppofition to the light and dic- tates of nature, clearly proves all idolaters to have been void of true morality and re- lio-ion. For if s;enuine virtue doth not in- elude a refolute and Heady obfervance of thofe facred duties which we owe to our maker, it is an empty name, and not worth cultivat- ing : if, indeed, we alfo underftand by it thofe higheft m.oral obligations which are due to God, then genuine virtue never can be found but in the exercife of pure religion, undefiled with idolatrous pra6liccs. To talk therefore of virtuous Heathens, if idolaters be meant, is an abfurdity too great for lan- guage to exprefs f t) chap: [ 34 1 C H A P. II. The 'Tejlimony of Scripture concerning Heathen Gods, WE fliall now proceed to enquire what, according to the facred penmen, were the objedts of religious worfhip among the Heathens ; by what names they are delcribed in the word of God \ and what is the real opinion of the infpired writers themfelves, con- cerning the natures and churafters of the Pagan deities ? § I. The ftate of idolatry in the time of Mofes, is thus defcribed, not in obfcure terms : " Take ye therefore good heed unto your- " felves, fince ye faw no fimilitude when the " Lord fpake unto you from the fire, left ye " corrupt yourlelves,. and make you^ a graven " image, the fimilitude of any figure, the " likenefs of male or female j the likenefs " of any beaft that is on the earth •, the like- " nefs of any winged fowl that flieth in the " air ; the likenefs of any thing that creepeth " on the ground; the likenefs of any filh 7 that t 35 1 ** that is In the waters beneath the earth : and " left thou lift uf> thine eyes unto heaven, and ** when thou feeft the fun, and the moon, and ** the ftars, even all the hofts of heaven* ** fhouldeft be di-iven to worfhip them, and ** ferve them, which the Lord thy God hatH " imparted to all nations under the whole ** heaven.*" And again, " If there be found " among you within any of thy gates which *' the Lord thy God giveth thee, man or wo- " man that hath wrought wickednefs in the *' fight of the Lord thy God, in tranfgrefrmg ** his covenant ; and hath gone and ferved " other gods, and worlhipped them, either thd " fun, or moon, or ahy of the hofts of heaven, " which I have not commanded ''." Mofes, in thefe minute defcriptions of the idolatry of his own times, maketh no mention of the fouls of dead men, as objefts of religious worftiip •, nor doth he even intimate that any of their emblematic figures were in the ftiape of men, although he carefully enumefateth the feveral kinds, according to the fimiiitude of which their images were made. But the moft ancient pidlire of the firft idolatry is in the book of Job : "If," l^ith this patriarch, " I beheld the fun when " Dppt. chap. iv. 75 — 1$!. *" Ijji'l- xvii. ^3; D 2 ': h? C 36 ] *' he lliined, or the moon increafing in her " brightnefs, and my heart were then iecretly " enticed, or my hand touched my lip5, this- " would have been a crime to be puniHicd by *' thejudge" of the world, '' becaufe I fhould '* have lied againft the God above. " This defcription carries with it evident marks of greater antiquity than even that of Mofes, The worfhip of which Job h£re fpeaketh was paid immediately to the fun and moon themfelveSy the eyes being fixed upon thofe heavenly bodies in the adt of adoration. He maketh no mention of emblematic flirines or figures, which were confecrated tothe fun^ and moon, and hofts of heaven. If fuch things had reached the knowledge of Job, he would fcarcely have omitted them in this defence of his own conduct ; becaufe many have bowed before thefe emblematic figures, who perhaps never kiffed the hand imme- diately to the fun itfelf. It feemeth therefore, that fuch things were not ufed, or at leaft not much known, in the days of Job ; but they are carefully enumerated in the account of Mofes, and connedbed with the worlhip of the fun, moon, and ftars, even all the hoft^ of heaven : for this reafon he forbid* ^ Job. xxxi. 26, &c. the [ 37 ] the Ifraelites to make the likenefs of any beaft, fowl J reptile, or fifh, as an objed of devotion. § 2. Symbolical leprefentations of the gods had undoubtedly their firft rife among the Egyptians -, a circumftance often alluded to, both by ancient hiftorians "^ and poets *. The time of their commencement feems to have been during the refidence of Jacob's defcen- dants among that people. Mofes faith of the Jfraelites, they fhall no more offer their facri- fkes to Sborim ^, emblematic figures in the like- nefs of goats, or other rough animals ; whicfi plainly intimates that they had done this be- fore : but we never read of any fuch thing prior to their delcent into Egypt ; nor does it appear that this kind of idolatry was either known to the Canaanites, while any of the patriarchs lived among them, or pradlifed by the more eaftern nations, even in the days of Jofhuah. Thefe Shorim^ as alio the Chame- mm *, figurative images of the fun and lEther, or elfe fire-hearths, with other things of the * Herod. Euterp. See the foregoing chap, § 7, * Ovid. Meta. lib. v. ver. 323. * Levit. xvii. 7. * « Ibid. xxvi. 30. D 3 like [ 38 ] like kind, feem to have been the " new gods" v/hom Moles fpeaketh of* "as lately come up," and "whom" he fays " their fathers feared not-,"; although " their fathers ferved alien gods on the *'; other fide of the flood f," in Urof the Chal- dees. But thefe fymbolic figures of the hea- venly bodies and their various influence, were not known in thofe more ancient times -, nor are they ever mentioned in the fcriptures, till fpoken of as a part of the Egyptian idola- try. " The images,'" or teraphim^ which " Ra- " chel ftole" from her father J, and which after- wards periflied " under the oak near Shechem,'*. where they were " hidden by Jacob" for that end'', were not emblematic figures of any created deity. They were ufed, as appear- eth from the hiilory of after-times, for the purpofe of divination -, and that too, though unlawfully, by fome worlhippers of the true God. They are carefully diflinguifhed both from graven and molten images. § ^. Mofes never giveth us one inftance of offering facrifices to departed fouls of our- own kind. There is indeed only one paf- fage .alledged in favour of fuch an idea -, Iput it can anfwer no other purpofe, be- * Deut. xxxii. 17. J Gen, xxxv, 4. "J- Jofli. xxiv. 2, 3, 14. •* Ibid, xxxi, 19. fides [ 39 ] fides that of proving how ardently fome au- thors have wifhed, for the fake of their own hypothefis, to find in Mofcs, at lead one ex- ample of paying religious honours to de- ceafed men. *' The writers of the Old Tefta- ** ment," fays Mr. Farmer, "properly defcribe the Heathen gods as dead perfons, becaufe ** it was to fuch that the public worfhip was " more immediately direcled.'** And then he adds the following note in fupport of his aflertion : " This is implied in that decla- ** ration, which Mofes required each If- " raelite to make, at offering the firft fruits of every year. I have not given might thereof for (or to) the dead ^ to any Heathen " deity : which fuppofes that each of thefe " deities was nothing more than a dead per- fon.'* Neither this affertion, nor even the note which is added in fupport of it, is a fa6l ; although the latter is introduced as if it were a declaration of fcripturc, but with what juftice will foon appear. The method of tithing, among the Jews, was as followeth : They paid a tenth out of all their effccls, every year, to the Lcvites ^ Out of this tithe, the Levites paid a tenth to * On Mir. p. 197. f Deut. xxvi. 14. ^ Numb, xviii. 21. D 4 the t 40 I the priefts * ; for the priefts received no tithes from the people, 6iit only the tenth of the tithes paid to the Levites. Now the other nine parts remaining to the people were not to be iifed, till they had, out of thefe alfo, paid a fecond tithe " 5 which for the two firft years, was to be carried to the place where God might choofe to record his name, and there to -be fpent, in feafting with the Levites. But if this place fhould happen to be at too great a diftance for car- riage, they might turn this fecond tithe into money, and buy with it fuch things as are enumerated by Mofes, for the purpofe of feafting at the temple •, to which he addeth, " Thou fhalt eat there, before the Lord thy " God, and Ihaltrejoice, thou and thine houfe- *' hold "." This fecond tithe, every third year, was to be fpent at home within their own gates, upon the Levites in the country, the poor, the fatherlefs, and the widow*. This was called by the Jews, the poor man's tithe ^ It was not lawful to apply any part cf this tithe, when feparated, or of the money for which it might have been fold, to thofe * Numb, xvlii. 26 — 28, ** Ibid. 28, 29, and xxvi. iz* * Peut. xiv. 22. P Selden on Tithes, phap. ii, "Ibid. 2^, H. I circum- t 4. ] circumftances that were attended with ritual uncleannefs. They were not to eat of it in their mourning for the neareft. relation ; they were not to fend any part of it to other mourners, in diftrefs for the lofs of parents, children, or kindred-, nor to ufe it for any purpofe whatever, which related to a funeral. Hence, a part of that confeffion which the Ifraelites made with refpeft to tithes in general, relateth to the circumftances here mentioned. The confeffion itfelf was to be uttered before the Lord, at the firft great feaft after the diftribution of the tithe of the third year among the poor, and was to be conduced agreeably to the following direftions of Mofes ; '' When thou haft made an end of tithing, " all the tithes of thine increafe, in the third " year, the year of tithing (for the poor) " and haft given unto the Levite, the ftranger, " the fathedefs, and the widow, that they " may cat within thy gates, and be filled : " then thou ftialt fay before the Lord thy " God, I have brought away the hallowed " things out of mine houfe, and alfo have " given them to the Levite, and unto the " ftranger, to the fatherlefs, and to the widow, " according to all thy commandments, which " thou haft commanded me : I have not " tranlgrefled thy commandments j neither " have C 42 J "have I forgotten them : I have not eaten "thereof In my mourning, neither have I *' taken away ought thereof for any unclean " ufe, nor given ought thereof for the dead ^.'* No one would ever think of apply- ing this pafTage to Ji^-Jl fruits J as conneded with the worfhip of Heathen gods, unlefs re- duced to an extreme neceHity of finding fome- thing like a proof in fupport of what is no where aflerted in the books of Mofes : For the Jewilli law-giver never once intimateth, that cither before or during his time, facrifices were offered to dead men ; nor can it be proved that this fuperflition was then any where pradlifed in the world. § 4. The Hate of idolatry under the kings of Judah is thus defcribed : " ManaiTeh did *' evil in the fight of the Lord, like unto the ** abominations of the Heathen, whom the ** Lord had caft out before the children of " Ifrael: he reared up altars for Baalim, " and made groves, as did Ahab king of " Ifrael, and worfhipped all the hofts of hea- ** ven and ferved them : he built altars for all " the hofts of heaven, in the courts of the ** Lord's houfe ; and fet up a carved image 9 Deut. xxvi. 12, &c. (» [ 43 ] '* in the houfe of God '." The conduct of" Jofiah, who put down the idolatry of Ma- nafleh, and all preceding kings, is thus men- tioned : " And the king commanded Hilkiah the high prieft, and the prieflsofthe fecond " order, to bring forth out of the temple of *■ the Lord, all the vefTels made for Baal, and " for Afhreh, and for all the hods of heaven ; *' and he difmifled the Camerim, whom the '* kings of Judah had ordained to burn in- ** cenfe in the high places round about Jeru- " falem ; and them alfo that burnt incenfe *' unto Baal, to the fun, and to the moon, " and to the planets, and to all the hofts of " heaven ; and he took away the horfes ** which the kings of Judah had given to the " fun, and burnt the chariots of the fun with " fire *." The whole idolatry of that people, from iirft to laft, is thus reprefented by the prophet Jeremiah : *' At that time, faith the ** Lord, they fhall bring out the bones of the " kings of Judah, and the bones of his ** princes, and the bones of the priefls, and " the bones of the prophets, and the bones " of the inhalDitants of Jerufalem, out of their *^ graves ', and they Ihall fpread them before ** the fun, and the moon, and all the hofts of '^jf Chron, chap, xxxiii. conip. with 2 Kings, chap. xxi. * % Kings, chap, xxiii. 4, &c. '.' heaven. t 44 i *•* heaven, whom they have loved, and whom they have ferved, and after whom they have *' walked, and whom they have fought, and " whom they have worfhlpped*." No one that readeth this minute defcrip- tion, can well avoid remarking two things: Firft, that if the worlhip of dead men had really been a part of the Jewilh idolatry, it would have hardly efcaped the prophet's notice and cenfure on this occafion : And next, that the writers of the Old Teftament are very far from reprefenting the Heathen deities as no- thing more than the fouls of deceafed perfons, railed to divine honours, by the ignorance and folly of their worfliippers. It mull fill every candid reader with unufual furprife, to find any author of reputation in the literary world, perpetually afierting, that the writers of the Old Teftament declare the objeds of Pagan worlhip to have been nothing more than dead men; and the rather, fince almoft every pafTage in that book, which takes notice of the praftice and fm of idolatry, clearly Iheweth the contrary in the moil exprefs and decifive language. We might ioon fill a whole vo- lume with quotations out of Scripture, all affirming, in the moft dired terms, that the * Jerem. chap. viii. i, 2; nations t 45 ] nations round Judca, and idolatrous Ifraelites, worfliipped the fun, moon, planets, and hofts of heaven ; but can onefentence be produced, which proves ehat they ever offered facrifices to departed human fouls, on any occafion ? We believe not. § 5. There is but one fmgle inflance in the Old Teftament which hach the leafl ap- pearance of a proof, that the Ifraelites were ever concerned in worfhip paid to deceafed perfons of our own kind -, nor can this inftancc itfelf have the force of an argument, unlefs it be received in a fenfe, not even fuggefted by the facred hiftory of thofe tranfaftions to which it relateth. In onq of the Pfalms it is faid of the ancient Ifraelites, that " they joined " themfelves to Baal-Peor, and ate the facrifices of the dead "." The term Meih, as a partici- pial noun, is ufed for a lifelefs carcafe of man or beaft, and often for a dead human body, exprefsly diftinguiflied from the foul orperfon which is departed; thus, ibe carcafe of any_ foul of man •, the carcafe of the foul of man which is dead ^ : and MetBm, in the plural number, is put for mortals^ or dyi)!?; r.ien, as expreffive of their ftate ; and is, in this fenfe, applied to » Pfalra cvi. a?. " Numb. »x. 1 1— 15. idolaters^ [ 46 ] idolaterSj, doomed to death by the righte'ou* appointment of God ''^ once to perfons in extreme milery % and alfo to wicked worldly men ^ : But it is no where ufed, that we know ofj for deceafed perfons, unlefs with the em- phatic letter, or article, when it is written; Hemeibm^, the dead. Asa participle it is joined with Pegrtm, which, together, are twice ren- dered dead corpfes *. PegrJm of itfelf fignifies dead carcajfes -, and Methm is alfo put alone fof dead bodies in the grave *. Thus much fof the ufe of the word •, but what is its meaning in this paiTage, " They ate the facritices of " Methm?'' Not the deady as denoting de- parted human fpirits ; for the term, in this form artd conftrudion of it, conveys no fuch idea. The phrafe muft fignify, that they at^ either the facrifices of idolaters,' or the facri- fices of lifelefs idols. If we eornpare the pafiage with the hiftory to which it refers, we fhall foon fee in what fenfe the word MethJni is to be here taken. Mofes records the cir- cumftEtnce here mentioned in the following manner: " They called the people to the fa- ^ Deut. il. 34, iii. 6. * 2 King xix. 35. Ifar * Job xxiv. 12. xxxvii, y Pfalm xvii. 14. « Pfalm IxIXJCviiT. * Numb. xvi. 48. Jud. xvl. " crifices [ 47 ] ** crifices of their gods, and the people did eat " and bowed down to their gods •, and Ifrael '^ joined himlelt to Baal-Peor''." Nowthegods to which they bowed down, were undoubt- edly fome vifible objects, either the heaven- ly bodies, or elfe fymbolie figures. The word, which is here rendered gods, is fre- quently ufed in the fcriptures for idols ; and what one prophet calls gods, another fpeak- ing of the fame thing ftyles graven images; and by the phrafe, gods, in this very in- ftance, idols or images have always been underftood. Thus in the Septuaginr, *' they *' called them to the facrifices of their idols, *' and they bowed down to their idols." Hence it appears obvious in what fcfnfe we are to underftand that expreffion in the above-men- tioned pfalm. They "joined thcmfelves toBaal- *' Peor, and ate the facrifices of lifelefs idols,'* which could no more hear and fee than a dead body, and in which there was neither coun- fcl, nor power, to help. To thofe lifelefs images, called alfo by way of reproach, PegrJm, Carcafes", the living and true God is very often oppofed, both by the prophets and apoftles. Mofes gives not the leaft intimation * Numb. XXV. 2. c Levit. xxvi. 30, Jer. xvi. 18. of r 48 ] of offering facrifices to the fouls of deccafecJ men ; fuch an interpretation therefore of that pfalm is not at all fupported by the hiftory of thofe tranfadions to which it relateth. To thefe remarks we fliall add the opinion of two very learned men, who were perhaps as well acquainted with the language and fpirit of the Old Teftament Scriptures, as the writers- of our own times. Mr. Henry Ainfworth makes the following fhort obfervation : " They were joined unto Baal-Peor, and ate ** the facrifices of the dead : By the dead, " meaning idols, unto which the Scriptures do ** oppofe the living and true God**' Dr. Owen thus exprefleth himfelf on the' fame paflage : " They ate facrifices offered to gods, " who could not render them any afliftance j *' but are as a thing dead and altogether vain, '* from which it would be extreme madnefs *' to exped either aid or comfort. Thus the " Apoftle Paul, in oppofition to all the gods " of the Gentiles, fays, by way of emphafis, " that he hoped in the living God. Some " underftanding facrifices, diis manihus" (as he exprefleth it) " but that fuperftition was '' then hardly in being : All idols are faid to * On Num. xxv. z. Pfalm cvi. 28* " be [ 49 ] *' be dead things with refpedl to efficacy and ** power*." §. 6, Such then is the only foundation for thofe vehement aflfertions of Mr. Farmer, continually repeated, " That all the prophets of God, with one voice, affirm the Pagan deities to have been nothing more than dead men ; that this is a fact attefted by all anti^ quity ; that they facrificed to daemons, and daemons, as the prophets have Ihewn, were " nothing but the fouls of dead men j" with innumerable other things of the like kind. One would imagine that the facred writers had very frequentlyj and in the moftexprefs terms, afiiired us, that all the Heathen gods were really the fouls of deceafed perfons j yet they have never once faid that any of the Heathen gods had been men, but conftantly affirm that the idolaters, vvhofe condud they cenfure, worfhipped the fun, moon, and hods of hea- ven. What they have written on this fubjed exactly agrees with the hiftories of ancient na- tions. There were no facrifices offered to dead men in the days of Moles •, for the Grecian Heroes, the firfl; deified human fpirits, were not then even born : Nor was that fuperRi- • Theologoum, Lib. V. cap. iij. § 6. and cap. iv. % 6. E tion f 50 J tion ever praftifcd among the nations rouiKl Judea, during the time of any of the pro- phets ; no fuch inftance, therefore, can be proved from the facred hiftory of the Jews. " With relptrd to the writers of the Old' " Teftament," fays Mr. Farmer,/* though they " knew that the Pagans believed in fidereal " and elementary deities, yet they very pro- *' perly defcribe their gods as dead perfons, ** becaufe it was to fuch that the public wor- *' fhip was more immediately di reded. Here " it fhould be obferved, that when they de- ^" fcribc the Heathen gods as dead perfons, ""^ they confider them as what they really were^. " not what they were conceived io be by their " worlhippers, as fome have aiTerted^" And afterwards he adds, *' The fcripture has never *' given the leafl intimation, that the gods of the " Heathens v/ere of two different kinds ; the " one fuch as they feemed to themfelve:;- to wor- ** Ihip, the other the r^^/objeds of their de- "■ votions*." Now what are we to conclude from thefe two curious pafiages .? That the Pa- p-ans believed in elementary deities, but wor- Ihipped only the fouls of dead men ? That when they pretended facrifices to the fun and moon, they really meant thefe things for dead perfons i* ^ On Mir. p. 197. • Ibid. 243. 5 Ti"f c 51 i That the writers of the Old Teftament do not allow them to have worfliipped fidereal gods at all ? And that all their deities to whom they of- fered facrifices were nothing more than de- parted ibuls of their own kind ? If it fhould be anfwered, that the above paflages neither aflert ^//the Pagan gods to have been deceafed men, nor that the Heathens never worfhipped any other objeds than departed fouls of their own kind i and that it is not here faid, that the facred writers will not allow them to have worfhipped fidereal gods at all : Wc might then afk, If none of thefe things were intended, what could the author mean? But this, perhaps, is not worth an enquiry ; for truth does not want the dark and covert ex- preffions of the Pythian tripos, which can ne- ver be proved to aflert what it means to fug- ged, but may fignify this or that, juft as the genius and imagination of the reader fhall direfl. However, neither the Ifraelites nor the Pleathens are ever charged in the Old Teflamenr, with worfliipping dead men. The writers of the New Teftament alfo fpeak of the Jcwifli idolatry in the very fame lan- guage : " Then God turned, and gave them up ** to ivcrjldip the hop of heaven, as it is written " in the book of the prophets." ^ Many of ^ Afts vii. 4a. E 2 the E 52 ] the Pagans did, without doubt, in after time.?, offer facrifices to deceafed perfons, but this can never be proved concerning the children of Ifrael, whofe idolatry is more immediately defcribed and cenfured by the prophets. § 7. We fhall next enquire, by what names idol gods are called in the holy fcriptures ? The wor.i " Baa:l " denotes authority, and for this reafon is applied to any objed of re- ligious worfhip, as " Baal-Peor," " Baal-Gad,'^ ** Baal-Berith." When this term occurs without any epithet or addition, it fignifies the aether, or chief of thofe created gods which v/ere honoured by the idolatrous nations round Judea. This will- appear obvious from the following circumftances. " Baal *' is generally fpoken of as chief of the hofts of heaven, and is, for the moft part, introduced as the head of all other idol-gods : Thus it is faid of the ten tribes, that " they worfhipped all the " hofts of heaven, and ferved Baal *." It is a frequent accufation againft the Ifraelites, that *' they burnt incenfe to Baal, and walked after " other gods ;'* and this is given as a general defcription of their idolatry, " that they ferved " Baal, the fun, moon, and planets, and all the ' a Kingxvw. 16. •^ hoft* [ 53 1 '"hoflsofheaven." "Moloch," who isalfoftyled in the fcriptures " Milcom ''," or the burning god, is tlie lame " Baal '* unto whom Jeremiah jfaith, " they burnt their fons and daughters for " burnt offerings'." Nothing, therefore, could be more pointed than Elijah's propofal to the worlhippers of " Baal," " The God that an- " fwereth by fire, let him be God "*." Hence it was fully proved, that the setherial fire, the chief obje(5l of their religious worlhip, was under the immediate controul of the God of Ifrael, that rain was withheld or given at his pleafure, and of coxifequence the various fruits of the earth. As the word " Baal " is applied to any objedft of religious worfliip, fo the phrafe " Baalim" denoteth the gods in general ; not fuch as were the fouls of der.eafed men, but the hoils of heaven. This is evident from the language of fcripture : " He reared up altars " for Baalim, and made groves, and wor- " fhipped all the hofts of heaven, and ferved *' them "." Now to what end did the king of Judah rear up altars for " Baalim ?" The anfwer is here given, "That he might worfhip and ferve *■ I Kings xi. 7. comp. 2 Kings xxiii. 13. ' Jerem. xxxii. 55. comp. vii. 31. and xix. 5. "* 1 Kings xviii. 24. " 2 Chron. xxxiii. 3. E 3 " the [ 54 ] " the hofls of heaven." The fame objeds of idolatrous worfhip, therefore, are in one place called *' Baalim," and in another " the bolls of *' heaven." "Afhtaroth*" was the furrounding cr encircling goddefs, whether the air or the moon is not material, moft probably the for- mer, and perhaps the fame with " the queen " of heaven*." Her worfhip was ancient, her dignity great, for her name gave honour to others j hence Aflitaroth fignines the goddeffes in general. The facred hiftorian thus com- plaineth of the children of Ifrael : " They ■' did evil again in the fight of the Lord, " and ferved Baalim and Afhtaroth," that is the gods and goddejfTes whom he thus enu- merateth in that paifage, " The gods of *' Syria, the gods of Zidon, the gods of " Moab, and the gods of the children of Am- " mon, and the gods of the Phiiiftines. ^'^ " Afliai e" v/as a goddefs of great renown, whom, die idolatrous nations confidercd as the fource of fruitfulnefs and profperiry •, for fuch is the import of her name. Kence Afharlm, Blef- fers, or according to the Grecian theology, thegods givers of good things, and "Afharoth** thegoddelTes from whom were derived, in the opinion - of idolaters, fqccefs and riches. • I Kings xi. 5. ♦Jerem. xliv. 17—19. •* Judg* x. 6. Thefe [ 55 ] 1 hefc terms are in many places improperly trandciicd g7-oves •, the following examples will put it beyond all doubt. *' He fet a graven ^' image of tiie grove in the houfe of the " Lord * i" that is of " Afhare," the goddefs of profperity. " Jofiah brake down the houfes " of the profritutes which were by the temple, ** where the women wove hangings or tents " for the grove '," or goddefs " Alharc." " Thii children of Ifrael forgat the Lord " their God, and ferved Baalim and the " groves •," that is, AJharcdb j or the gods and goddcfles of the Canaanites, and neigh- bouring nations. " On every high hill, and " under every green tree, they fet them up " {landing images, and JJharim\'* JBleJfers, or fymbolic figures in honour of thofc gods to v/hom they attributed all worldly advan- tages. Thus much concerning thofe general ap- pellations which are given in fcripture to the Pagan Gods. Thefe phrales denote either power and authority, or elfe that kind of in- iiuence which attends the produdion of plants, fruits, and animals, and which, accord- ing to the Heathens, was the caufe of prof- ^ 2 Kings xxi. 7. • Ju^g* Jli* ?• ' Ibid, ifxiii. 7. * 2 Kings xvii. 10. E 4 perity [ 56 1 perity and happinefs in the prelent life. But it no where appears from the word of God, that they ever afcribed thefe blefiings to the interpofition of dead men, or ever looked upon the gods givers of good things, as de- ceafed perfons. § 8. We are next to examine, what was the real opinion of the facred writers concerning the natures and charaders of the Pagan deities ? But we muft proceed with caution in this part of our fubjedl, for feme unexp^ded difficul- ties are thrown in our way ; doubts are raifed, whether the infpired penmen confidered the Heathen gods as having any exiilence at all or not : If they fhould be found to deny this matter, all further enquiries concerning the fubjeft will be ufelefs. " When it is faid,' ■ to ufe the words of our author, " an idol (that *' is, a Heathen deity or dsmon) IS NO- '' THING IN THE WORLD, the meaning " is, either that this reputed deity hath no *' exiftence in nature, or that he hath no de- " gree of that power his votaries afcribe to •' him, and is of no more account than if " he did not exift "." The writer, in this paflage, honeftly defines his terms j with him, ^ EHay on Dem. p* 2244 an r 57 ] an idol, a Heathen deity, and a daemon, arc all one and the fame thing, and he hath re- peated this notion of his, with no fmall de- gree of warmth, in his letters to Dr. Wor- thington^i but whether the apoftle Paul looked upon a graven image and a daemon to be one and the fame thing, is by no means evident. And befides, if we allow the exift- ence of the deity reprefented by the dumb and lifelefs idol, although wejuftly ftrip him of all that power and influence which his vo- taries afcribed to him as a god, yet, even in this cafe, we cannot affirm with truth, that " he is of no more account than if he did not " exifli" for the lovveft degree of being is fomething beyond nonentity. But the evident defign of the learned au- thor is to (hew, that the Heathen deities had no real exiftence in nature, and were not at all diflin<5l from thofe lifelefs ftatues which were the work of their own hands. Hence he thus writes, " When 6t. Paul fays, We '* KNOW that an idol is nothings the expreflion " implies, that the nullity of the Heathen gods " or daemons was a principle admitted by him- *• felf "." And he fays in a former treatife of " his, * " Nor is this cenfure confined to a * Effay on Dem. p. 229. * On Mif. p. ZH* " part [ 58 '! ** part only of the Heathen gods, it is ex- *' tended to all, without a fingle exception. *' They are all vanity. ALL the gods of the na- " tions are idols or nothings : not powerful evil " fpirits, but mere nullities. In this manner " the ancient prophets of God fpoke of the " Pagan deities ; and the apofties of Chrifl: " ufed the fame language -, We know that an idd " is 7iothing in the world. This is not to be un- " derftood of the mere images of the gods : for ■" the Heathens did not regard thofc images, in " themfelves confider^d, as real gods. They *' believed them to be the reprefentatives and " the receptacles of their gods, and in this " view they fpoke of them as gods, and the **^ objefls of divine worfhip ; and it is in re- '' ference to the divine powers fuppofed to re- ** fide in them, that the fcriptures affirm *' that they are nothing. On all occafions *' the facred writers deride thefe pretended refi- " dences of tiie Heathen deities, as mere " earthly materials, polilhed by the hand of *' the artificer, and the deities themfelves *' as equally void of underftanding, or ra- *' ther as being nothing diftind from thofc " fenfelefs materials, and exifting only in " the imagination of their deluded worlhip- ?' pers." Thi^ C 59 1 This writer perpetually confoundeth things which want proof with thofe which were never doubted by any one, and thus beguil- eth his reader with fecming evidences inftead of real arguments. As for inftance, Who does not know that idols are confidered as " no- " thing" in the fcriptures, only " in reference to " the divine powers fuppoled to refide in them ?'* Who is not leiifible that, *' On all occa- " fions the, facred writers deride thefe pre- " tended refidences of the Heathen deities, " as mere earthly materials ?" Who ever regarded them in any other light ? But is this a proof that thofe pretended deities to which they were dedicated had no real ex- iftence in nature ? Solomon's temple itfelf, the refidence of the true God, confifted of *' earth- " ly materials," and was as much '* polifhed " by the hand of the artificer," as any graven image whatever, and yet the ancient dif- ference between that and idols is ftill obvious : the one was formed under the immediate di- re^lion of God, the other from the miCre inven- tion of idolaters ; in the one he really dwelt v;ho created the heavens and the earth, in the other, as the facred writers jufcly oblerve, there was neither intelligence, nor power, nor life of any kind : But is this a proof that they alfq confidered '' the Heathen deities" themfelves, '' as nothing diftind from thofe fenfelefs ma- 1* terials/* [ 6o ] *^' terials," and that "'they had no exigence but ** in the imagination of their worihippers ?'* Surely not-, unkfs themiftaken notions which have been entertained concerning any being be allowed as an evidence that there is no fuch being in the univerfe. The Perfians ufed no images whatever, they neither built temples, nor raifed altars, yet it cannot be juftly faid, that their gods were mere creatures of the imagination, becaufe they had no (latues ; for they facrificed to the whole circle of hea- ven, to the fun and moon, to the earth and fire, and to the water and winds. Have the facred writers any where affirmed thefe to be mere nullities ? They are the very fame objefts of religious worfhip with thofe conftantly ccn- fured by the prophets, and their real influence in thole things which are eflential to the pre- fent life of man is not only flill acknow- kdcred, but much better underftood, than in former times. The objeds, therefore, of Heathen wor- ftiip are faid to be " nothing" in the fcriptures, enly as gods. The facred writers neither deny the reality of their exiftence, nor its confe- quences in the world, nay, they affirm their influence to be the appointment of God, and to be under his own immediate controul and diredion, in all cafes whatever. Hence faith Mofes. L 61 i Mofes, " BlefTed of the Lord be his lartd, for the precious ^ things of heaven, for the dew, and for the deep that coucheth be- neath, for tlte precious fruits from the lun, for the precious things put forth by the moon, and for the precious things of the earth, and the fulnefs thereof !" But no merit, no intended bounties, arc ever af- cribed to thofe beings in the fcriptures, nor are men once confidered as laid under the fmalleft obligation to them for any bleffing. Neither Jews nor Gentiles therefore could ever look upon them as objeds of divine worfhip, without renouncing their entire dependancc on the fupreme God, as the fole author of all good. § 9. The twofollowing articles ftill remain to be determined. Whether the Heathens wor- fliipped only the different parts of the ma- terial and vifible world i or, whether, toge- ther with thefe, they looked upon themfelves as facrificing to certain intelligent agents fup- pofcd to refide in them : And if fo, what do the facred writers mean by the terms Shedim and Damons, under which they defcribe the Pagan deities ? As to the firft, the anfwer is ^ Deuc xxxiii, tj— 20. obvious. [ 62 ] obvious, and given by fuch authority as will not here be called in queftion. " The fen- ** tient nature and divinity of the fun, moonj *' and liars more efpecially, was ftrenuoufly •' aflerted by the philofophers, as well as be- *' lieved by the common people ; and was in- " deed the very foundation of the Pagan ido- " latry. This point was allowed by all, ex~ *' cept atheifts, or thofe who were reputed *' fuch. Thefe were the firll deities of all *' the idolatrous nations ; and were efteem- " edj fovereign, and fupreme. They arc " diftinguifhed by the title of natural gods,*'* It is therefote allowed that idolaters, at leafl, in their own opinion, worlhipped certain in- telligent beings, fuppofed to refide in the dif- ferent parts of nature. And the fame thing is evidently acknowledged by the infpired wri- ters, as appeareth from the general appel- lations given in fcripture to idol gods, who are often, when the language of idolaters is pointed out, ftyled Rulers^ Bkjfers^ Authors cf riches and plenty. § lo. It only now remains to be enquired, What the prophets and apoftles meant by Shedim and Demons, tinder which terms, all ?F*nn. on Mir, p. 171, J 72. the L 63 j the Heathen goes are charaderifcd in the Old and New Teftament ? This point would as cafily and as fcon be determined as the fore- going, were it not for fome learned remarks and queries thrown in our way -, which are indeed well devifed to keep the truth out of fight. *' Mofes, as we are told, in his prophe* *' tic hymn concerning the apoftacy of the " Ifraelites, takes notice of it as a proof and " aggravation of their idolatrous difpofition, " that they facnficed unto devils (Schedim) "* whom he calls new gods that came newly up, " whom they knew not^ and their fathers feared " not^ '* Now this verfe, at leall, is not a predidion of things to come, but a decla- ration of fa<5ts already paft ; and Mofes in this paflage neither calleth the Shedim new gods that came newly up^ nor yet gods whom their fathers feared not. The general de- fign of the place is evident, even from our common tranflation. " They facrificed •' unto Schedim^ not to God : to gods whom " they knew not, to nevv gods that came *' newly up, whom your fathers feared not \ '* But our author proceeds in his own way : " The Pfalmift, in like manner, thus re- " preaches them ; yea they facrificed their * Farm, on Mir. p. 248. * Deut. xzxli' i/* " fern 3 in the holy fcriptures -, nor doth Mofes men- tion any other idol gods. Now thefe JJjedim are called damonst in the Septuagint verfion, and by the apoftle Paul : whence it muft be ob- vious to unprejudiced perfons, that the terms, Jhedim in the Old Teftament, and demons in the New, are applied to thofe gods which had never been men j and which, according to the above cited author's own confeflion, were the Brft deities of all the idolatrous na- tions, and were efteemed eternal, fovcreign, and fupreme, and diftinguiflied by the title of Natural Gods. The repeated aflertions there- fore of this writer, that by the Hebrew word Jhedim^ and the term d<€wam in the Septuagint verfion, nothing more was underftood than deified human fpirits, are of courfe totally overthrown •, and the very great number of his rhetorical queftions fo often afl-ied on this part of our fubjed:, rendered entirely ufe- lefs. The next palTage which he urges from Mofes and the Septuagint, in order to fhew, that by daemons nothing was underftood but the ghofts of dead men, is this. They have moved me to jealoufy by what is not God •, they have provoked me to anger with their idols. We can no more find the leaft intimation of hynian fpirits in this than in the foregoing F 4 paflage. [ 72 ] pafTage. However, the fuppofed argument is enforced by the following remark : *' In thefe *^ two verfes, the very fame perfons are " called, firfl damonSy then gods^ and laftly " idols ; which confirms what was obferved *' above, that St. Paul, by thefe three dif- *' ferent names, means one and the fame " thing'." We have already feen, that many of the Hea- thens made no ufe of idols or images in religious worfhip, yet they were always confidered as having gods^ and that the falfe deities fo often mentioned in the fcriptures, were the fun, moon, planets, and hofts of heaven ; for thefe and other reafons before given, we look upon it to be morally impoflible, that any of the facred penmen fliould ufe the terms deemonSy gods, and idoisi always to denote one and the fame thing, or that they fhould fpeak of the Pagan deities as nothing at all different from the lifelefs images by which they were reprefented ; for if the infpired writers were not fo learned as fome modern authors, they had at leaft as much common fenfe. " Thefe " reafons, till I fee them anfwered, will have " more weight with me, than the mere ajer- '^" iions *" of any man, however rtfpeftable in himfelf. ^ On Dem. p. 224, Note **. * Ibid- Id. § 12. After f n ] § 12. After the above remark, the follow- ing queftions are immediately afked with no fmall degree of fpirit : " Now, if the au- " thors of the Septuagint, by demons in- *' tended devils, it is natural to afk, when did *' the Ifraelites facrifice to devils ? Why are *' devils called jiew gods ? And why are they " called idols ? This is a word that frequently *' occurs in the Septuagint ; but where doth it ■' fignify devils in that tranQation ?" To thefe things, already heard in other terms, a concife anfwer Ihall again be given. The authors of the Septuagint verfion by demons, in the palTage alluded to, never intended devils, but only to exprefs the meaning of the v^oxdijhedim \ which term, according to the facred writers, included in it the fun, moon, and hofts of heaven. But whether the Ifraelites ever facri- ficed to devils or not, is a queftion with which we have no concern, although our author himfelf may be interefted in the decifion of it, for he informs us that they ufed " to offer a " goat to Sammael, or Satan ^." The Jhedim and demons are neither called new gods nor yet idols in the places here quoted. Thofe images Indeed which were confecrated to them, and ^ On Mir. p. 103. before [ 74 1 before which their worlhippers offered facri- fices, were juftly termed idols; and by what appears from Mofes they were new in his time, not being mentioned in any earlier pe- riod ; and this well agrees with the teftimony of Heathen writers concerning the Egyptians, as the firil nation that ereded ftacuts to the as the fun, moon, and hofts of heaven, are from the fenfelefs images fet up by their worfliippers ; that the idols of Canaan were never called devils by way of diftinftion from thofe of other nations : And we beg leave to add, that if this gentleman thought fuch queries as thefe to be either ne- ceffary or ufeful in fupporting his argument, he ought for that very reafon to have fufpefled the argument itfelf ; or if he really appre- hended that fuch queftions could at all affe6l the fentiments of thofe who differ from him concerning the Heathen gods, he was un- doubtedly very much miftaken. However, on this occafion we would recommend to him the following juft remark, as worthy of fome regard : he knows from whom it came. " Bare affertions, bow frequently foever they *' may be repeated, and however generally ere- [[ diced, are not proofs *." *|bid, |). 324. Note". § 13. Having [ 76 ] § 1 3. Having thus endeavoured to clear our way, we now return to the enquiry which was ftated in the beginning of the tenth feftion, namely, What the prophets and apoftles meant by Jhedim and demons, un- der which terms all the Heathen gods arc chara6terifed in the Old and New Tefta- ment ? The facred writers never concern themfelves at all either with the reality or non- exiftence of the fuppofed intelligence of the heavenly bodies ; nor do they ever deny the extenfive influence of the fun, moon, and air, with refpeft to things necelTary for the life of man j but they always fpeak of that religious worfliip which was paid to them by idolaters, as the abhorrence of God, and which for reafons already mentioned, was ftri(5tly forbidden his own people. We therefore think it evident, that by the term Jhedim Mofes neither meant fallen angels nor departed human fpirits, but the objeds of idolatrous worfhip in his own time, which were the fun, and moon, and hofts of heaven •, thefe the Heathens confi- dered as diftributors of good things. The Authors of the Septuagint verfion who tranf- lated his term by the word daemons, neither intended evil fpirits nor deceafed perfons, but only thofe Heathen gods which were wor- fhipped in the days of Mofes : nor could 2 they [ 77 ] they have ufed any other phrafe with equal propriety •, for had they faid that the IfraeHtes facrificed to dead men, it would have been falfe, becaufe none fuch were worfliipped in Egypt, nor then any where elfe that we know of in the whole world ; nor doth Mofes ever give the leaft intimation of any religious worlhip of this kind. Had they faid, that the Ifraelites facrificed to gods, not to God, they would have conveyed no diftinft idea, at leaft to their Pagan readers :_but this language is pro- per and decifive, they facrijiced to damons^ not to God ; for the Heathens applied that term to their primary and natural deities, whofe exiftence was prior to that of men ; but Je- hovah, the God of Ifrael, was never thus named. It followeth therefore that the apoftle Paul, borrowing the ideas of Mofes in the lan- guage of the Septuaginr, could neither mean fallen angels nor departed human fpirits, when he fays, " That the Gentiles facrifice to " daemons, not to God," but the natural and primary gods of the Pagan world. And altho* there can be no doubt but that both the Greeks and Romans worfliipped deceafed he- roes in the times of our Lord and the apoftles, yet the facred writers of the New Teftament no where take any exprefs notice of it, con- fining t 78 ] fining themfelves to general cenfares of all idolatry wherever pradifed. This doth not look as if the popular worfhip among all Hea- then nations was chiefly direfted to departed human fpirits. When the apoftle Paul re- buked the men of Lyftra who would have facrificed to him and Barnabas, as gods come down in the likenefs of men, he took no no- tice of hero-worfhip, while it is clearly inti- mated that he did not look upon the people as intending facrifices on that occafion to fuch gods as were of the human race. Nor did he, when at Athens, where he had the faireft op- portunity for doing it, particularly point out the ereding altars to deceafed men ; yet both at Lyftra and Athens he very care- fully attributes to the true God alone thofc very blelTings which, as we are affured in the fcriptures, idolaters ufed to afcribe to their primary or natural deities ; thus a great mul- itude at Pathros in Egypt, anfwered the prophet Jeremiah, " We will certainly burn incenfe to the queen of heaven, and pour out drink-offerings unto her as we have done ; for then had we plenty of viduals^ and were well, and favv no evil ; but fince we left off to burn incenfe to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink-offering unto her, we have wanted all things, and 5 *' have i: 79 1 have been confumed by tlie fworc!, and by famine *." But the apoftle at Lyftra, in di- redt oppofition to all fuch vain and abfurd opi- nions, faid, " Sirs, Why do ye thefe things ? We alfo are men of like pafllons with you, *' and preach unto you, that ye fliould turn " from thefe vanities unto the living God, " which made heaven and earth, and the fea, " and all things that are therein; who in " times paft fuffered all nations to walk in " their own ways ; neverthelefs, he left not hi mfelf without witnefs in that he did good, and '^ gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful fea- ** fons, filling our hearts with food and gladnefs-f'* And while he ufes this argument againft theic intended facrifices, we an mortal men like your' f elves, he yet fays not one word concerning thofe religious honours which were paid to gods acknowledged to have been as mortal as their worfliippers. So far then are the facred writers of the New Teftament from reprefenting all the Pagan deities as nothing but dead men, that they do not take any notice of the worfhip of deceafed perfons, even when reafoning with idolaters, where dead men were known to be worfhipped ; no, nor even when themfelves • Chap. xliv. 17, 18. f Afts xiv. 15—17. were [ So 3 were mlftaken for gods in the likenefs of men. In the beginning of the epiftle to the Romans, where the apoftle enters diredly upon the Hea- then fuperftition, and fhews all idolaters to be without excufe, he yet confineth himfelf to general ideas, which equally include the idolatry of Greece and the Eaftern nations ^ and without fpecifying particular objedts of Pagan worfhip, faith, " They changed the *' glory of the uncorruptible God into an *' image made like to corruptible man, and •' to birds, and four-footed beafts, and creep- *' ing things. Wherefore God alfo gave them ** up to uncleannefs, through the lufts of *' their own hearts, to diflionour their own *' bodies between themfelves : who changed *' the truth of God into a lie, and worfhip- " ped and ferved the creature more than *' the Creator, who is blefled for evermore, !! Amen.'' • Chap i. 23— 2j, CHAP. [ Bt J CHAP. III. Concerning the Heathen Demons, and the various Application of that 'Term among the ancient Greeks. § i-'TTMiE fentiments of Heathen writers, X generally mirunderftood, have been of late fo much connefled with the language of the apoftles concerning Dccmoniacs, that we cannot well avoid, at leaft, a brief enquiry into the Grecian dodlrine of Daemons : nor yet can we enter upon it with propriety till we have firft confidered fome hiftorical fafts, which are urged againft the very being of what wc fuppofe to have been the common opinion of the Greeks with refped to this fubjeft. Mr. Farmer fays, and lays great ftrefs upon it too, that " Euhemerus in his *' facred hiftory, befides recording the pedi- " gree and adions of the Heathen gods, *' pointed out the very places where they were *' buried "." Now, what doth this amount to ? Was Euhemerus credited ? Did the Heathens receive his dodrinc ? If not, what have we to do in this cafe with the ground- Icfs fuppofitions of an individual? Our en- • On,Mir. p. 194, G quiry [ 82 ] quiry refpefts the general opinion of the Pagan world. Mr. Farmer, indeed, feeling the weaknefs of this teftimony, is defirous of fup- porting it by every means in his power, and accordingly writes a long note for the purpofe, which begins thus : " It has been faid by *' learned men, upon the authority of a paf- " fage in Cicero (de Nat. Deor, 1. i. c* 42.) " that the opinion of Euhemerus was gene- " rally regarded by the Heathens as Atheifm, " or at leaft as great impiety. Were this *' true, the moft that it would prove, is, that *' the Heathen gods were not regarded as ** dead men by their worfhippers, though " they were really fuch '*." This, he will be pleafed to obferve, is enough for our purpofe. We care not what the Heathen gods really were, fince our prefent bufinefs is only with what they i^^ere thought to he by their wor- fhippers •, for this is the rule according to which we muft underftand the ancient Greek writers H:oncerning their deities : although we do affirm, by the way, that the Heathens would never allow thofe gods to have been men which Euhemerus was pleafed to repre- fent as fuch, and that the truth of this cir- cumflance doth by no means reft upon the fole autliority of a pafiage in Cicero. Our- *• On Mir. p. 195. Note ». author. t 8? ] author, after contefling that Plutarch alfo, In his Ifis and Oftris, cenlures the dodrine of Euhemerus as produclive of Atheifm, adds the following remark : " Neverthelefs, from " this treatife it appears that the Egyptian " priefts acknowledged that Ofiris and the " other gods of Egypt had been men *." It appears fomewhat aftonifhing, that a perfon of learning could make fuch an affertion as this. Plutarch was very careful never to attribute this opinion to the Egyptian priefts, who were well known to difavow all religious honours to deceafcd heroes. But thele things are not worthy of further notice. Our author pro- ceeds in his text to obferve concerning Euhemerus, that " thofe who cenfured were " not able to confute the fubftance of his " fyftem f-" We cannot tell what is meant by the fubftance of his fyftem. It is very evident from fadl:s, that his reprefentation of the gods was not the belief of the Heathen world. *' Euhe- merus of Meflina," fakh Plutarch, " con- trived out of his own brain an imaginary and incredible mythology, by which he filled the world with every kind cf Atheifm, defcribing the gods under the ftile of gene- rals, fea captains, and kings. He makes them indeed to have lived in times very • On Mir. p. 195. f ^^' P- '95» '9^* G 2 '' remote [ H ] " remote and ancient, and reprefents their " adions as recorded in golden charadters, in '* a certain country called Panchoa j which '' yet no one, either Barbarian or Greek, " ever faw, Euhemerus excepted : he, in- " deed failed to the land of the Panchoas and '* Tryphilians, Wiho neither have nor ever " had any exiftence.'* Here then we fee that the fubflance of his fyftem had nothing for its fupport, but fuch things as were never heard of before, nor ever known to exifb, either at the time in which he wrote or fmce. But fays our author in the note, " I admit, however, that the dodrine " of Euhemerus might even in the opinion *'• of the vulgar Heathens, be very liable to " the cenfure of impiety •, and certainly was *' liable to this cenfure, if he maintained " (as poflibly he did, or might be thoiight to " maintain) that the Heathen gods were fnei'e *'" men, not advanced to a deified ftate •, or '* that the Heathens had no other gods but " thefe. In this view he might well pafs for. *' an Atheift <=." This is a curious circum- llance-, our author alledges the authority of Euhemerus in fupport of his argument, and aflfures us, that thofe who cenfured were not able to confute the fubftance of his fyllem •, " On Mir. p. 195. Note s. 2 y.t [ 85 ] yet he gives us to underftand, that himfelf could not certainly tell what the fyftem of Euhemerus was, and that it is very probable his doftrine was confidered as impious even by the vulgar. Can there then be a more decifive evidence than this is, that even the vulgar among the Heathens did not look upon their gods as reprefented by Euhemerus ? " I *'* cannot but extol the wifdom of the Bar- " barians," fays a learned hiftorian, " fince " none of them ever fell into a contempt of "the gods. No one, neither Indian, nor " Celt, nor Egyptian, ever thought of fuch " an opinion as was entertained by Euhe- " merus of McfTma, Dionyfius the Phrygian, " or Hippo, or Diagoras, Sofias, or Epi- " curus. But all thofe Barbarians whom I " have now mentioned, aflert that there are " gods who attend to the welfare of man- " kind ■*." This teftimony of iElian is re- markable and decifive. It would, be abfurd, therefore, to look upon the facred writers as ufing the word dsemon in reference to the peculiar notions of Euhemerus, or other atheiftical Greeks, rather than according to the common and received opinion of almoft the whole world. «• iElian. Var. Hlft. Lib. II. cap. xxxi. G 3 § 2. The [ 86 ] § 2. The judgment and authority of the divine Hippocrates, as he is called, are very often alledged as of great weight againil the common notion of demons and poflefTions. *' We are indeed," fays Mr, Farmer, " ex- " prefsly informed by Hippocrates, that the " Greeks referred poffeflion to their gods, *' particularly the mother of the gods, Nep- " tune. Mars, Apollo, Hecate, and the " Heroes, who were all human fpirits'^." In An Twer to this and fome other paifages, where- in the name of Hippocrates is urged, we fhall briefly flate his opinion concerning this mat- ter. " That difeafe," (lays he in the begin- ning of his treatife on the Epilepfy) " which *' is called (acred, appears to me to have in " it nothing more facred or divine than other diftempers, for they all feem to arife from *' one common fource. Men indeed, through " inexperience and adm.iration, have afligned to this complaint a divine caufe, fince it *' bears no refemblance to other diforders ; *' thus what they cannot underlland they *' foolifhly fuppofe to arife from fome divi- " nity, and then rafhly undertake a cure by *' expiations and charms. Bur if this difeafe ^^ fliould be confidcred as divine, becaufe ' On Dem. p. 25, " there [ 87 3 there is in it fomething worthy of admira- tion, for the fame reafon alfo, there will be many fiicred difeafes in themfelves not lefs " wonderful, which yet no one has hitherto confidered as divine. Thofe men,'* fays he, " who pretend to cure this diforder, talk " much of the Deity and the Divinity ; but their difcourfe hath in it the appearance of impiety, as if the gods did not really exift, " or as if the power of the Divinity could " be overcome and reduced into fubjedion " by human counfel ^" Then follows an account of the feveral deities to which each diftin6l appearance cf the epilepfy was attri- buted. But Hippocrates doch not once inti- mate, that the mother of the gods, Neptune, Mars, A polio, and Hecate, were human fpi- rits ; on the contrary, he diitinguifbeth ail thefe from Heroes -, and fo far is the father of medicine from denying the power of the gods here mentioned, over the liuman body, that to their influence he afcribeth thofe dreams from which he drew certain indications of health or approaching ficknels ; and, at the ciofc of each prefcription he recommends prayer to the gods, the fun, celeftial Jove, the Ctcfian Jove, the Ctefian Minerva, and ^ Hippo, de Morb. Sacr. G 4 Apollo, [ 88 ] Apollo, for fuch blcfTings as were wanted ; to the Averruncian Gods, to the Earth, and Mer- cury, and to the Heroes, for the averting of fuch evils as might be feared *. In another little treatife, he faith, " It is my opinion that what " we call Heat is immortal, and underftandeth " all things, feeth, heareth, and perceiveth " all things, whether prefent or future*.'* There is nothing in Hippocrates that contra- di6ts the received opinion of the Greeks, with refped to the nature of their gods. He is indeed, concerning many things, of a dif- ferent mind from the infpired writers, but this is no proof that they are wrong. § 3. Mr. Farmer, after fome heavy charges of ignorance and prejudice againft the advo- cates of real pofieffions, introduceth the fol- lowing paflagc: " On the other hand, thofe '* perfons whofe minds were not difturbed by *' fuperttitious terrors, and who gained an ** infight into nature, pronounced what com- " monly pafled for demoniacal pofieflions, to *' be mere natural diforders. This was the *' cafe, not only with the Sadducees and Epi- " cureans, but alfo with the Peripatetics, « De Infoinn. ^ De Carn. vel Princlp. ** Ariftotle, [ 89 ] " Ariflotle, who was the founder of their *' fed, and who is juftly ftyled the prince of " the philofophers, denied the exiftence of " demons •, and maintained, that what is " called poffeflion is the efFed of melancho- " ly *." " Not only the Sadducees and Epi- " cureans," but !— doubtlefs they were very great men ! Now, the Sadducees denied the immortality of the foul, the exiftence of fpirits, and a future ftate; acordingly, their opinion as to dasmoniacal pofTeflions can be of no weight with thofe who believe the exiftence of angels both good and evil. The creed of this Jewifli fed is defcribed with equal clearnefs and brevity by a facred penman ^. The Epicureans, together with fuperfti- tious terrors, ftiook off religion of every kind, and wholly excluded the divine nature from the government of the world; for which rea- fon their opinion cannot be admitted as an evidence in this matter, becaufe it takes every thing for granted which is at prefent in dif- pute : Neither can it be allowed, that they were ever remarkable for gaining an infight into nature ; by no means ; for in this refped they were not to be compared with the advo- cates of theifm, morality^ and religion. It is •» Dein. p. 155. '^ Ails xxiii. 8, a real [ 90 ] a real injury to the charader of the prince of philofophers to be found numbered with fuch men. But Ariftotle, it feems, de- nied the exiftence of daemons, and we are afilired that all the Heathen gods were daemons ; it mufl: therefore follow, if this account be true, that Ariftotle was an Atheift ; which circumftance would naturally overthrow the validity of his evidence alfo in the pre- fent cafe. If it be faid, that fuch an infe- rence was not intended, we fliall be forced to conclude, that the daemons, whofe exiftence Ariftotle denied, were not the common ob- jects of worftiip throughout Greece, and therefore not thole paticular deities to whom our author fays pojGTcfiions were ufually af- cribed. It hath been fufpeded by fome learned men, that Ariftotle did not believe in thole lower daemon gods which were generally received in that age ; but thus much is certain, that he acknowledged an higher kind of deities, many in number, though all created. Such he con- fidered thole intelligent natures which were thought to rule in the heavenly bodies ; and frequently ufes the word 'J'heos and DaimoniGn for a god, as well as for the fupreme deity. So that neither his application of this difputed term, nor his general opinion concerning invi- fible [ 9' ] lible agents, will afford any real advantage to that caufe, for the lake of which his autho- rity has been introduced. And, befides, if Ariftotle denied that there v/ere diemons, he muft of confequence either deny the cxift- cnce of human fouls after death, or elfe he muft confider the phrafe dcemons in this cafe as applied to an order of beings different from men ; but if he never denied the exiftence of our fouls after death, then his difbelief of demons is a full proof, that they were con- fidered by others as a different kind of be- ings from departed human fpirits. The tei^ii- mony of Ariftotle therefore is clearly in fa- vour of the common opinions concerning xi^mons. § 4. "I lliall now," fays our author, " affign thofe realons which induce me to *' think that by demons we are to under- " ftand beings of an earthly origin, or fuch " departed human fouls as were believed to *' become demons ^*' And then he proceeds to give his firft and chief reafon in the fol- lowing manner : *' Hcfiod, and many otiicr " poets who have recorded the ancient liif- '' tory or traditions on which the public faith ^ farm, on Mir. p. 183, 184. " and f 92 ] ** and worfhip were founded, aflert that the men of the golden age, who were fuppofed ** to be very good, became demons after *' death, and difpenfers of good things to *' mankind." It might have been worth his while to have enquired, what Hefiod meant by the golden age, and the men of that age ? Whether the poet confidered himfelf as defcrib- ing creatures of our own kind, from whom the Greeks and other nations defcendcd, or a race of beings who never had any pofterity ? How- ever, he thus goes on ; " This account of demons is fully confirmed by the other writings of the ancient Heathens. Many palTages have been produced by fcveral learned moderns, in which demons muft have the fame meaning as in Hefiod." The firft ancient writer mentioned in fup- port of this opinion is Celfus, who wrote above an hundred and twenty years after the birth of Chrift. The modern authors here alluded to are Jofeph Mede and Dr. Sykes ; from the former of whom, as his name and authority are fo often alledged on this fubjed:, we Iliall feled the following remark : " But " befides thefe dcemons and canonized mor- ** tals, their theologifts bring in another kind *' of dasmons, more high and fublime, wh-ich *' never had been the fouls of men, nor ever were '' linked [ 93 ] ''^ Tirnked to a mortal body, but were from the " beginning, or without beginning, always *' the fame : This fort of demons doth fitly " anfwer, and parallel that kind of fpiritual " powers which we call angels, as the for- " mer of foul-demons doth thofe which with " us are called faints ""." ^ 5. The ancient Greek writers make the creation of dcemons a part of their cofmo- gonies, or defcriptions of the origin of the world. Thus PlaBo in his Timseus : " When " therefore all the gods who vifibly move " round, and thofe who appear as often as " they pleafe, were created, he that produced " the whole fpake to them after this manner : *' Ye gods of gods, whofe maker and father " I am, now attend to what I enjoin: Three *' different orders of creatures are yet to be *' made, without which the heavens would *' be imperfed." He then appoints their Ihare in this bufmefs, but referves for himfelf the communication of what is immortal and divine; the confequence of which work was, the exig- ence of feveral minds equal in number to the (tars, a mind for every Itar. After this, he committcth to thofe generated gods the for- " Mode's Apoft. of LattcrTimes. mation I 94 ] mation of man. The learned Blackwell makeS the following remark on that part of the Ti- mseus : " Whether Plato drew his dodtrine " concerning thefe inferior gods^ intelligences " animating the fun, moon, and planets, im- *' mediately from Chaldea (where they had *' them ranged into *' thrones ^ Dominions^Princedoms^ Virtues^ Powers^ cc and confidered them as attributes and ema- " nations of the fupr erne being) or whether it " was traced back from the firft ideas of his *' national religion to their eaftern fource, is " at prefent of little importance ".'* Plato afterwards call thofe beings which ap- pear and difappear as often as they pleafe, *^^ junior gods y'* whofe office it was to prefide over human things, and to govern the mor- tal animal, man, in fuch a manner as was moll equitable and juft-, and in the above 'quotation he fpeaks of their origin as fub- fequent to that of the gods, who vifthly move round, and as prior even to the creation of thofe minds which were thought to animate the ftars. But that paflage of Timasus Lo- crus to which he there alludes, is ftill more ''Letters on Mythol. p. 403. full [ 95 ] full and cxprefs. " All thefe Nemefis or- *' dered to be executed under the manage- *' nient of d^tmons, vindidive and terreftrial *' overfeers of human things, to whom God, *' the fuprerae ruler, committed the govern- " ment of the world, which is made up of " gods and men, and other living crea« " tures." § 6. There is nothing in Hefiod that con* tradicts the above account of Tim-£Eus and Plato, as will appear evident on examination : *' The gods, the inhabitants of the celeftial " manfions, made at firft a golden (that is " an excellent) kind of men. Thefe were under " Saturn when he reigned in heaven j they lived " as gods, free from care, from labour, and " grief ; neither did they feel the eftcdls of " age •, always the fame, they enjoyed a hap- " py life without any evil : their death was " a fweet ileep, and being covered in the " earth they became benevolent dsemons, " guardians of mortal m,en : and thus " girt in robes of air, and moving through " the world, they mark our good and evil *' adions, and diitribute wealth ; for they " have obtained fuch royal dignity °." This exalted kind of beings was it feems made » Hefiod. Oper. & Dier. 5 and t 96 ] and afterwards invefted with airy vehicles In the reign of Saturn, that is, during the pe- riod of creation, before the different parts of the univerfe, according to Hefiod's own ac- count of the matter, were completely framed and adjufted. For his firft age, as defcribed in his Works and DaySy is comprehended in his 'Theogony, or generation of the gods, and was finiftied before the more fettled ftate of the world under Jove, and of confequence before the creation of our own kind : having defcribed them in that poem, they are not fo particularly mentioned in his Theogony. According to the ancient theology of the Greeks, the different parts of nature, during the rife of the world, were perpetually chang- ing, and every alteration in the ftate of bo- dies fuppofed a change alfo in the condition of fuch intelligences as were thought to be connefted with them -, for in their fyftem al- moft every thing was indued with life, per- ception, and reafoning. This golden kind of men therefore is reprefented as not continuing long in their original ftate, but as quickly pafiing from thofe heavier bodies with which they were at firft united into airy vehicles. They are not confidered by the poets as born, nor is any offspring ever afcribed to them : they are always mentioned as of an earlier origin [ 97 ] origin than the human fpecies ; and their na- ture was thought to be as much fuperior to ours, as gold is more valuable than iron. In this lenfe Hefiod was underftood by the Greeks, as is obvious from that remark of Plutarch's, which he gives as the received opinion : " Hefiod,'' fays he, " was the firft *' who did properly and diftindly lay down *' four rational natures (that is created na- tures) the gods, the daemons, many in number, and good in their kind, the demi- gods, and men ; for heroes are reckoned " among the demi-gods.^" And this author obferves, in another place of the fame treatife, that the moft ancient writers diftinguifhed be- tween the nature of daemons and that of he- roes. Neither Timaeus nor Plato advanced any thing different from the poet ; their re- prefentations agree in every capital circum- ftance. The philofophers teach us, that be- fore the creation of our own kind, there were gods derived from gods, flyled junior and demons, to whom the fuprcme Ruler com- mitted the management of the world, and the government of mortal men. The poet fays, " that while Saturn reigned in heaven, the *' gods made a golden kind of beings, which ^ De Defta, Orac. H " became C 98 ] *' became daemons, and obtained a royal digr* " nity, as the guardians of men and thediftri- " butors of wealth :" and Plato calls them, ** rulers together with the greateft God." § 7. As a further explanation of what hath been advanced, we Ihall add a few remarks upon an obfervation of Socrates, taken from his defence as given by Plato. He reprefents the general and avowed opinion concerning daemons at that time, under two different no- tions, according to either of which he vin- dicates himfelf. " Is it poflible," fays he, *' for any one to affirm, that there are dsmo- *' niacal works but no daemons ? And do we " not fuppofe, that thefe daemons are either *' gods, or fons of gods from the nymphs or " others * ?" Now, " the nymphs" were a part of the cofmogony or creation of the world, and their original was connedled with the bef^inning of fountains and rivers. Das- mons were faid to be " fons of gods from the " nymphs," becaufe thofe who affigned them vehicles, fuppofed their thin airy bodies to be the contrivance and work of the primary gods refiding in the elements. And that this was their real meaning when they called them- " fons 1 Apolo. in Pla. " of [ 99 ] ' of gods," appears evident from Ariftotle's remark upon this very pafiage, which he con- fiders as a decifive argument againft the op- ponents of Socrates, drawn from their own definition of his crime : " As for inftance,'* fays he, " a d^mon is either a god, or the " work of a god ; now he who fuppofeth that " there is the work of a god, muft alfo fiip- " pofe that there are gods '." To be the " off- '* fpring of a god,'* and the " work of a god,'* were, it feems, with the ancient Greeks, very often terms of the fame import, when ap- plied to intelligent natures. § 8. Many of the ancient Greeks believed, that there were two kinds of daemons; the one holy and beneficent, the other impure and injurious. Hence they afcribed to tlie in- fluence of evil daemons fuch circumflances and events as they thought inconfiftent with the temper and agency of good and friendly fpiritSj while at the fame time they confidered thefe alfo as fuperior to the nature of man. This opinion Plutarch calls, " a dodlrine or tra- *^' dition from very ancient men \" Thofe things which are related of Typhon, Ifis, and Ofiris, were thought by great numbers, ' RKct. lib, ii. cap. 24. • Plut. de Dign. H 2 to [ loo ] to be the tranfaftions neither of gods nor yet of men^ but of fome great demons whom Plato, Pythagoras, Xenocrates,and Chryfippus, followin-g the moft ancient theologifts^ affirm to be of " far greater flrength than men, and ^' very much to furpafs our nature in power*,'* Xenocrates was alfo of opinion, " that there *' were in the air which furrounds us, certain, *' great and powerful natures, furly and malig- *' nant, who rejoice in fuch things as the obfer- '' vance of unlucky days, fcourgings, faftings, " morofe language, and obfcene fpeeches "." There was another kind of intelligent beings, fometimes called evil, not on account of a vi- cious temper fuppofed to be in them, but as the minifters of divine vengeance upon the wicked. Such were the infernal dgemons, the dreadful gods, whofe office was thought to be very exten- live in the government of the world. Different orders of rational beings, accord- ino- to the Grecian fyftem, arofe from the ori- ginal conftitution of things ; that the feveral parts of the univerfe might be filled with pro- per inhabitants, and that there might be both- an intimate connexion,, and a juft fubordina- tion, throughout the various kinds of intelli- gent nature. " In each diftind part of the t De Ifid «f OfiP. » Ibid. " world," [ lOi ] *' world," fays one of the oldeft of the Greek writers, " there is placed a kind of beings more excellent than the reft j as for in- ilance, in heaven the gods, on earth men, *' in the fublime fpace between dsemons * :'* and thcfe were confidered as the immediate agents in the government of the world ; info- much that this opinion was thought to be \n- feparable from the belief of a divine provi- dence, Ovid alfo, in his account of the rife of the world, follows the fame doftrine, and fills the upper regions with intelligent beings, before he fpeaks of the creation of man ^. § 9. The phrafe damon comes from a word which fignifieth knowledge or difcermneniy and always retains fomething of this idea, where- cver found. It was ufed by the Greeks as a general term, and applied without fcruple to every intelligent nature, as will appear from the examples here given. The primary gods, whofe exiftence was confidered as prior to the creation of man, and whofe original is al- ways coonected with the formation of the earth, the elements, and the heavenly bodies, are frequently ftyled demons by the ancient • Ocel. Luc. • Ovid. Met. lib. i. ver, 72. Neu regio forct — H 3 Greek [ I02 ] Greek writers, but more efpecially in Homer ', who, as Plutarch well obferves, indifferently iifeth thefe two words, fometimes calling the gods dsemons, and the daemons gods ^ j and, indeed he applies both terms, in the fame fentence, to one deity *. But the moft com- mon ufe of this phrafe was, to denote that middle rank of beings whofe nature and office in the government of the world we have now pointed out. The word damon was rarely applied to the hero-gods, who had once been men like ourfdves ; the reafon for it may be gathered from the foregoing remark of Plutarch, " That the heroes are reckoned *' not among the dsemons, but among the demi-gods." This term was ufed in a very general and extenfive fenfe, as comprehending every thing that relateth to the government and direftion of intelligent natures. Hence the word daemon, in the " Golden Verfes," feems to be put for that reafon or courfe of life which is attended with happinefs, and which can only be difcovered by an energy of mind. ** Father Jove, it would releafe all from " many evils, if thou wouldeft fhew to all ■* Iliad i. ver. 222 : As well as all the profe writers. y De Orac. * Iliad ivii. ver. 98. ** what [ 10.^ ] *' what dccmon^ or plan of life they fhould ** ufe '." It is alfo frequently applied to any particular event of Providence, as including the idea of fome invifible power, through which fuch things are brought to pafs. As for example, " There are many who purfue very ' weak and unpromifmg meafures, but by a ' good daemon, what appeareth to be dangerous ' in itfelf, terminates well : there are others, ' who z6t according to the beft advice, and ' yet through an adverfe d^mon, the end by ' no means agrees with what had been ex- ' peded ^" This term is very often put for that divine Providence by which all things in the world are regulated, and comprehends the united influence both of gods and daemons, to whom the government of the univerie, according to the Grecian fyftem, was originally committed. This will appear by comparing the following quotations ; the two firft from the fame author. *' Providence (d^mon) gives riches to the " worfl of men. Neither good nor evil hap- " peneth unto men without the gods. No " one is either rich or poor, good or evil, " without Providence (d^mon) '." Arifto- * Aur. Car. * Theogn. Gnom. ver. 162. Aifo Iliad viii. ver. 166. * Theogn. Gn. ver. 150. 172. 165. H 4 tic. [ 104 ] tie, in order to fliew that a gift is not always a proof of affedion, makes ufe of feme pro- verbial verfes : " Whence," fays he, " that common faying, the dcemon, or divine Pro- *' vidence, bellows on numbers the higheft *' profperity, not through kindnefs, but that they may receive a more fignal over- !' throw ^?" This term is fo often applied to the fupreme God, by all kinds of writers, that quotations ■would be endlefs. Xenophon calls him the d^mon^ who is able to difcern and regu- " late all things, both at hand and at the " greateft diftance, in the fame moment, and *' with the utmoft care \ and who Ihews hiin- " felf to be unv/earied, perfed, incorrupti- ** ble, adminiftring quicker than thought, *' and without error '.'* Whether this be a proof, that " the fupreme deity of the Pagans " had once been a mortal man','* we leave our readers to judge. Now, fmce the ancient Greeks have applied the word " daemon" to all ranks of intelligent and invifible beings, both good and evil, it •• Rhet, lib, il. cap. :fxiv. Caefar copied this faying, De bel. Gal. lib. i. See alfo ^lian. Hilt. Var.lib. vi. cap. xiii. « Memor. lib. i. cap. iv, lib. iv. cap. iii. ^ Farm, on Mir. p. 176, I mud t .05 ] muft be allowed, as a natural confeqnencc from the general and extenfive ufe of this term, that the apoftles might, on the fubje(5t of poffclTions, apply it to wicked and malig- nant fpirits, without intending either tlie fouls of departed men, or the immediate objeds of Pagan idolatry ; and fmce they themfelves have defined a pofTefling dasmon to be an evil fpirit, without affixing to it either of thefe ideas, we have no right whatever to affert, that fuch was their meaning. We might as well affirm, that Bucephalus, becaufe a quadruped, was therefore really an ox, or that a fnail and a ferpent are the fame thing, becaufe they both creep. § ID. *' The light of nature," fays Mr. Far- mer, " difcovers not the exiflence of fallen " angels, much lefs doth it furnifh certain " evidence of their power to take poffefTion *' of mankind, in the manner explained " above *." This is a point which we are by no means inclined to difpure. Now, the Heathens have aflerted the exiftence of fallen dasmons, who were faid to be driven out of heaven by the offended Deity, and to be the caufe of frequent evils to mankind. " Such " like are thole daemons whom Empedocles « On Dem. p. 151. " thus C 106 1 '^ thus reprefents, as baniihed of God, fallen " from heaven, hurled by an aetherial force " into the fea, thrown out by the fea to the '■ land, and by the earth again to the un- " wearied fun, who calls them down into the " whirling and reftlefs air "." Thefe things are exprefsly mentioned, as the punifhment which they undergo for their evil and wicked deeds. Pherecydes, a writer of (till greater antiquity than the former, has recorded, *' That there was war at the commencement " of the world, under Saturn on the one fide, " and Ophioneus on the other; that the *' vanquillied party was caft out into the *' ocean , that God, finding matter vicioufly *- difpofed from the beginning, bound it " together by certain laws, and adorned it ; *' and that he caft down fuch hurtful daemons *' as were about it, into a ftate of punilh- *' ment *." Nor muft that fingular tefti- mony concerning our own kind be omitted. " Man revolteth and falleth from his happy '• ftate, as faith Empedocles, the Pythago- *' rean, being a fugitive from God, and a «> Plut. de Vitan. ^reali. Alfo de Ifid. * Origen. contr. Celf. lib. vi. See alfo Spencer. Annot. in lib. vi. The fame fable is in Horn. Iliad, xy. yer. 18. Add alfo J)i, Clarke's notc> " wanderer. [ 107 ] ^- wanderer, relying on mad contention ^.'* Thefe opinions were delivered, under various forms, among the ancient Greeks. Now, whence had the Pagans fuch ideas ? Not from the " light of nature," as we have already heard. The knowledge, then, of fuch things, mull have been derived from an higher fource; and conveyed to the Heathens by means of ancient traditions, handed down through the pofterity of Noah, and preferved more or lefs among all nations ; agreeably with which, aifo, they conftantly fpeak of the world as formed out of a watry chaos. It is not pof- fible that they Ihould have been fo unanimous in alTerting what was done before the exiftence of mankind, unlefs there had been fome tradi- tion or account of things, which was confider- ed as of divine authority. And indeed they all agree, as with one voice, that the know- ledge of thefe matters was received by tradi- tion from the mod ancient times ; no one ever pretends to call the tale his own. We have no reafon to fuppofe, that the in- fpired writers borrowed their ideas of invifible beings from the ancient Greeks ; fince it rather appears that the Heathens derived their opinions concerning this fubjed, from the * Hier. in Aur. Pythag. Car. obfcured t 108 ] obfcured remains of the earlicfl: traditions and iirft revelations of God to mankind. Tiie re- mark of Origen on this occafion is pertinent j " That the writings of Mofes, which are " much more ancient than either Heraclitus, ** or Pherecydes, or Homer, make mention " of that evil being who fell from heaven ; " and that the ferpenr, from whom Pherecy- *' des denominates one of his chiefs in the " firft war, deceiving the woman with the *' hope of divinity and a better ftate, by her *' feduced the firft man into that crime, on ** account of which he was caft out of Para- *' dife." However, it is evident, that the Heathens, as well as the facred writers, do aflert the exiftence of intelligent beings, both good and evil, far fuperior to the nature of man *, and that the holy fcriptures do often reprefent thofe beings as employed in the ad- miniftration of divine Providence. But, when the Pagans fpeak of thofe fpirits as " rulers *' together with the fupreme God, and objeds *' of divine worlhip," they change the truth of God into a lie, and reverence the creature more than the Creator. " When God deals *' with men by the miniftry of angels, it is " not to be underftood that angels or ' " daemons are necejfary for this communica^^ " tion. [ 109 ] tion, as Plato and other Heathens pretend ; God employs them for reafons into which philolbphy can never penetrate, and which " can never be perfedly known but by him- " felf \» § II. " The authors of the Septuagint," as we are informed, " were not unacquainted with the Greek learning. They could *' not therefore be ignorant, that the Hea- *' thens did not acknowledge any created fpi- **• rits ; or at leaft, that according to their efta- blifhed fyftem of theology, the world and every thing in it was either eternal or be- " goten, not created ".** What our author's real defign was in giving fuch a turn to a me- taphorical expreflion, we cannot tell, nor Ihall we conjeflure. Mofes himfelf, when he de- fcribes the beginning of the world, ufes the proper term for parturition, or the bringing forth of young, and fays, " thefe are the " generations or births of the heavens and the " earth °.*' This was fpoken in reference to the incubation of the holy fpirit upon the furface of the waters, from whom was communicated a quickening and prolifick virtue, diffufing « Hift. of Orac. * Far. on Mir. p. 198, 199, 2oo« <• Gen. n. 4. the [ no ] the feeds of life through the whole •, by whicH means the waters and the earth brought forth creatures of every kind in abundance, at the command of God. And, on the formation of man, *' God breathed into his noftrils the breath "of life, and man became aliving foul*." Mofes in another place adopts the fame kind of lan- guage, and fays, " Before the mountains were " brought forth, or born f;" more inftances might be given were it needful. Now, would it not be ridiculous to affirm, that Mofes doth not acknowledge created heavens, and earthy and mountains, but that, according to his fyftem of theology, " the world, and every thing in it, " was either eternal or begotten, not created," lince he even fpeaks of every kind of animals as brought forth or produced ? But, this writer proceeds and afks, " Did " not the authors of the Septuagint verfion " know (what all the world knew) that the " Heathen gods had once been men .?" To which we anfwer, that the authors of the Sep- tuagint verfion could not but know what all the world knew, that the Heathen gods had never been men. But, lie goes on, " Shall it *' be taken for granted, that in open contra- " diction to the infpired writers, and in de> " fiance of their own inward co'hvidions, • Gen. II. 7. t Pfalra, xc; 2. they C( t "I ] ** they were capable of affirming that all the " Heathen gods were of a different origin " from mankind ? Such a degree of extrava- " gance and wickednefs ought not to be " charged upon any writers without theftrong- '* eft proofs." This writer is fo full of zeal for the holy fcriptures, that he feems to have forgotten the queftion in-difpute, which is not, whether thofe tranflators confidered all the Heathen gods as of a different origin from man- kind, but whether they believed all the Hea- then gods to have once been men ? This is the point to be proved, which is not even at- tempted; and yet, from this very paffage, he in- fers their application of the word daemons to deceafed perfons, with as much confidence as if he had demonftrated, that they never be- lieved the Heathens to have any other gods than men. ** For thefe reafons," fays he, " it ap- *' pears to me moft probable, that they ufed *' the word to exprefs fuch human fpirits as " became daemons. And I am confirmed in " this opinion, by attending to the particular " occafions on which they ufe it." What is it that may not be proved with fuch kind of reafoning ? That they never affirmed all the Heathen gods to have been of a different origin from mankind, is furely no folid evidence that they all had once been men. The infinuation therefore. c 112 i therefore of " open contradidlion to the infpired " writers," and of " extravagance and wick- " ednefs" in the fvippofition, might, all things confidered, have been as well fpared, left fuch expreffions fhould be thought of afterwards ; and befides, language of this kind will never fupply the want of argument. So much hath been faid of the " Septuagint verfion" in the foregoing chapter, that we think it unnecef- fary to add any thing further in this place. §. 12. Mr. Farmer's fecond propofition in his " Eflay on Demoniacs," is as follows : " By " demons, whenever the word occurs in re- *' ference to poflefllons, either in the fcrip- *' tures, or other ancient writings, we are to un* *' derftand, not fallen angels, but the Pagan *' deities, fuch of them as had once been " men *." We looked upon this language as fufficiently expreflive of our author's inten- tion, and confidered the reafoning which is fubjoined, as an attempt to fupport this and no other propofition; for it is there aiHrmed, that the Greeks referred poffeflions to their gods ; but in his letters to Dr. Worthington, he changes his terms, and ftates the matter in a different light. " What," fays he, " the • Page 21. " author [ i'3 ] '* author of the " ElTay '* undertook to prove " was this, that the poffefiing demons fpoken *' of in the New Teltanient were the deities " of the Heathens, or fuch human fplrits as " after the difiblution of their bodies, were *' fuppofed to be converted into demons **.** So then, the writer of the " Effay " tells us in very exprcfs language, that " by demons we are to '' underftand the PAGAN DEITIES, fucho'f " them as had once been men •,'* and the ar- gument of that book, as might be expeded, turns upon the impotence of the Heathen gods to do either good or evil. But, in his next publication, he gravely afTures us, and marks it out as if a quotation from his own words, that " the author of the Eflay undertook to prove, that by demons we are to under- " (land the Heathen deities, or fuch human [pi* rits as after death were thought to be con- "jerted into demons ;" accordingly, the ar- gument here turns chiefly upon this fuppo- fition, that, in the opinion of ancient philofo- phers, the fouls of good men became good dae- mons, and thofe of wicked men became wicked demons '. Leaving our readers to make what remarks they pleafe en the faft now before them, ? P. 34. ^ Ibid. p. j». I wc t 11+ 1 we pafs on to fome di{lin(5lions which naturally arife out of this new ftate of the queftion, and which are ufed as a cover for many things in the ** Eflay." Our author thus exprelTeth himfelf to Dr. Worthington, " In another " place you flill more grofsly mifreprefent " me, as maintaining that demons were al- ways taken to fignify departed fouls, I ne- *' ver faid this of any but pojfejfmg demons '.'* No ? Never " of any but poUeffing daemons ? '* You tell us repeatedly, that, when the authors of the Septuagint verfion fay all the Heathen gods are demons, they mean by the word dead men. You afiert again and again, that, all the gods of the Heathens were dead men •, nay, you repeat the aflertion, two pages afterwards, in the very fame letter, and call it " the de- *' claration of Scripture-," and youalfo fay, that *' the application of the term demon to the ** fupreme god of the Pagans is, perhaps, one " proof, among others, that he had been amor* " tal man-," and, yet now, when you are repre- fented as maintaining that diemons were always taken to fignify departed fouls, you anfwer, " I *' never faid this of any h\ii -pojfejjing demons." Be it fo •, you have told us, that, all the gods of the Heathens were fuch d;£mons as had been ^ tetter to Worth, p. 32. men ; f .<5 J iTien; you muft therefore be underflood as affirming, that, all the gods of the Heathens, together with their fupreme Numen, were pof~ fejftng demons. We therefore afk, what were thofe dasmons which the Pagans thought to be neither gods nor deceafed men j and whe- ther they were of a nature fuperior to all their gods, even their fupreme deity, or of a rank inferior even to the human kind ? This gentleman fhould have been explicit, and havehoneftly faid, without equivocation, whe- therj by pofTefling daemons, we are to under- ftand, according to his "Efiay," "the PAGAN " DEITIES, fuch of them as had once been " men,"or accordingto his Letters, "y?/<:/:'/^^«M« ^^ fpirits as were converted into daemons after *' death.'' If he means to confine his readers to the latter ideas, then we alfo aflc. What have the Heathen gods to do with the fubje6t •, and what are his proofs that fuch was the intention of the apoftles ? For, all the arguments which he hath yet offered, to fhew, that poffeffing de- mons were deceafed men reft upon the fuppofed nature and character of the Heathen deities. But, if this neuj ftate of the quellion be de- figned to fliew, that, poiTefiing da^trions were partly Heathen deities, and partly fuch hu- man fpirits as were converted into da:mons after death, then let it be Ihewn, where we I 2 muft [ ii6 ] mufl draw the line ; what gods are to be exempted ; which included ; what are the evidences that fuch was the meaning of the facred writers •, and by what rules we may know, when their language is to be afcribed to the Pagan deities, and when their terms are to be referred to fuch human fpirits as were con- verted into daemons after death ? § 13. Dr. Worthington fays, and,, with great truths " That according to the do6lrine " of the EfTay, the twelve greater gods, vul- " garly fuppofed to have been deified mortals, *' were pofTefiing demons, but thefe in " Plato's eftimation exiiled from all eternity." To this Mr. Farmer anfwers : " Your argu- ment proceeds on tv/o fuppofitions, highly '* extravagant. It fuppofes, that, becaufe pof- " fefling demons were confidered by the Hea- " thens as deified men, therefore alf deified " men were polTeiring demons : and it further " fuppofes, that, we are to form our judgment " of the twelve greater gods, by the fpecu- *' lations of a philofopher who rejeded the ** common opinion concerning them, merely '* becaufe he deemed it abfurd, rather than " by the whole current of Heathen anti- '* quity, and the declarations of Scripture, " which reprefent all the Heathen gods as " deaci [ 117 ] ^ dead men'." We cannot find any thing ** ex- ** travagant" on this occafion, nnlefs it be our author's own condudt, who iincandidly cen- fures another for fuppofing him to maintain that all dei.^ed men were poflefling daemons, although himfelf aflerts the very idea while he pafles the cenfure. However, we do repeat it, after Dr. Worthington, not as a " fuppofition'* but as a fa(5t, that *' the twelve greater gods," whom both poets and philofophcrs reprefent as eternal, " were, according to the dodrine of *' the Eflay, pojjejfing demons j" and we are not a little furprifed, that, this writer Ihould attempt to deny, that, he ever faid or fuppo- ied what he hath fo often aflerted under va- rious forms. It would be in vain to reafon any further concerning this matter, we Ihall therefore briefly ftate a few fails, and leave 'others to judge. Notwithftanding the affirmations of this gentleman, in the paflage before us, himfelf well knows, that, neither " the id^ok current " of Heathen antiquity, nor any declaration " of Scripture," ever " reprefented all the *' Heathen gods as dead men :" himfelf owns, that, " the facred writers knew that the Pagans ^ believed in fidercal and elementary deities j" * Lett, to Worthing, p. 35. I 3 himfelf [ lis ] himfelf informs us, that, " Sanchoniathon repre- " fentsthe moft ancient nations, particularly the " Phenicians and Egyptians, as acknowledging *' only the natural gods, the fun, moon, planets, " and elements •," nay, without any mark of dif- approbation, himfelf alfo quotes the opinion of Plato, as declaring " that the firfl Grecians " likewife held thefi only to be gods, as did " many of the Barbarians in his time ;" and yet the moment Dr. Worthington quotes this very fame Plato, for the very fame purpofe, it be- comes "a fuppofition highly extravagant,'' that " we are to form our judgment of the twelve *' greater gods by the fpeculations of a philo- *' fopher !" But in Mr. Farmer it was candid to urge the authority of Ariftotle on this point, in oppofition to the opinion of the vulgar, the poets, and all the philofophers before him, that were advocates of theifm and reli- gion ! The Heathens cry out with one voice, that notwithftanding religious honours were frequently paid to deceafed men, among the - Greeks and Romans.; yet their common objefts of worfhip were gods which, in their own judgment, came into exiftence along with the different parts of nature, before the creation oi' man. But, according to Mr. Farmer, this [ was all falfe j for, he anfwers, that, their gods, in [ "9 ] in their own opinion, were of an earthly origin ; that the more immediate objeds of popular adoration among them were deified human beings; and in this he perfeveres with increafing zeal, although the Heathens re- peatedly affirm, that, many nations never would give religious honours to deceafed heroes. I'he Heathens maintain, that, a firft Caufe, the Creator of all things, was acknowledged among them, almoft every where, whom they have defcribed in very expreffive language ; and we are moreover informed by an apoftle, that " when they knew God, they glorified him not " as God *:" But, Mr. Farmer aflures us, that, their fupreme deity had once been a mortal man, that he had a father and a mother, a grandfather and a grandmother I Mofes and the prophets have repeated it, times without number, that the fun, moon, planets, and all the hofts of heaven, were the objeds of reli- gious worfhip in the nations round Judea, and among the idolatrous Ifraelites ; but, Mr. Farmer keeps his ground with an unfliaken refolution, and fays, with refpeft to the writers of the Old Teftament, though they knew that the Pagans believed in fidereal and ele- mentary deities, yet they very properly de- fcribe their gods as dead perfons •, as what • Rom. i. 21, I 4 tliey I I20 ] they really were : and to complete the whole he aflerts, that, " the declarations of Scrip- " ture reprefent all the Heathen gods as dead " men." Thus he not only rejeds the tefti- mony of the ancients, concerning what rela-r teth to their own times, but, in fad, he alfo affirms, that, thofe things were not the belief and judgment, either of the infpired or Hea- then writers, which both the infpired and Hea- then writers conftantly affirm to be their be- lief and judgment. CHAP. IV. Concerning- the Daemons mentioned in the Gofpel^ and the Application of that Term hy the facced Penmen. § i.T T 7" E fhall next enquire, in what fcnfe VV Chrifl. and his apoftles ufed the word damon^ when they fpake of pofleffions ; for we have no right to affix a meaning to this term which thcmfelves have never ac- knowledged ? And, as a certain writer beauti- fully and juftly remarks, " It ought not to " be prefumed or taken for granted, that V any perfon whatever, who hath no inten- 3 *' tion t >2t 1 ** tion to deceive, ufes words in a fenfe dif^ ** ferenc from the reft of the world, unlcfc " he gives exprefs notice of his fo doing. " Whoever alTumes a liberty of giving a new *' meaning to words, without explaining it, " cannot intend to enlighten, but to con- " found or infult the underftandings of men, " A conduct of this kind would be peculiarly *' heinous in an inftruclor of the people, who " never look further than to the obvious and " ordinary fenfe of words, of fuch efpecially *' as occur continually in common converfa- *' tion. Shall we then caft fo foul a reproach " as this on Chrift and his apoftles, charge *' them with guilt of the deepeft dye ? Shall " we take it for granted, that they were thus " guilty without the leaft fhadow of proof ?"—» " If they had afligned a new and peculiar " meaning to the word demon, would not " they have given us notice of tiieir doing it ? " Was not fuch notice neceffary to prevent *' miftakes ' ?" Juftice requires our diligent attention to thefe excellent remarks : Would it not then be an heinous crime in us to wreft the words of the infpired writers from their obvious defign, and affix to their terms an arbitrary meaning, which themlelves have ' FariiJ. on Dcm. p. 42 — 44. •not I 122 ] not even once fuggefted ? They have not parti- cularly explained the fenfe in which they ufed the words God-, or fpirit •, there was no occa- fion for it ; they applied thele terms in their common and ordinary fignification, fometimes to men, fometimes to the objedts of Heathen worfhip, and fometimes to an evil being, as •well as to the Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift. It would be a very fmgular and perverfe in- ference, (hould any one attempt to prove, from this circumftance, that the word God always fifxnified a man. Surely there is more honour in the world than to admit fuch kind of rea- foning, efpecially when it is a dired violation of our own rules, which in this cafe muft have the appearance of artifice, rather than canons intended for the regulation of our own con- dud. Plaving therefore fairly ftated our princi- ples of interpretation, we may proceed. & 2. We fhall firfl confider that term under which the prince of daemons is mentioned by theenemiesof our Lord. " Beelzebub," as we are informed, " was a god of thePhiliftines, who " had a temple and oracle at Ekron." " This *' name," it feems, " was not given him by way *' of contempt, becaufe it was ufed by Aka- ** ziah," [a king of Ifrael J " at the very time he 7 , !* was [ 123 ] ^ was acknowledging his divinity '•i" all which things are readily granted. But, that, " he was " ftyled Beelzebub from his power of driving " away flies ;'* or that *' it was cuftomary with •" the Heathens to call their gods, in this '* fenfe, by the name of thole infeds from " which they were believed to deliver their **" worfliippers,'* we can by no means allow. It was never cuftomary with mankind, nei- ther can it be reconciled with common lenfe, to ftyle any deity the god of thofe creatures which he delights to deftroy. " The god " of flies" was, beyond all doubt, thought to be the producer or nouriflier of infecls. A poet of our own will better explain the reafon of this epithet, Zebuh^ than fome learned critics and modern divines have done. " Nor Jhall the mufe difdain ** T!o let the little noify fummer-race " Li've in her lay, andf.utter thro* her fong : " Not mean tho' fimple •, to the fun ally'd, *^ From him they draw their animating fire *.'* The Phcnicians worfhipped the fun, who was undoubtedly meant under the term " Beelze- " bub," the moft famous of all the Heathen deities for his oracles. But, that, the Pharifees, *» Farm, on Dera. p. 32 — 42. • Thompfon's Seaion's : Summer, ver. 233 — 237. in in their accufation of Chrift, alluded to this " god of Ekron," is by no means evident, fmce they do not even mention his name. How- ever, rather than enter upon any needlefs dif- pute, we Ihall grant to the author here quoted the following remark. " Whether therefore, *' Beelzebub and Beelzebul be different names, *' or the fame name with different terminations, " they defcribe the perlbn v/hom the Fleathens '' regarded as their chief deity ".'* But, we never can admit the next affertion, without offering violence to the general hiftory of mankind, and abufing the words of Scrip- ture, that, " if Beelzebub was a Heathen *' demon or deity, he was no other than a ** deified human fpirit ; or that he was really *' fuch in the eftimation of thofe Pharifees " who charged Chrift with cafting out ** demons by his power **." We have abun- dantly proved, from the declaration of the Heathens themfelves, and from the teftimony of Scripture, that, their chief deities were the Either, fun, moon, planets, and hofts of heaven*. The facred hiftory, which mentions ''4:he god of Ekron," never fays that he had * Farm on Dem. p. 37. Note '. * Ibid. p. 38, 39. f 2 Kings i. 2. 3. 6. 16. once [ i25 ] once been a man, nor ever intimates that any human Ipirit was worfhipped under the name " Beelzebub ;" nor do the apoftles even fug- geft that the Pharifees affixed any fuch idea ta " Beelzeboul." It is not in this author's power to produce one ancient tefiimony which affirms *' the god of Ekron" to have been a deified human fpirit. The repetition of groundlefs alTertions \vill never turn them into truths. While this gentleman refufeth to admit what the facred writers have exprefsl^ affirmed, he demands of us to confider them as maintaining what they have never advanced* What can be more unreafonable than this ! § 3. If it fhould be afked. Did the fa» cred writers ccnflder the chief god of the Heathens and the devil to be one and th<5 fame being ? We anfwer, that, neither Chrift nor his apoftles ever made ufe of the word " Bcelzeboul " to denote the princ? of daemons ; they only inform us, that, the Scribes and Pharifees urged it in this fenfe when they objefted to his miracles. Our Lord himfdf, in his anfwer, changes the term for that of " Satan :" he would not ufe the word *' Beelzcboul," but, chofe one of a more deter- minate fignification, and frequent ufe, among the Jews, that he might clearly and diftindly point r 126 ] jSolht to his real enemy, and thus fiiew ijohdi power he meant to deftroy, and from this cir- Cumftance fully prove, that, there could be no union between him and the chief of evil fpirits. If it ftiould be ftill afked. Upon what grounds then is it concluded that by Beelzebub, we are to underftand *' the devil, if by the devil be mcaned a fal- ** len angel ? Can this be proved from the im- " port of the name® ?'* To this we anfwer, that, the common and general ufe of the word *' Beelzeboul,'* and the import of the term, are not here the fubjeft of difpute; our bufi- nefs is only with that fenfe according to which Chrift himfelf underftood the Pharifees, when they charged him vj^ith calling out daemons through " Beelzeboul ;" and he evidently con- lidered the word as put on that occafion for the moft hateful being in the univerfe, nor is there any reafon to fuppofe that his enemies intended lefs by the term. It is in vain to tell us, that, " There is no *' kind of affinity between Beelzebub and de- *' "jH either in found or meaning -, and that *' the Jews were not accuftomed to call the ** devil by th^ name of Beelzebub ^'* The former of thefe aflfertions we know to be true « Farm, on t)em. p. 36, 57. *" Ibid. p. ^7. as [ 127 1 as well as our author, and witli rerpe36 ] pity, that, this writer lliould To much indulge himfelf in the ufe of dark and covert fentences "^^hich may beguile, but can never inform, a reader. What are we to underftand here by a wicked fpirit ? Should we confider the paflage before us as granting, that, the terx-n Satan is fometimes applied to the chief of fallen an- gels, or to a wicked fpirit fuperior to the nature of man, he would mod likely fpeak of it as very uncandid in any one to charge him with allowing not only what he ne- ver faid, but what is injurious to his own ar- gument. Were we to confider him in this place, as acknov/ledging that the term " Sa- " tan '* may fometimes refer to the foul of a deceafed man, and then afk. What does this author mean by his may refer to a dead man ? Who contends for any fuch thing befides himfelf?. Who but himfelf ever advanced fuch an abfurd idea as this, that, our Lord applies the term Satan to a dead man ? He would i-m mediately anfwer, as on a former oc- cafion already noticed, I am grofsly mifrc^ prefinted, I never affirmed any fuch thing. -But, he thus proceeds in the text of the foregoing paffage : '^ When the ancient Jews " applied it (the term Satan) to evil fpirits, " they did by no means confine it to any one *' in particular, nor even to any one fpecics of " them." [ 137 ] ** them '.'* We have nothing to do with the fancies of Jewifli rabbins -, our bufinefs is with the facred writers. Will this gentleman take upon him to affirm, that, the apoflles have any where applied the term " Satan" to the foul of a dead man ? If fo, let him name the place; if not, there is then an end of his argument. But, he thus goes on : " The word, therefore " is as applicable to the prince of pofleffing " demons, as to the chief of fallen angels :" The word, therefore, is as applicable ! Wherefore is it as applicable ? " Have not I faid that " the ancient Jews did not confine it to one " fpecies of evil fpirits ?" But, Sir, where is the proof, that, even thofe rabbins whom you call " ancient Jews," ever applied it to more fpecies of evil fpirits than one •, and where is the evidence that they ever applied it to dead men ? Have you even offered to give us any ? And, fuppofing you had any to give, would this alone prove, that, xh^ facred writers have applied the word Satan to a dead man ? Surely not. " But it is as applicable to the prince of pofTeffing demons, as to the ^" chief of the fallen angels." So then, the fuppofition in the " Eflay," *' that the devil " and the prince of pofTeffing dcemons might " Letter to Worth, p. 54 to 58 incluf. " be C 138 J '* be regarded as two diftinft perfons," is, in the next publication, grown up to a matter of certainty ! Hath this gentleman ever favoured us with one proof of the fad ? Mud every perfon or thing yield to his unfupported af- fertions ? But, he proceeds—" And it is the " JubjeSi alope that muft determine who the " Satan or adverfary is that is intended in " any particular pafTage of Scripture, when ** it refers to evil fpirits. If fojfejjion be the " fubjedl, the Satan or enemy is Beelzebub; *.^ if temptation the Satan or enemy is the " deyil." Without enquiring into the im-. mediate defign of our author in f.liis palTage, which might perhaps be miftaken ; we beg leave to allc the following queftions : Would it not be unreafonable for any one to coniider the prophets themfelves as feeking to " the god **■ of Ekron," becaufe they have told us that *' Ahaziah the king of Ifrael " did fo ; and would it not be altogether as unjuft to afTert, that, the holy apoftles attributed ;)o(reflion to *' Beelzebub," as the great enemy of mankind, merely becaufe they have informed us that the Pharifees did this ? If it was Mr. Farmer's defign to reprefent the writers of the New Teftament as intending " Beelzebub " to be the enemy, whenever they fpeak of pofilffions by evil fpirits, he not only aded an ungenerous part. [ 139 1 part, but, fliewed fomething like a want of re* verence for the word of God. When the JPharifees charged Chrift with " cafting out dse- " mons through Beelzebub," our Lord refufed to make ufe of the term after them, and changed the word for one more determinate and decifive ; and, when his own difciples in private related to him with joy that " dsemons *' were fubjed to them through his name," he faid, " I beheld Satan fall, as lightening from " heaven P." We have, therefore, the higheft authority for faying, that when the apoftles fpeak of evil fpirits, \i pffejjion be the fubjed, " Satan '* or " the devil," and none other, according to them, is the chief enemy ; if temptation^ the enemy is ftill the fame, called either " Satan" or " the devil." We underiland the apoftles,on this fubjedl, as intending by the word, " Satan," the chief of fallen angels, nor hath this writer yet been able to offer a fmgle proof to the contrary ; and, notwithftanding all that he hath written concerning the ufe of thofe terms, he (ludioufly avoids laying, that, the word ^alan is in the New Teftament applied to a Heathen god or a dead man j although the whole of his realbning fuppofes it, and the r Lukex. i8. very [ I40 1 v^ry cxiftence of his fcheme depends upon fuch a fa6l ! Why then fhould he be fo very angry, tliat, other men will not believe what himfelf refufeth to affert ? And if he will not affirm that the apoftles have applied the term Satan to a dead man, doth it not clearly follow, that, according to his own judgment, no one can be fupported in making any fuch aflertion ? The common opinion therefore remains in its full force, that by " Satan," the head of poflefiing daemons, the facred pen- men underftood the chief of fallen angels, called alfo " the devil." § 6. We fhall now proceed to examine thofe remarkable words of the apoftle James, toge- ther with a late, and, as it ihould feem, en- tirely new, explanation of the palTage : Thou helkveji that there is one God: thou doejiwell: the demons alfo believe and tremble '. " I do *' not remember," fays our interpreter, *' to " have feen it obferved by any writer (and " therefore I fubmit the obfervation entirely "" to the judgment of others) that this palTage *' is taken from one in the book of Job*, " which we unhappily render, Dead things *' are formed from under the waters^ and the in- '^ James ii. 19. * Chap. xxvi. 5. 7 !' habitants [ l+I ] *• kahttants thereof -, but which may more pro- ** perly be tranflated, 'The giants tremble under the " waters (or in the abyfs) together with their hofi *' or fellow inhabitants. Job is here celebrating *' the dominion of God over the manfions of *' the dead -, and he afnrms, that the giants^ " the fouls of thofe mighty men, who werefuch ** a terror to the old world, and perifhed by *' the deluge, do now tremble in the infernal " regions, together with thofe who were once *' their cotemporaries on earth, or that now *' inhabit the fame manfions. — Now the de- " mons of St. James anfwer to thefe departed *' fouls in Job, whether you underftand " thereby the ghofts of the wicked in general, *' or thofe of the antediluvian giants in parti- ** cular '.'* The fole lionour of this inter- pretation will be readily granted to its learned author j for all we have in view is an enquiry into its truth. The word Rephaim is ufed for. giants, men of great flature, and alfo for lifelefs bodies, deftitute of motion. In the book of Job it hath been confidered as de- noting bodies of all kinds, formed out of the watry chaos j but in no one inftance is it ever applied to what is not body. The very paf- fages quoted by this author are dirediy againft \ Farm, on Pmii. p. 2-I1— zi/. him* r 142 ] him. " Wilt thou ftiew wanders to the dead j " Shall the rephaim^ bodies crumbled intoduft, " arile and praife thee^?'* To " arife" and fland up properly belongs to body. " Other Lords " befides thee have had dominion over us i— " they are dead, they fhall not live; the •' repham, or diflblved bodies, Ihall not rife -, " for this end haft thou vifited and deftroyed *' them «." It muft be evident to a common reader, that, the word repbaim, in the rell of the pafTages quoted on this occafion, fignifies nothing more than dead bodies in the grave. Our next bufmefs is with the word tremble. *' The Englifh tranflation,'* fays this learned commentator, " renders the fame verb, to " fear^ to Jhake^ to tremble i" and then he men- tions fix different p^ffages, by way of evi- dence. We fhall not here enter any further into dry and unprofitable difquifitions about words. In no one of thofe fix pafTages quoted by him does the fatne term occur which is ufed by Job in the verfe before us j nor is it found in the fenfe which this gentleman gives to it any where, that wc know of, in the Old Teftament. The fame phrafe which is properly expreffed in our language by the word formed, is made ufe of * Pfalm Ixxxviii. 10. » Ifa. xxvi. 13, 14. in in the following places : " God that formta thee ":" " Thou formedjl the earth and the " world ^:" " When there were no depths, " I was hroiight forth " :" in this very book of Job, " Waft thou mtide before the hills ^ ?"* and in this very chapter, " His hand hath fortned the crooked ferpent ^ :'* nor does it appear how any other fenfe can be affixed to it in the pafTage before us. " Lifelefs bodies were brought forth from under the waters, " with their inhabitants. Shaul (or the center " of the earth) is naked before him : and for ** Abaddon (or the fubterraneous deep) there *' is no covering. He ftretcheth out the " north over the empty place : he hangeth " the earth upon nothing *." Here is an account of the formation of things from a watry chaos •, the center of the earth, there- fore, and thofe places to which no eye can reach, where all bodies feem to be for ever loll, are beautifully reprefented as without co- vering before GoJ, who made the whole to arife from under the face of the deep. Tliefe things are fpoken of as among " the fecrets '* " of* infinite " wifdom," and as exprefllve of » Deut. xxxii. 18. " Chap. xv. 7. * Pfal. xc. 2. y Ibid. xxvi. 13. ^ Prov. viii. 24, 25. • Ibid. ver. 5—7. that [ 144 ] that knowledge from which "othing can be concealed : " It is high as heaven, what *' canft thou do ? Deeper than Shauk the cen- " ter of the earth, longer than the land, •' and broader than the fea, what canft thou *' know " ?'* Job is not fpeaking in the above paflage, concerning the abode of departed ghofts, but of God's mighty power in bring- ing forth various kinds of bodies from under the waters, in ftretching out the heavens, and in hanging the earth upon nothing ; which things were done before man was created, and can have no reference to the giants who pe- rilhed at the flood. But this learned commentator will have Job to give us a defcription of the ftate of the dead, as an introduftion to his account of the formation of the heavens and the earth ; and then, to complete the matter, rcprefents him as believing, that, the departed fouls of thofe who were drowned in the days of Noah are ftill trembling under the waters ! Hath any one a right to charge upon Job fuch ridicu- lous opinions as thefe \ and muft, not only the terms of the lacred writers, but, even the religious chara6lers and tenets of holy men, all yield to modern hypothefes ? There is not * Job xi. 6— g. the [ 145 ] fche leaft appearance of any allufion to thofc giants who lived in the old world ; nay, not fo much as the term under which they arc defcribed by Mofes, is to be found in this chapter : for thofe mentioned by the Jewifh lawgiver were not called Repbaim, but Ne- phelim, apoftates, to denote their departure from the true worfhip of God. We have no- thing to do, either with the fentiments of Jew- ifh Rabbins concerning wicked ghoils, or the dcemons of Jofephus. This author frequently puts us in mind of that ftriking reafon which the apoflle afligns for rebuking the Cretans, that they may be found in the faith, not giving heed to Jewifi) fables " ;" which^ clearly intimates, that fuch fancies arc not to be our rule of interpreting the holy word of God. The fuppofitions of Athenagoras and Ter- tullian are of no weight at all in this matter ; and, as a proper anfwer to all authorities of this kind, we beg leave to ufe the words of our author's own motto, at the beginnino- of his book ; Videndum eji ut—fobrie fapiamus ex Dei verba, ne -pro veritate aniles fabulas fubftitua- fnus. But, for the fake of argument, we will make this paflage as favourable as poflible to our commentator, and render it in the follow- " Tit. i. 13, 14. 1> ing [ 146 ] ing manner : " The deceafed giants fbill trem- " ble in the ftate of the dead, together with " their wicked companions.^ Now, can any one make it appear, that James, by this ien- tence, the daemons /relieve and tremble^ alludes to thofe giants ? How is it to be proved, that thefe dismons, which, as we are often afflired, differ nothing at all from lifelefs (latues, fhould alio be the very fame beings with giants, unlefs we confider thofe rephaim, with our tranflation, as dead things? But then, where are our departed ghofts ? By what kind of logic will it ever be proved, that the Nephelim^ or apoftates before the flood, the Rephaim mentioned by Job, and thofe daemons who believe and tremble^ are all the fame beings ? By what argument, or by what authority, can it ever be fliewn, that the a- poftle, in this paffage, underllands thofe wicked apoftates who periihed with the old v;orId, and for this reafon borrows his ideas •from the words of Job, when even the terms of Job have not the leaft refem- blance either in found or meaning to thofe of Mofes, and James himfelf ufes neither the words of Mofes, nor of Job, nor of the Septuagint tranflation of either paflage ? The apoftles conftantly ufe this verfion in their references to the Old Teftament, and James himfelf gives us an example in the very next C U7 ] next fcntence, but in this under confideration, the terms and ideas of the apoftle anfwer neither thofe of Mofes, nor Job, nor agree with the Greek tranflation of thofe palTages. Would he affume the liberty of affixing to the word " dctmon" a ferde fo very uncommon, without explaining it ? Would he refer to fo unlikely a pailiige, and to fo improbable a circumftance, without giving the leaft notice of fuch allufion ? Are we not told that a con- duct of this kind would be peculiarly heinous in an inftru6lor of the people ? And have we not been properly warned not to cafl fo foul a re-proach on the apoflles of Chrift ? Would it be either candid, or even decent, in us, to wreft the words of the facred penmen from their common ufe, to forced and impro- ba'ble notions, fo as to give them an abfurd meaning, while their language in its natu- ral and obvious fenfe, conveys diftincft and rational ideas, well agreeing with the doc- trines which they conftantly advance ? We afcribe to the apoftle thoughts unworthy his character, and never once fuggefted in his language, nor to be found in the holy fcrip- tures, when we make hini thus fpeak : " The giants who periftied at the flood, believe and ftill tremble in the waters under the earth." But if we underftand him according to the L 2 obvious [ 148 ] obvious fenfe of his words, in their ufual ac- ceptation, his meaning will be free from ab- furdities, and confident with all the doc- trines of revelation, and the hiftory of the gofpel : " Thou believeft that there is or". " God : thou doeft well : even thofe fuperior " fpirits alfo, whofe condition is hopelefs, *' believe thus much, and tremble in the ex- ** peftation of greater punilhment.'* § 7. But it is aflced, if daemons and their prince, " were in our Saviour's time con- " ceived to be the very fame perfons as the *' devil and his angels, is it not very fur* *' prifing, that the New Teftament in its " original language, Ihould always fpeak of " the difeafed perfons under confideration *' as polfeffed by a demon or demons, and never " by the devil or devils ? A word, as all " muft allow, that is never there applied to *' evil fpirits in the plural number, whatever " its ufe may be in the fingular "* W(? an- fwer, that there is nothing at all furprifing in this, unlefs that fuch a circumftance lliould be urged by a perlbn of learning, as an argument againft dsemoniacal pofleflions ; for it hath very much the appearance of one * Farm, on Dem. p. 18, 19. who [ H9 1 who makes accuracy of language a reafon for reje<5ling the dodtrine which it conveys. The word devils in the plural number was never ufed by the Greeks to denote fuperior beings of any kind, it is therefore no where thus ap- plied by the apoftles, nay, they have employed it in a different fenfe, agreeably to its common and eftablifhed meaning, and have been very careful on this fubjeft not to confound their own terms ; hence they afcribe poffeffion to demons, a word, as all muft allow, never ap* plied to flefh and blood like ourfelves, but ge- nerally ufed by the Greeks to denote beings fuperior to mankind, for which reafon no other term could have been fo decifive and proper. We are told, that — " In defer ibing perfons pof- *' fcfled, the word daemon occurs above fifty " times in the gofpels, but the term devil not " once "." To which we lliall add the fol- lowing remark of the fame kind. That pof- feffions are afcribed above twenty times to evil and wicked fpirits,but never once to Satan, their acknowledged head and chief i and, to en- creafe our author's furprife, there is not the mod diftant hint ever given concerning the fouls of dead men in the whole affair. The facred writers affurc us, that a great number of evil fpirits were concerned in pof- 1* On Dem. p. 13. Note '. L 3 fefiions -, [ ISO ] feffions i now, are v/e to deny the influence of their chief in this matter, becaule we have not a particular inftance given us where himlelf was the immediate agent ? By no means. Our Lord confidered the " calling out demons" as the fall of Satan's power, and Peter fays, Chrift " went about — healing all that were " opprefTed hy the devil.*'' If the moil exprefs declarations of fcripture on this fubjedl are to be rejeded, then the quellion is no longer, what the apoilles have, but what they ought to have written ? Mr. Farmer thus reafons, " With refped to the Jews, St. Peter, fpeak- " ing in the language of his country, fays, " Ckrifi healed all that were opprejfed of the devil. '^ The apoftle feems here to refer to Chrill's " cure of the dliCafed in general, without " taking into confideration the particular cafe *' of the demoniacs •, who, in the goipels, are ** diftinguiftied from the blind, the lame, " and thofe afflifted with other maladies ♦, " concerning whom we never read, that de- *' mons entered them'.'' — True-, is it not then clear, that if dremons are not faid to have en- tered into the blind and lame, and thofe af- flided with common maladies, Peter muft intend dasmoniacs, when he fays Chrift i' healed thofe that wereopprefled hy the devil?'*- • Aas X. 38. • On Dem. p. 74—76. No I [ >5' ] Nol by no rr.cans : Have I not faid that, ■" All the difeafed were fpoken of by the *"■ Jews as opprejfcd by an evil fpirit^ but not as ** V^JI^ff^^ h demons, of whom there is here no " mention*." And that " St. Peter fpeaks in " the language of his country ?" It doth not fignify, in whole language the apoftle fpake, his words are very plain, and very ftrong. The queftion is this, Did he himfelf believe what he laid ? If lb, he then acknowledges the power of the devil in opprejjing men ; if not. Is there not an end of the argument, and of the Gofpel too ? Let us read the whole verfe : " How God anointed Jefus of Nazareth with " the Holy Ghoft and with power ; who *' went about doing good, and healing all '' that were opprefled by the devil : for God " v/as with him." Does the apoftle then only fpeak the language of his country, when he fays, " God anointed Jefus of Nazareth with *' the Holy Ghojl and with power ?" Will this gentleman fay, that Peter did not really believe the perfons here mentioned to have been opprefled by the devil; Or, that the apoftle did not by the term devil intend an intelligent being fuperior to the nature of man ?, When- ever he comes to thofe capital points on which the whole of the controverfy turns, he always • Id. Note \ I' 4 puts [ 152 ] puts us off with dark and ambiguous iniinuL- tions, and then cenfures others for not receiv- ing what himfelf will not affirm ! He refumes this pafTage in his Letters to Dr. Worthing- ton ^, and repeats the things afferted in the " Eflay," but ftill cautioully avoids faying, that the chief of fallen angels, or a fpirit fu- perior to human nature, was not here intended. If this learned author would have us to confider Peter as not really meaning to alTert any power of the devil over mankind, let him fay fo, and let him in this cafe inform us, how it may be certainly known, that the apoftle was ferious, when he faid " God anointed Jefus of *' Nazareth with the Holy Ghofl ;" Or whether the whole verfe is to be underftood with the fame latitude ? He cannot furely look upon himfelf as having yet offered one fingle rea- fon, why we fhould not underftand the paf- fage as intending what the words affirm. The infpired writer does here affert, that many of thofe whom Chrift healed were oppreffed by the devil. Now, are we to deny his influence in the matter of poffeffions, merely becaufe the apoftles have not given us a cafe whereirx himfelf was the immediate agent } How could they, without confufion, afcribe any one particular inftance to Satan or the devil \ Lett. tQ Worthing, p. Z9i 90. more. [ >53 3 more than another, fince he is declared tp be the head of pofTefling dicmons, and their f hief in every attack wpon mankind ? This is abfolutely to turn the greatefl accuracy of language into an argument againft re- ceiving the hiftory of certain fads in its plain and obvious meaning. It muft furely be thought an uncommon humour in any one, to afilgn this among other things, as a reafon for refufmg a dodlrine, that the apoftles did not choofe to exprefs it in thofe terms which himfelf had fhewn to be impro- per. What fatisfadion can be given to fuch perfons ? For, with them, the moft authentic evidences are turned into objections, thofe things demanded as a proof which could not exift without a grofs abfurdity, and the plainefi: declarations of fcripture rejedled, as not con- taining the real thoughts and defigns of the fa- cred penmen. Peter, it feems, fpake the lan- guage of his country, where all difeafes were thought to arifefrom an evil being : Agreeable to which, we are informed, that, " The leprofy " was confidered by the Jews as vl divine inflic- *' tion *." " All difeafed perfons," it is faid, *' were fpoken of by the Jews as opprefTed by • • an evil fpirit :" But no one proof of thefadt IS even offered, while decifive evidences to • On Dem. p, j^, the [ 154 ] the contrary are at hand. The apoftles were Jews, and yet they no where afcribe ordinary and bodily ficknefs t^o the immediate agency of the dcvil^ or any other evil fpirit, and re- late many a cure where they never attributed the difeale to Satan •, but mufl they be under- flood as not intending what they affirm, and as really defigning what they have neither laid nor written ? §. 8. Mr. Farmer, in his *' Effay,'* gives us tounderftand that, " The facred writers have *' not particularly explained the fenfe in which " they ule the word demon*." And after a few flridures on the general ufe of the Greek language, and the application of this term in the Septuagint verfion, he adds, " From thefe premifes we may conclude, that " by demons, when ufed in reference to pof- *■' feffions by the writers of the New Tefta- " ment, they meaned fuch human fpirits as *' were thought to become demons after death ; *' unlefs fome good reafon can be given for " their affigning this word a meaning on " this fubjeft, quite different from that which " the Heathens, the authors of the Septua- " oint, and they themfelves, affign it on other •P. 43. 45, 45. " occafions." [ <55 ] *' occafions." He introduces this paffage in his letters to Dr. Wortliington ', and there reafons from it, but, as he rarely quotes even himfelf without capital variations, we muft. again ftate his own words : " In order to de- "■ termine who thefe demons were, it was *' fhewn in the EJfay\ that the ancient Hea- *' thens and Jews, and the primitive Chrif- " tians, did all agree in reprefenting them " as no other than human fpirits." From thefe premifes the following concJufion was drawn, " that the facred writers, hav- " ing given us no notice of their ufing the *' word in a new or peculiar fenfe, did cer- " tainly employ it in reference to pofTeflions, " 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." But, good Sir, is there a neceflity for us to go quite fo faft ? Suppofing the fa- cred writers to have ufed the word *' dsmon '* in a fenfe very different from many of thofe called primithe Chriftians, how would it appear that " they intended to deceive their " readers ?" Were they anfwerable for the ideas which m.en might afterwards affix to this term ? By no means. You might with equal propriety have carried the argument a little ♦" P. 25, 26. 5 further. [ 156 ] further, and faid, " I myfelf do affirm, that '' the demons mentioned in the New Tefta- ^' ment were nothing more than human fpi- " rits : the apoftles therefore ufed it in this " fenfe j for to fuppofe that they did not ufe '' it in the fame fenfe in which all others did *' would be to fuppofe, that they intended to *' deceive their readers." Now, did all others affix one invariable idea to the word " das- *' mon i" nay, hath not this gentleman him- felf acknowledged the contrary ? Hath he not on this fubjeft, feveral times excepted againft the /peculations and opinions of the Greek philo- fophers in general ' ? Doth he not call Philo *' more properly a Platonift than a Jew '^?** Hath he not charged the fathers with an un- due attachment to the principles of the learned Gentiles, and accufed them of hypocrify and interefted motives, as containing the true rea- fon why fo many of them applied the word *' dasmon" to fallen angels ' ? Hath he not told us, that, " Whenever they have an end to *' ferve, no caution can be too great in fol- "' lowing them * j'* that no ftrefs is to be laid on their general conduct -, and finally, ' On Mir. p. 189, 190. Lett, to Worthing, p. 35; ^ On Mir. p. 221. Note '. } Ibid. p. 216—227. and Effay on Dcm. p. 49— 57* t 157 1 that it is of no importance to determine, whe- ther they were fincere or not in afcribing poi- feflions to fallen angels j Juftin Martyr ex- cepted ? " None " it feems " could be better " qualified" than he " to inform us of *' the general fenfe of thofe ages, concerning " the fubjed under our confideration.— Now " this learned writer— fays exprefsly, that " thofe per fons ivho are feizedand thrown down " by the fouls of the deceafed^ are fuch as ALL " MEN ^^r^^ /» calling demoniacs and mad ^.** He had no end to ferve, and may be fol- lowed without caution ; great ftrefs is to be laid on his opinion j there was no doubt of his fincerity. Is it an inftance of real candour in any one, to reprefent ancient writers as fools or learned, as knaves or virtuous perfons, juft as they oppofe or favour his own opi- nions ? Are not thefe exceptions and heavy charges alledged againft thofe different clafTes of men, a clear proof, that we have an un- doubted right to aflert in our turn, that the ancicntGreeks, Jews, and primitive Chriftians, did all agree in afcribing the word " daemon" to fuch beings as were thought fuperior to human fpirits ? If therefore the facred writers have no where particularly explained the fenfe ■" On Dem. p. 47, 48. in [ I5» J in which they ufed that term, what right hath this gentleman to affirm, that they intended by it departed fouls of our own kind, fince it is evident from his own confeflion, that the moft celebrated writers, both among Heathens and Chriftians, applied the word to fpirits of a fuperior nature ? However, notwithftanding our author's affertions, the facred penmen have explained their ideas under the word " daemon" with as much care and accuracy as any of the Heathens, Jews, or primitive Chriftians. The ancient Greeks, as we have feen, ufed the word for intelligent natures in general, and more efpecially for beings fu- perior to men ; the apoftles, therefore, agree- ably with this its eftablifhed and common ufe, have applied it to fuch intelligent natures as are fuperior to mankind. But, as the facred writers themfelves confine this phrafe to evil beings^ unlefs where they record the cxpreffions or fentim.ents of other perfons, fo, on the fub- jedt of pofTeffion, they conftantly apply it to thofe malignant fpirits, the head of which is " Satan," the great enemy of human nature, and very properly define thofe demons of which they fpeak to be wicked and unclean fpirits. And as the Heathens neither defcribed their gods, nor their polTefnng demons, under any fuch terms or ideas, the apoftles have carefully t >S9 ] carefully diftingtiiflicd the demons of whom they write, from thofe beings to which the idolatrous Greeks applied this word. The authors of the Septuagint tranflation ufed the fame terms to exprefs thofe phrafesof the facred penmen, under which the Heathen gods were defcribed, but, they never once affix to them any fuch epithet as wicked' ox unclean, nor ever fpeak of the chief of thofe idolatrous objeds as the great enemy of mankind ; the apoftles, therefore, on the fubjeft of poflefTion, have alfo carefully avoided their application of the word daemon, and, when they borrow the lan- guage of the Septuagint verfion concerning the objefls of Heathen worlhip, they as ftu- dioufly Ihun the ufe of thofe epithets and terms which are applied to pofTeffing daemons, as the authors of that tranflation themfelves had done before. The writers of the New Teftament never give the leaft intimation, that, by poflefling daemons, they meant either the Heathen gods, or the fouls of dead men, on the contrary, they repeatedly affure us, that, they fpeak of evil beings, which ad under " Satan" as their head and chief, who is alfo called the Devil. Our author himfelf will not fay that the term Satan is put for a dead man : Have we then any right to give the words of the holy apoftles an arbitrary meaning, which themfelves f. i6o 3 themfelves have never once fuggefted ? Will a candid man, will a fair difputant, deny, that the facred writers really meant what they faid, and then "affirm, that they intended what they have neither written nor intimated ? If our author had profefled himfeif an utter enemy to all the different opinions that were ever advanced in the world, either by the Heathen or facred writers, it would have been a fmall matter, and cxcufable, compared with his prefent undertaking, which is to per- fuade his readers, that the moft refpeclablc charaders among the ancients never meant what they affirmed, nor ever believed thofe doctrines which they have laboured to fupport in their writings, but, that they are to be un- derftood as defigning opinions diredly contrary to the import of their own language. Is not this fuch an attack upon the common honefty of mankind, and, at the fame time, fuch a vio- lation of the eftabliffied and accuftomed forms of fpeech, by which men are ufed to convey their thoughts to one another, as naturally de- flroys the faith of all hiftory, while it leads ta univerfal fcepticifm. ? § 9. But, fays this gentleman, " The *' word evil might be applied to a demon, i' on account of the pain and mifery he was !' thought [ i6i ] ** thought to create. And it is pofTible, that *' demons might be called unclean^ becaufe *' perfons under that melancholy and maniacal *' diforder, of which they were the reputed " authors, avoided the ibciety of men, and *' were continually defiling themfclves v/ith " objeds efteemed by the Jews unclean °." Our bufinefs is not with what the word, m/, might be applied to, nor yet with what, it is pojjible^ might be the ufe of the term unclean^ but, with the plain and obvious fenfe of thefe epi- thets, ss a^ually applied by the apofclcs to the word " dremons." Will our author fay, that, the facred writers, by this term which we render evil or "i&icked did not intend what is morally evil ? Have the apoftles any where ufed it in a different fenfe? Can he point out one example from the New Teftament, in which it fignifies only wretchednefs or mifery, without implying any thing criminal or morally evil ? None of thefe things hath he yet done. Suppofuions and conjedlures concerning what r/iight be are v.'ith him the ufual premifes from which he draws the moil pofitive in- ferences. But, " are not demons called deaf *' and dumb fpirits ? Have fpiritual beings " corporeal organs ' ?" We know nothing ■ On Dem. p. 6i, 62. ? Ibid. p. 63. Let. to Worthin» p. 79. M concerning [ l62 ] concerning the organs of fpi ritual beings any more than our author. Perlbns polTefied with deaf and dumb fpirits were themfelves ex- prefely faid to be deaf and dumb\, and to be reftored to hearing or fpeech when the dse- mons were caft out ; there is, therefore, ai fuffkient reafon for applying thofe terms to the effe(5ls produced by fuch fpirits. But, it is never faid, that, the poflefTed with evil or wicked fpirits were alfo themfelves evil or wicked', we have, therefore, no juft caufe for confining fuch epithets to the difordered per- fons themfelves. We read of deaf and dumb demoniacs, but never of an evil or wicked dasmoniacy nor yet do we ever meet with an »w/^i3« dsemoniac in the whole Gofpel. Per- fons are faid to be pofTelTcd with unclean fpirits where no one circumftance of ritual uncleannefs is even fuggeftedv '^ There was " a man in their fynagogue with an unclean ^' fpirit ^'* Thefe epithets allb occur where no particular diemoniacs are alluded to. " He *' called unto him his twelve difciples, and *' gave them power over unclean fpirits, to *' caft them out '.'* " He cured many of " their infirmities and plagues,, and of evil " fpirits '." But it is no v/here written, that,, he p Mark i. 23. .' Luke vii. 21. 4 Matth. X. I. [ "63 ] gave them power over deaf or dumb fpirits j nor is it ever laid in a general defcription, that he cured many of deaf and dumb fpi- ritSi This epithet^ evil or malignant, is very often put by way of emphafis for '' the " devili" or " wicked one," himfelf^ " Cain *' was of the wicked onCi and flew his bro-» ** ther *" j" nor is it, to the beft of our know- ledge, ever applied by any writer to an in- telligent agent^ as fuchy unlefs it be in an im-* moral fenfe. § ID. Here we beg leave to obferve, thatj' our author, on this occafion, contends for an idea which can be of no real importance to his prefent argument, concerning the nature of pofTefllng demons ; for, he very often alTures us, that, the departed fouls of wicked men, in the judgment cf the ancients, became wicked dsemons. " Jofephus," he fays, " declares, that demoniacs were pofleiTed by the fpirits of wicked men. By fuch fpirits^ demoniacs ** amongft the Heathens (after whom the Jews copied) were thought to be poiTelTed '." He acknowledges, therefore, in the molt ex- prcfs termSj that pollcffing demons were con- fidered, both by Heathens and Jews, as being ^ I John iii. 12. * On Dem. p. 59. M 2 of [ 164 J of an immoral nature ; and yet, in the verf next fentence, he oppofes this opinion, with refpecl to the language of the Gofpel, and would have us believe, that, the word evil was there applied by the apoftles to dsemons, only on account of the pain and mifery which they were thought to create. Indeed, the whole of his hypothefis concerning daemons, has a reference to Ibmething further than merely the cafe of dsemoniacs •, for, if Peter only fpake the language of his country when he faid, that, " Chrill went about doing good, and " healing all that were opprejfed of the devily^ without meaning to affert the power of any fallen angel over the bodies of mankind, why could not the language of the apoftles be confidered in the fame light with refped to dasmoniacs ? What necelTity was there, ei- ther for reprefenting all the Heathen gods, even their fupreme Numen among the reft, as dead men ; or, for fuppofing that nothing more was intended by demons, in the Gof. pel, than human fpirits -, fmce, even on this contradidlory and ablurd hypothefis, thefacred penmen are ftill fuppofed to fpeak only the language of their country ? The following queftions will, perhaps, be afked in the ac- cuftomed form and manner : Is it not poj/ible, that, both the apoftle Peter and the Jews might ufc C 165 ] ufe fuch terms as thefe, opprejfed of the devil^ without alluding to any fallen angel ? Is not this very fentencethus explained in the " Eflay," that, " all the difeafed were fpoken of by the *' Jews as opprejjcd by an evil fpirit ?'^ Now, does Mr. Farmer fay, that, by an evilfpiril, in this cafe, they intended the chief of fallen an- gels ; or, that, Peter fpake the language of his country in this fenfe of the words ? We an- fwer. No : he is very careful not to alTert any fuch thing, and we apprehend he never will, becaufe that would be to defeat his whole fcheme. For this reafon, the defign of what he hath written on daemons and dsemo- niacs appears to be much more extenfive than the generality of his readers imagine. He evi- dently intended fomething more than a refuta- tion of the vulgar opinion concerning poflef- f^ons J and, if we had not confidered his fcheme as directly contrary to all thofe important doc- trines that relate to the very end which is exprefs- ly afTjgned for the appearance of the Son of God in the world, we fhould not have entered fo fully into his arguments with refped to the Heathen gods and the nature of dasmons, nor, indeed have concerned ourfelves with the fub- jed at all : and that the above is not an erro- neous conjedure, will we prefume be after- wards clearly lliewn. We ihall dole the prefent M 3 chapter [ 166 ] chapter with obferving, that, it is a very grofs abufe of language to reprefent the poflelTing dsemons, mentioned in the Gofpel, as no- thing more than the fouls of departed men, fince the Evangelifts have never given the ieaft intimation of any fuch thing •, that, good fpirits cannot be fuppofed under this ufe of the word, as pofTeffing daemons are ex- prefsly ftyled wicked and unclean fpirits ; and, that, the Heathen gods could never be underftood by the term, for two reafons, firft, becaufe the facred writers have with one voice proclaimed the utter impotence of thofe daemons -, and, next", becaufe the infpired pen^ men only affirm, that, the Gentiles facrificed to dcemons. It is no where faid in the whole Scriptures, that, they facrificed to evil fpirits, or, that, all their gods were wicked and unclean daemons, no, nor yet, that, any of them were fuch ; although it is well known that fome of the Heathens did profefledly facrifice to evil beings. The defcription, therefore, of the Pagan deities, both in the Old and New Tellament, by no means anfwers to the defi^ nition of pofTeffing demons in the Gofpel, CHAP. r 167 ] CHAP. ^he Arguments alleged againjl the Scripture Do^rine concerning Demoniacs examined and Jhewn to he inconclufive, § !• TT is a truth acknowledged on all hands, X that, the Greeks and Romans enter- tained very abfurd opinions concerning the influence of fpirits, and afcribed many dif- orders to imaginary beings, which could not, in the nature of things, be the true caufe *. But, in what refpeft can this be a proof, that, the Evangelifts were equally miftaken in their belief of real poffcflions ? Had the ancient Heathens and the facred writers the fame ideas concerning this fubjecft ? If that could be proved, then, indeed, an infeperable con- nexion would be obvious. Will any one affirm, that, the apoftles grounded their belief concern- ing this matter upon the fame principles with the Heathen world ? Nay, is it not evident, is it not confeflcd, that, they paid not the lead regard to the fuppofed influence of Jupiter, * Syket and Lardner. M 4 Ceres, [ i68 ] Ceres, Apollo, or any idol god whatever ? Did the Heathens look upon Jupiter, Juno, Neptune, Ceres, as evil, unclean, and wicked, fpirits? Have they fpoken of their gods as agents under Satan, the great enemy of man- kind? Whatever refeniblance there might be in appearance between the demoniacs of the Gofpel, and the " Ccrriti" and " Lymphatici'* of the Greeks and Romans, yet, both the fenti- ments and language of the holy Evangelifls, concerning the caufe of thole diftempers, were very different from the opinions and expref- fions of the ancient Heathens. We may, then, fairly difmiis all thofe arguments which are drawn from the erroneous notions of the Pagan world : they belong not to Chrift and his apoftles : our bufmefs on this fubjeft is only with the real judgment of the facred penmen, and the ground of their belief. The account which is given of " Saul's " cafe muft alfo be fee afide, bccaufe it is confidered as parallel with the ancient " Vates" and " Cer- *' riti.'* No proof has yet been offered, that, either the Jews or the infpired writers ever afcribed the diforder of " Saul " to any idol god, we cannot, therefore, without great in- juftice, involve their defcriptions v^ith the errors of the Heathen. But, it is affirmed, that, Saul's difeafe was conjlanily cured with foft accents [ i69 3 accents and melodious founds *. What then could be the reafon why this diftemper, which was fo often cured^ Ihould as conftantly return ? It muft have been a very fingular cafe, indeed, in which even repeated cures could be of no avail ! However, according to the Scriptures, his diftemper increafed, and, all the melodious charms of David's harp at laft became ufelefs ; nothing could footh his breaft, or fupprefs his rage. § 2. It muft appear obvious to every candid reader, that, the facred writers never once refer poflefTions to the Heathen gods, nor even mention their names in connexion with any inliance of the kind. We do, therefore, en- tirely rejeft, from the prefent fubjedl, the whole of a certain learned difcourfe concerning the vanity of the Pagan deities, which begins in the following language of exultation, and continues for above forty pages. *' Who- *' ever the Heathen demons or deities were, *' whether human or angelic fpirits, they are *' all, without exception, branded in Scrip. *' ture, as being utterly void of all power to *■' do either good or evil to mankind."' — ** So '* very clear and determinate is the language '' S^rkcs and Lard, on Dcm. 9 !' of [ 170 ] *' of Scripture on this point, that all the wit, " and learning, and zeal, of thofe who contend " for the reality of the poffeflions and prodi- " gies afcribed to the Heathen gods, have *' not yet been able to devife any method of " evading the argument againft their power, ** drawn from the Scripture reprefentation of " them*—." Now, the apoltles never reprefent thofe daemons whom our Lord caft out, as utterly void of all power to hurt mankind, nor do they ever fpeak of them in fuch language as the prophets have ufed with refped to idol gods ; nay, fo little are the Heathen deities concerned in this matter, that, we care not who maintain or who oppofe thofe pjfejfions 2ir)d prodigies which have been afcribed to their influence, nor, do we want to evade any evidence, urged either in the Scriptures or other writings, againft their power. For the fame reafon iikewife, we pay no regard to all thofe acute and fine arguments againft dsemoniacal pofTefllons, drawn from the com- mon ufe of the word d^mon among the Hea- thens i they affed not the fubjed in difpute. The apoftles frequently introduced terms borrowed from idolaters, yet, they neither thought nor fpake like them. They had * Farmer on Dem. p. 191, 192. their [ 171 1 their ideas both of God and evil fpirits, nei- ther from Pagans nor Jews, but, from the fa- cred inftrudlions of the Holy Ghoft. The word which is every where rendered " God" in the New Teftament, was more generally ap- plied to men among the ancient Greeks than the word " daemon," nor, is there any term fo rarely put for the Supreme Deity and Maker of all things, among the Pagan writers, as that of " God," yet, he is often fly led the da- monion. Now, were we to infift upon it, that, the infpired writers always ufed the word "God" according to the fame fenfe in which it is ge- nerally found among the Heathens, and, urge the confequence exadly in the fame manner as hath been done with refped to the phrafe damonsy we Ihould not deferve to be reafoned with at all. Some reverence is certainly due, at leaft from profefled Chriftians, to that di- vine authority and guidance under which the facred writers penned their hiftory ; and, we think alfo that a decent refpe6l fhould be paid, in our reafoning, to the common fenfe of man- kind. § 3. We do likewife reje6l all fuch in- ferences as the following, drawn from the above mentioned arguments, as being nothing at all to the purpofe ; " May we not infer 1' that [ 172 ] " that there is much injuflice in i*eproaching *' the Scriptures with countenancing the doc- *' trine of demoniacal pofieffions ? Did the *' facred writers firll introduce this do6trine ? *' It is not even pretended that they did. " Did they ever allert it as a part of that *' revelation which they were divinely com- *' miffioned to publilh to the world ? They " could not thus aflert it ; for it overturns " the main doctrine and evidences of the " Jewifh and Chriftian revelations. On the " contrary, they have done every thing " they could fitly do, to banifh it out of the " world, by carefully inftruding Chriftians in " the abfolute nullity of demons"—. " If you " regulate your judgment concerning demons " by that of the writers either of the Old *' or New Tellament, you muil allow, tiiat " there never was, nor can be, a real demo- *' niac ^." We did not expetft, that, our author on this occafion would have been altogether fo uncandid, fmce even his friend " Lardner" is one among the refpeclable names who confider the apoftles themfelves as believing the reality of poffeffions, and as afTerting it too in their writings -, yet " Dr. Lardner "never thought of * Farm, on Dem. p. 239, 240. alfoLett. to Worthin. p. 124, &c. reproaching [ 173 ] reproaching the Scriptures, and was as far from intending any mjuftke to the facred penmeni^ as this writer himfelf, with all his profefied 2eal for the reputation of the word of God. It is no more a reproach to the Scriptures, that, they aflert the doftrine of dasmoniacal pof- fellions, than it is, that, they reprefent the de- vil as bringing into the world fin and death, and all the miferics to which human nature is fubjeft ; it is to their honour, that, they at- tribute not fuch evil works to Ahnighty God. The doiflrines concerning human mifery were introduced with thofe fa6ls to which they re- late. They were authorized of God to pub- lifii to the world the true caufe of all thole fufferings, and of that death to which every individual of mankind is born •, and they have Ihewn thefe things to.be the v/ork of the devil. Now if any one fhould perverfely afk, " Did they ever aflert it as a part of that re- *' velation which they were divinely com- " miflloned to teach, that, the devil was the ** airthor of fin and death, and that he is ftiil " the occafion of evil and mifery to the hu- '' man fpecies ?" The proper anfwer in fuch a cafe would be this, " He that fhall deny *' thefe things, overturns, as far as lies in his " power, the main doftrine and evidences *' both of the Jewifh and Chriftian revela- 1' tions, and by thus afking, whether the facred !* penmen t 174 ] *' penmen have really aflerted what himfelfwell *' knows they have aflerted ? can only be un- *' derftood as intimating, that they ought not *' to have advanced, as a part of a divine reve- *' lation, thofe doctrines which are undoubt* " edly affirmed in the Scriptures." If, there- fore, it be thought, that, the infpired writers have cither contradidted themfelves, or publifhed o- pinions that are inconfiftent with the immutable principles of reafon, let the fuppofcd evidence of fuch fa6ts be fairly dated, then a plain and direct anfwer may be eafily given. The apoftles have done every thing which they could fitly d.o, to prove the reality of a de- ftru6tive influence from evil fpirits over hu- man nature, while, at the fame time, they have been very careful to fliew the vanity of idol gods, that, men might feek the true God, and Father of Chrifl:, for deliverance and happinefs ; but, they have not faid one word concerning the nullity of wicked demons, left the delufions of the devil fliould prove fatal to unthinking men, alrea.ly brought under the power of fm and death by means which God abhors. If we regulate our judg- ment concerning daemons by the Holy Scrip- tures, we mufl: allow, that, there hath been, and fl:ill may be, many a real dasmoniac. § 4» Wc [ '75 ] § 4- "VVe do not affirm, that, pofTefTions were cither peculiar to the times of Chrifl, or to the country of Judea j neither do we fuppofc, that, the demoniacs mentioned in the Gof- pel were different from real dazmoniacs iri any other part of the world. We are, there- fore, not at all concerned in thofe arguments which are urged againll lucK opinions ; they relate only to particular notions that may have been imprudently connected with the dod:rine, but, do not affedl the truth of thofe fadls which are the fubjefl of difpute,. nor the principles on which the doflrine itfelf is grounded. We have nothing to do with that horrid defcription which is given by Mr. Farmer of their fentiments, who thought pof- feffions to be more frequent in the times of Chrift than either before or afterwards -, it be- longs not to us, nor indeed do we think that ic can be applied with juilice to any of thofe wri- ters mentioned on the occafion *. However^ we beg leave juft to point out one of his ar- guments on this articley becaufe it fuggefts a circumftance of fome moment : *' The New ** Tcftament," Hiith he, " doth not fuppofe *' a difference between the demoniacs in the *"' age of Chrift and other dsemoniacs -, • On Denn. p. 128--142. a " much C 176 1 '' much lefs doth it point out any clear marks " of diftin6lion between them." — " You might " as reafonably affirm, that, the lame, the " blind, the deaf, the dumb, or the per- " fons afflifted with fevers, palfies, and lepro- " fies, who were cured by Chrift, were difFe- " rent from thofe labouring under the fame bo- " dily defeds or diibrders, in other countries, " and in other ages, as affirm this concern- " ing doemoniacs. And thus you would de- " ilroy the evidence of the Gofpel arifing " from Chrift's miraculous cures ^" The New Teftament certainly doth not fuppofe a difference between the dsemoniacs in the age of Chrift and other dasmoniacs, but, we pay no regard to any account of pof- feffions or miraculous cures, that of the holy apoftles excepted ; becaufe, we have not fuch authentic evidence in fupport of other nar- rations of this kind, as we have for the truth of thofe in the Gofpel. Now, if the in- ftances of poffeffion recorded by the facred penmen were not real., nor to be confidered as fuch, then neither can we prove that thofe perfons were really lame, blind, deaf, dumb, or afflifled with fevers, palfies, and lepro- fies, who are faid to be cured by Chrift of thefe diforders. We may as well infift up- f On Dem. p. 147, 148, 149. on [ '77 ] on it, that thefe cafes are not to be under- wood as they are related, as affirm thus much concerning daemoniacs. The vulgar, whofe lan- guage it feems the apoftles ufed on this occa- fion, were often miftaken-, nay, phyficians them- felves frequently err in naming difeales. On this principle of interpreting the words of Scripture, the whole hiftory of our Lord's divine works would fall to the ground, becaufe no confi- dence could be put in the language of the New Teflament ; we could not tell, when the apoftles fpake, what they really meant j and thus you would deftroy the evidence of the truth of the gofpel arifmg from Chrifl's mira- culous cures. Nothing, in our opinion, can ftrike more directly at the authority and cre- dit of the apoftolic hiftory, than the method of reafoning made ufe of on this occafion. § 5. But we are informed that, " The " prophets of Godalfo, as well as the profefTors *' of fcience, when they fpeak upon points of " philofophy, adopt the common language, *' though grounded upon opinions univerfally *' allowed to be erroneous. Our Saviour fays, *'" God maketh his fun to rtfe" An(\ the Pfal- *' mift, — " that the fun knoweth his going dowrC* *' — Sec*." This gentleman hath repeatedly told us, that dasmoniacal polTeflions were bc- « On Dem. p. 317 — 325. N lieved [ '78 ] lieved by all ranks of people in the times m the apoftles, and allowed by the learned phy- Jjciam^ and the moji able philofophers^ and hatli alio undertaken to prove the fa£t, with as much diligence and zeal, as if it had been one ,of the chief objeds which he had in view*; and yet in the very fame " Effay" he now urgeS' it as an argument againil the reality of pof- feiTions, " That the language of Chrift and *' his apoftles was grounded on opinions uni- " verf ally allowed to be erroneous J"^ It is no ealy lafk to reafon with one who fo frequently and txprefsly contradicts his own aiTertions. How- I ever, the belief of pofteffions was general and popular at the time in which the apoftles wrote, as well as for ages both before and af- ter the public miniilry of Chrift. Nor was this to be confidered as the perfuafion of the vulgar only, it v/as the real opinion of the learned in thofe times. There does not ap- pear to- have been any exception among the Jews, unlefs the Sadducees be confidered in that light, who faid, " There is no refur- " re6lion, nor angel, nor fpirit * ;'* for which, tenets they wcj-e univerfally cenfured, and in ©ppofition to which, the facred v/riters have more than once declared themfelves. The knguage, therefore, of the apoftles concern- ing poflefllons, was founded on an opinion uni- * Ijid. p. J IS. 134—143. f A5ls xxili. 8. verfally t 1/9 J Verfally received at that time; none, that believed the exiftenceofruperior beings, ever called the truth of the doflrine inqueftion. Hence, then, it certainly follows, that we have no right to fuppofe that the facred penmen had any other ideas concerning this fubjecl than their terms and expreffions convey. To affirm that they fiirpafled all their countrymen in natural phi- lofophy and fcience, and therefore had dif- ferent notions with refped to this matter, would be contrary to acknowledged facls and their own confefTion ; and to maintain that they had other fentiments communicated to them by revelation, would be abfurd, becaufe this never could be known without their own de- claration, but they have never intimated any fuch thing. The whole of the argument, therefore, drawn from the common ufe of lan- guage founded on opinions known to be er- roneous, is entirely overthrown, becaufe no error concerning this matter was difcovered, or even pretended, in the apoftles days. Should we indeed, on hearing a gentleman fay, *' The ** fun goes down clear this evening," infill lipon it that he was Ignorant of the Newtonian philofophy, ic would be uncandid, and even ridiculous, becaufe the diurn"al motion of the earth round its own axis, as well as its annual motion round the fun, are now believed even N 2 by, 1 I So ] by commcn mechanics and labourers; but fhould we, from this circumilance, take upoa v.s to affirm that the apoftles did not mean what they fay concerning pofTeffions, it would be little better than an affront to the common fenfe of mankind, becaufe their language re- lates to principles, the truth of which was not called in queftion either by the vulgar or the learned at the time in which they wrote. Dr. Lardner therefore honeftly confefTes, that the reality of the apoftles belief concerning pof- feffions cannot be denied, and alio adds, that it needs not to be contelled *. § 6. But it feems, " You can no more in- *' fer the apoftles belief of polTelTions from " their faying that fome had demons, or a *' fpirit of Apollo, than you can learn a man's " fyftem of philofophy, from his faying that " his friend hath St. Antho7ifs fire, or from " his affirming that the fun rifes andfets every *' day ^." This laft affirmation, in fome con- nexions, would go a great way in determining a man's fyftem of natural philofophy. Be that as it may. We never can allow that the facred penmen only mention pofleffions cccafwnally, as when we fay that ''our friend * Lard. Cafe of Dem. p. 122: ^ Far. on Dem. p. 322, 333. [' hath [ iSi ] " hatli St. Anthony's fire, or, that the fun fets " clear this evening-," for in the firft of ihefe cafes, we intend no more than to affirm that our friend is in a bad ftate of health, and to convey fome idea of his diforder, without even thinking of an invifible agent, and in the latter, we mean only to defcribe the appear- ance of the weather, not to give an account of the folar fyllem. But the evangelifts fpeak of pofleflions, as the very fubje6t which they mean to illuftrate, in the mod direfl and ex- prefTive language •, they aflert the fad; as that point which they had immediately in view. The firft time the fubjeft is mentioned it is in- troduced in the following manner : " And in the fynagogue there was a man which had a fpirit of an unclean dsemon, and cried out with a loud voice faying. Let us alone, what have we to do with thee, thou Je- fus of Nazareth ? Art thou come to de- ftroy us ? I know thee who thou art, the holy one of God ! And Jefus rebuked him, faying. Hold thy peace, and conie out of him. And when the daemon had thrown him in the midft, he came out of him, and hurt him not. And they were all amazed, and fpake among themfelves, faying. What a word is this .'' for with tt authority and power he comrpandeth the N 3 t[ uncleau r 182 1 '* unclean fpiri:s and tbcy The facred penmen, not only in this, but in many other palTages, ftill more dii-eclly afcribe fayings to the daemons, as diilinft from the perfons poffeffed : *' From many alfo djEmons " came out crying, and faying, Certainly *' thou art Chrift the Son of God. B-Jt " he rebuking them, fuffered them not to fay *' that they knew him to be theChrift"*." The evangelift is very careful not to write thus •, " That daemons came out of jjtany crying^'' " Thou art the Son of God," for then it would have been entirely the fpeech of the per- fons afBicled, but he fays, '' out of many came " demons crying, "" Thou art the Chrift."" The conftruction of his language therefore obliges us to refer the fpeech to the immediate agency of daemons, and not to the afflided perfons' own thoughts and reasoning. In an- other cafe, it is faid, " The demons be- *' fought himi that he would not com- " mand them to go out into the deep— " but that he would fufFer them to en- '' ter into an herd of fwine: and he fuf- " fered them. Then went the daemons out " of the man, and entered into the fwine : and *' the herd ran violently down a fleep place *' into the lake, and were choked " **. It is } Lukeiv. 33 — 37. ^ Ibid. 41, " Ibid. viil. 31—53* not [ 'S? ] not pofTible for any one to ufe more de- cifive language on this fubjcd: than the in- fpired writers have done. We have fcleded the above paflages from that evangclifl:, whofe proficiency in human literature is acknow- ledged, and who was alfo a phyfieian. Fie could not think of afcribing to bodily dif- orders verbal confefTions of our Lord's true chara6ler, and fupplications tliat they might not be fent into the deep, yet he doth afcribe thefe things to the dsemons, v/hich he fays came out of pofTefled perfons, while he is very careful not to impute fuch confelTion? and fupplications to the thoughts and intentioa of the perfons themfelves who were healed at the time. The apoftles exprefsly wrote oij the power of Chrift over evil fpirits, and they aflert that he gave them alfo power over evil fpirits ; we cannot therefore difcover their reai fentiments concerning this fubjed, on any other principle than that according to which we under- ftand the opinions of Boyle, Newton, Locke, or any other grave writer, that is, by allow- ing that their language conveys their real thoughts ; for if it does not, we can af- fert nothing with refped to the judgment of the evangelifts in this matter: it will be juft the fame to us as if they had not written at all, fince there is no circumftance in the hifi N 4 tory [ 184 ] tory of thofe times that will fuggeft even a probability of their having any other ideas than their exprefTions convey. If Mr. Farmer had not iifed language concerning the nature of poffeiTions very different from that em- ployed by the evangelifls on the fame fubje6t, we could neither have known that his notions of the do(5lrine were contrary to thofe ex- preJTed in the New Teftament, nor yet that he confidered the apofties themfelves as not believing the truth of dsemoniacal poflfefTions ; his particular opinion therefore on this point never can be underitood without being re- futed, for the very reafon on account of which it is underftood. The moft hopelefs dilemma into which any writer can be driven ! He can ufe no means of afluring us that the apoilles did not believe the reality of pof- feflions, but fuchas wWlprove that the apofties did believe xht reality of pofleflions j for if we ought to confider his words as a fufEcient de- claration of his own thoughts concerning this matter, v;e muft alfo view their words as the only authentic declaration of their thoughts oa the fubje6t. « § 7. " But," it feems, '* the do6lrine con- cerning poiTeflions is only a point of natural philofophy, and not a fubjc6t of religion 5 " fo [ i85 ] ** fo that it was not the bufinefs of our Lord ** and his apoftles to correft the language of '* the Jews, with refpedl to this article, al- though erroneous *.'* We think it not worth while to enquire what is here meant by " natural philofophy," as diilinguilhed from " religion," for the following reafon, becaufe the very peribns who urge this as an argument, have repeatedly afllired us, with fuch energy as cannot fail of procu- ring attention, that poflefiing daemons and the Heathen gods were all the fame, and on this fuppofition ground their denial of dsemoniacal pofleflions. Now, in order to evade the confequence of the dire<5t and exprefs language of Scripture concerning poflelTions, we are kindly informed, that this *' is only a " point ot natural philofophy, and not a fub- *' je6t of religion," but we Ihall foon be cor- reded again, and given to underftand, that this do6lrine is one of the moft capital errors in the Chriftian church, and the parent of endlefs fuperftition. It was certainly the bufinefs of Chrilt and his apoftles to teach all thofe divine truths which belong to the redemption and happinefs of mankind, and to deliver men from that ignorance of God, and flavilh fear of invifible powers, which prevailed over the 5 Lard. Sykes on Pem. and Farm. p. 358—363. world. r is6 ] v/orld. Does not the belief of pofleffions mingle itfelf with every part of religion, and aftedx our judgment concerning the whole fcheme of Revelation and Providence ? Is it not exprefsly faid, that, " for this purpofe the " Son of God was manifefted, that he might *' deftroy the works of the devil *?" Was it not then necelTary to guard men a^ainft wrong ap- prehenfions of the power of Satan, left they Jliould hereby miftake the real defign of the Gofpel ? And doth not Chrift himfelf, point- ing to the very end for which he was mani- fefted, fay, " If I by the finger of God caft " out daemons, NO DOUBT the KING- *' DOM OF GOD is come upon you f r" He could not more diredly or effe6tually give his ianftion to the truth of any dofbrine, than he here does to that of poffeflions, as conneded with the immediate caiife of his own appear- ance. What muit we then think of our Lord's charafter as a divine teacher, if, when an- fwering the objedions of his bittereft enemies acrainft his own authority and profejfcd power over evil fpirits,. he not only forebore to cen- fure, but exprefsly confirmed, fuch an erro- neous opinion, by an argument which affeds the nature and validity of the whole Gofpel ? • I John iii. 8. f Luke xi, zor This [ iS7 ] This thought will not beeafily admitted by fo-' ber Chrillians. How often are the language and authority of the prophets brought to prove that the Heathen idols were not inhabited by any invifible beings, who could almoft rival the true God ? Now if the language of the pro- phets concerning the vanity of idols ought to be confidered as unanfwerable, why (hould not the exprefs afTertions of our Lord and the apoftles be as decifive concerning the reality of pofieflions ? Was the cafe of demoniacs much more difficult to determine than the other ? Had the writers of the Old Tefta- ment a more extenfive knowledge of the na- ture and inability of Heathen gods than the Evangelifts j Or was a far lefs meafure of the Holy Spirit given to Chrift and his apoftles than to the prophets, fo that fufficient room was left for modern divines to contradidl, in religious do6lrines, both the fentiments and lancjuage of the New Teftament ? 'a § 8. But, fays Mr. Farmer, in another place, we have already feen that neither Chrift nor his apoftles firft introduced into the world the dodrine of pofieflions, or the language that exprefled it. If they are liable to cenfure, therefore, it is only for not de- parting from the accuftomed modes of A " fpeaking [ i88 1 '* fpeaking on this fubjed:, for not forming a " new language concerning it. We have " likcwife ieen that they never afiert the doc- " trine of pofTeffions, but on the contrary " entirely fubvert it, when they are profcf- " fedly {"bating thofe doftrines which they were " immediately commiflioned and inftrufted to " teach the world '.'* Hence our author infers, that they muft contradid themfelves, if they really meant to countenance the opi- nion on which the common language was grounded. We might here afk the two fol- lowing queftions, and urge the confequences : firft. Which bears hardeft upon the apoftles* character, to fuppofe that they have contra- di6t:ed themfelves -, or to maintain, that, not- withftanding the language which they ufed concerning pofTeffions, yet they never believed, that there was a real demoniac ? Next, fmce our author brings the matter to this iffuc, that he muft either confider the apoftles as not meaning what their language affirms, or elfe as having contradicted themfelves, is there not at leaft, fome reafon to fufpefl, that the contradiflion is not, in fact, with the facred penmen, but in his own imagination ? That p On Dem. p. 314. See on the latter paragraph, §31. ^ithei; [ i89 ] either the do6lrine may after all prove true, or elfe himfelf may have miflaken them in Hating thofe do6trines, which they were immediately commiffioned and inftruded to teach the world ?'* A modeft perfon will not confider thefe things as ablblutely impojjlble. This gentleman is, without doubt, a great and learned writer, yet, is it a crime to fuppofe, that the apoftles were not his in- feriors in point of difcernment ? However, we at prefcnt wave fuch matters, and beo- leave to 2Sk ; What are we to underftand by this paflage, " If they are liable to cenfure, it is " only for not departing from the accuftomed " m.odes of fpeaking on this fubject ?'* Does our author choofe to be underflood as think- ing, that it would have been better, upon the whole, if the infpired writers had exprefled themfelves otherwife than they have done con- cerning pofleflions ? We wifh that he had ex- plained his mind on this article. Was it not as eafy for the writers of the New Teftament to have wholly departed from the accuftomied forms of fpeech on this fubjed, as it was for the prophets touching idols, if the Evangelifts could have done it with the fame confciouf- nefs of truth ? Now, are they liable to any juft cenfure, for not ufing a different lan- guage ? Would it be unfair, to reprefent thii [ 190 3 this gentleman as not only taking upon him to cenfure the terms of the infpired writers, but alfo to intimate in what manner they ought to have exprefied themlelves ; if this would be uncandid, in what light are ws to under- ftand his reafoning in the above pafTage ? Are we to look upon the terms and exprelTions of the apoftles concerning d^emoniacs, both as juft and proper, and as denoting what they really meant ? If neither will be admitted, we leave our readers to make their own conclu- fions ; obferving in the mean while, that the facred penmen did not fpeak of pofleffing dae- mons in the manner and ftyle either of the Heathens on this fubjeft, or of the Jews in their own times. Since, therefore, the apof- tles refufed both their ideas of daemons, would they not have departed ftill further from the received principles and accuftomed modes of fpeech concerning demoniacs, if they could have done it with a good confcience ? § g. But, fays Mr. Farmer, " a thoufand *' idolatrous and fuperftitious pra6lices being *' grounded on a belief of the power of djE- *' mons, the prophets of God under the New " Teftament, as well as thole under the Old, " openly taught what their miracles intimated, " the utter inability of thefe fpirits to do any '' good t i!5> 7 " good or evil to mankind *." If onr aiitho? be fcrious in thele alTertions, does he not evi- dently contradi6l: himfelf ? Has he not been Jelling us, that if the apoftles were liable to cenfure, it was only for not departing from the accuftomed modes of fpeaking on this fubje<5l ? Now he gives us to underftand that they did depart from the accuftomed forms of fpeech concerning pofTeiTmg dremons, as much as the prophets did from the accuftomed languao-e of idolaters concerning the Heathen gods, and that they both openly taught the utter inabi- lity of thefe fpirits to do any good or cviJ te> mankind •, although we ftiall be afterwards iu- formed that no mention is made of cafting ouC dcemons in the Old Teftament. The pro- phets and apoftles both taught the vanity of the Pagan deities, and the folly of their wor~ Ihippers -, but let this gentleman fliew us one paffage in the whole Bible, where the fa- ered penmen have mentioned the inability of poflefTing dasmons to do either good or hurt, and we ftiall be content. We afk no- thing unreafonable, nor, as we imagine, any thing difficult to him, who can repeat fuch aflertions as the above with fo much eafc. A.nd accordingly, therefore, he thus proceeds-. ? On Dem. p. 371.' V The [ 192 J *' The language employed in Scripture oh " this fubjeft is fo very clear and determinate, *' that the argument drawn from it againft *' their power cannot pofTibly be evaded, but *' by faying, that by the Gentile Gods and *' demons, the facred writers did not mean " thofe gods and demons whom the Gentiles '' worfhipped, but fome other fpirits whom " they did not know, much lefs acknowledge *' and worihip. If fuch a method of explain- " ing Scripture be allowed, language can be *' of no ufe '.'* Our author is greatly mif- taken concerning this fuppofed argument; and, to fhew him, that it may be eafily evaded, without his fuppofition, we return the fol- lowing brief anfwer : that by the Gentile gods and daemons the facred writers did undoubtedly *' mean thofe gods and djemons whom the Gen- " tiles worfhipped," and not " other fpirits^'* whom the Heathens never knew. But how can this be an argument againil the reality of pofief- fion by evil fpirits •, Or how can it operate as a proof that the apoftles did not believe the dodrine of poifeffions ? Did the evangelifts ever once intimate, that thofe fpirits, which our Lord caft out, were the Gentile gods and daemons ? Have the facred writers ever faid f OnDem. p. 372. the [ 193 ] the fame things of pofTeiring fplrits, which they have affirmed concerning the Heathen gods ? If not, with v/hat juftice can we re- prefent thofe demons, which our Lord cafl: out^ to be no other than the imaginary objeds of Pagan worfhip ? Arid is it not truly furprif- ing, that our author cannot perceive himfelf alone, bending under the weight of that very abfurdity, which, by a ftrange delufion^ he fancies to be hanging on other men ? Is not the language employed in Scripture, on this fubjed, fo very clear and determinate* that even himfelf cannot poffibly evade the argument drawn from it, as a proof that the apoflles did believe the reality of pof- feffions, but by faying, that the facred wri- ters, by daemons and evil fpirics, did not mean demons and evil fplrits, but fucli things as are well known to be no fpirits ? If fuch a method of explaining Scripture be allowed, language indeed can be of no life ! According to tiiis rule of interpreta- tion, the moil explicit declaration from the apoflles can anfwer no end : we fee ic from the very facts under confideration 5 whence it truly follows, as this gentleman fhrewdly obferves, that " there are prejudices tcofiuhhorn to yield to any evidence/' O § 10. Th« t «94 ] § lo. The following are likewife urged as anguments againft dccmoniacal poffeflions. " There were," it feems, " feveral occafions " on which it is natural to fuppofe, fonre men- *' tion of the dodtrine of poflcffions would " have been made in the Old Teftament, if " it had been revealed to the ancient pro- " phets. On this fuppofition, who would not '' expeft, in the hiftory of their miraculous ** cures, to read of their expelling demons ? " So likewife, when Mofes prefcribed the " means of being purified from the defilement " of natural diforders, is it not ftrange, that *' he appointed no method of being cleanfed " from the defilement even of a diabolical pof- " fejfion ?'''-''''' It is more extraordinary dill, that " the Old Teftament prophets, though they *' foretel the peculiar glories of theMefTiah,"— " have taken no notice of" — ** his ejeding " demons, and enabling his followers to do the *' fame. The proper inference from hence *' feems to be, that what is called the ejedlion " of demons is the cure of a natural diforder, " and is included in Chrift*s reftoring the dif- •' eafed to health *." It is not every one that could have made out this inference from the above premifes ; but it was neceflary for our • Farm* on Dcm. p. 175—179. 6 author's [ 195 3 author's plan, which muft not be Interrupted by little circumftances of obfcurity that may- happen to occur in the way of reafoning. Our Lord performed many divine works, which never had been done by any of the fervants of God; yet no one, before this gentleman, ever thought of rejecting the reality of a par- ticular miracle, as exprelled in the New Tefta- iTjent, becaufe nothing of the fame kind was done by the prophets. We cannot, indeed^ ferioufly urge this as an argument on any occa- fion ; for it would be a flat contradidion to the words of Chrift : " If I had not dons *' among them the works v/hich none other " man did, they had not had fin \» " Mofes," who " prefcribed means of being purified from " the defilement of natural diforders," inftituted no rite of purification from madnefs, the very difeafe which is faid to be cured by the calling out daemons, and which, as we have been already informed, was attended with almolt perpetual uncleannefs ". Now are we, in the manner of our author, to infrr from this cir- cumftance, that there was no fuch thing in his time ? By no means, for he threatens the dif- * John XV. 24. " Abo\«, chap. iv. § 9. O 2 obedient [ 196 ] obedient with it^. Shall we then conclixJe, that he thought madnels different from " natural *' diforders" in general ? This would terminate in favour of dcemoniacal influence: we can- not allow it. Shall we then difmifs the argu- ment ? No ; not yet, at lead, for we have fomething nx)re to offer : " The Pagan reli- " gion provided many rites of purification, " for thofe who v/ere pofTeffed by dsemons^ " the gods of that religion. Now, if Mofes "~ knew thefe gods to be the devil and his ** angels, and that they poiTefTed mankind, *' would it not have been judged necefliiry " by tills prophet, and highly defirable by " the ITraelites, that fome rites of purification " fhould be appointed for thofe who were in- " habited by fuch impure infernal fpirits ?" - To this we anfvver : That the religious rites of Pagans were no rule for Mofes ; that he has no where defcribed the Heathen " gods to be " the devil and his angels," the incapacity of the one topoffefs the bodies of men, is, therefore, no proof of the inability bf the other j and that the inftitutions of Mofes arofe neither ■from what himfelf judged necefTary, nor from the defires of the people, but from the autho- rity and revealed will of God alone: we can- ^ DeuU xxviii. 2?. not^ C 197 ] not, therefore, fay, what he would or would not have done, had he known the reality of pofTefTions by evil fpirits ; fince, as an infpired lawgiver, he could injoin nothing but what God commanded. This gentleman forgets, that Chriftians are not allowed, on the princi- ples of revelation, to admit thofe things as arguments, which put the laws of Mofes on a level with the inllitutions of a Lycurgus or Solon : our reverence for the holy Scriptures obliges us to rejed fuch vain fuppofitions ; not that they would affe^l our fubjeft, if con- • fidered as proper, for conjectures will never be admitted as proofs, but we think our- felves bound to honour every part of the word of God. For the fame reafon, we can- not doubt the truth of thofe things which are aflerted in the New Teftamcnt, although not predifled in the Old. The prophets never foretold, that our Lord would multiply a fmall quantity of bread in fuch a manner as to fatisfy the hunger of many thoufands ; that the winds and feas Ihould obey his word ; or that a great multitude, ftruck with terror, fnould fly out of the temple, upon his hold- ing up a fmall fcourge-, which things are ac- knowledged to be fome of the chief glories of the MefTiah, and works not inferior to the ejedtion of daemons. Now, fhall we deny O 3 thefe thefc fads, becaufe they were not foretold ? We cannot make fuch concefTions as thefe, in favour of an hypothefis founded on a direft contradiflion to the language of Scrip- ture, and the exprefs defign of our Lord's appearance in the world. § II. " We find not," fays a very learned writer, " any inftances of pofTcfTions by good *■ angels, or other good fpirits. Why then ■** fhould pofTefllons by evil fpirits be allowed " of ? Can it be reafonable to fuppofe, that '* Divine Providence would permit evil fpi- " rits to have more power to do evil than '* others have to do good'^?" To this we an- fwer, that ' ^ good angels, or other good fpirits," cannot '* do evil" things, and yet remain good. Poflefilons have always been confidered, not only as a fource of mifery to the unhappy fufferers, but alfo as inftances of wicked ufur- pation ', for no being whatever can have a right to abufe the bodily organs of men, Poffenions are always fpoken of as cauies of delufion and error to the mind-, nor indeed ran they b^ looked on in any other light, for truth is never conveyed in this manner. How then is it pofTible that good angels ihould be ^ fcard. Cafe of Dcm. p. 75. concerned [ »99 ] conc-erned in works of ftich a nature ? Is it not very abfurd in men of learning to afk why righteous beings do not afl wickedly ; and then to urge this as a reafon why evil fpi- rits cannot perform that very wickednefs which we deny concerning the good ? But it is afl^e.d whether " Divine Providence would permit " evil fpirits to have more power to do evil *' than others have to do good ?" We cannot certainly determine what was intended by this queftion. However, we beg leave to obferve, that God will never allow good angels, as fuch, to acl wickedly •, that he has permitted evil fpirits, -as well as wicked men, to exert their power more than they ought to Jiave done •, that intelligent agents may have a natural power of effe<5ting what they ought never to attempt \ but that neither their privilege nor power of doing good is in the lead abridgeci, by aflerting that they cannot do evil, and yet continue to be good ; and that the happy exemption of good fpirits from any evil work is no proof that wicked fpirits are not capable of that work. But if the defign of the above queftion was to intimate, that men can receive no advantage by means of good angels, arAi that we ought not tiierefore to fuppofe, that evil fpirits are on any occnfion the inllruments of their aiflidlion and diftrcfs, we then an- O 4 f'.vcr. [ 200 ] fer, that the Scriptures frequently reprefeni good angels as affifting good men j that they are ftyled in the word of God "miniftring *' fpirits, fent forth to minifter for thofe who *' fhall be heirs of falvation*;" and that their power to do good is very great, if we believe the prophets and apodles, It would bear hard indeed upon the charader of the facred wri- ters, to fuppofe fhat they were equally mif- taken, both concerning good and evil an* gels ; in this cafe their reprefentation of Di- vine Providence mull lofe its credit. § 12. But a great many evils, as we are told, have arifen from this doftrine of pof- feffions ; for thus the matter is reprefented, " Not to mention here the many other incon- ** veniences attending the belief of our being " in the power of any' fuperior malevolent " fpirits, this belief hath a direct tendency " to fubvert the foundation of natural piety, " and to beget idolatry and fuperftition. " Thefe we are certain were the effects which '' this belief produced among the Heathens','* This method of refutation is fo very eafy, that V/e cannot forbear following the example be-- • Ileb. i. 14. ^ Farm, on Dem. p. i6&"-;iju fore [ 201 3 fore us. Not to mention here the many other inconveniences attending the difbelief of fu- perior evil beings, infidelity of this kind " hath " a dire6l tendency to fubvert the foundation of " natural piety, and to beget" in the minds of men a difregard of thofe punifhments which are denounced againft vice, and to cherifli the moft extenfive wickednefs. *' Thefe we are " certain were the effedls which this difbelief " produced among the Heathens.'* Such an argument as the foregoing is not to be an- fwered in this manner ; for, " Endlcfs fuper- " ftitions hath the doctrine of poiTeflions ge- *' nerated amongft Chriftians, efpecially in ^* the darkeft ages of the church. Fafci- *' nation and witchcraft then made a capital " article of religion. According to the ac- " count given us by hiitorians, nothing was *' to be feen but priefts driving out devils " from thofe who were faid to be poflefTed. " The courts of juftice, compofed of ma- " giftrates, who ought to have had more un- *' derftanding than the vulgar, were employed^ *' in trying witches and forcerers, who were '' found guilty upon the pretended evidence " of the devils." To this paragraph a cu- rious note is added, in which we are fa- voured with the names of twelve devils, who were witnefies againft fome unhappy curate 2 for [ 202 ] for cxcrcifing the black art. It was beneath Mr. Farmer to colled fuch tales as thefe for fo infignificant a purpofe. Doth the abufe of any doflrine overthrow its foundation ? Are the advocates of any particular opinion to be charged with all the injurious circumftances that may have accidentally attended it in for- mer times ? Surely not. From the manner in which the inftitution of the Lord's Supper is exprefled, men, in the darkeft ages of the church, inferred that moft ridiculous of all opinions, the do6trine of tranfubftantiation. Now there are fome profefled Chriftians who rejedt the ufe of this inftitution, and thereby efcape thofe abfurdities which the Papifts have connefted with the words of Chrift ; but does it follow, that thefe are the only religious fe6t who have a clear and juft view of the Lord*s Supper-, and are Proteftants to be charged with ignorance and weaknefs, for con- tinuing" among them an ordinance with which ignorant perlbns may have conneded abfurd ideas ? Will any confiderate man fay, that true Chriftians are anfwerable for all the fcenes of horror and bloodilied, of which the church of Rome is known to have been guilty j Or, niuft we infer from thefe things that the belief of the Chriftian religion ** hath a dired ten- '' denrv to fubvcrt the foundation of natural " piety, [ 203 ] *"* piety, and to beget idolatry and fnpcr- " ftition," becaufe the profeflion of it has been unhappily connected with fuch evil works ? Would it not be difingenuous and uncandid to reafon in this manner ? And yet the mod cruel and horrid tranfaftions that can be picked out from the darkeft ages of the church are brought to prove, that the doc- trine of pofTefTions *' hath a dired tendency to ^ fubvert the foundation of natural piety ;"and then we are alked, with an air of feeming con- tempt, '* Is this a hiftory of creatures who '* boaft of being rational ?" But let our au> thor anfwer the queftion himfelf, for it be- longs not at prefent to his opponents, who, if they be not his equals, are yet as fincerely employed in promoting the caufe of reafon and humanity. His application of the moft flagrant inftances of wickednefs that ever dif- graced former ages, to the opinions of pious and inofFenfive Chriftians of our own times, hath more the appearance of mifreprefentation and abufe than of fober reafoning. § 13. Dr. Lardner urges it as an argument againft the reality of pofTeflions, that they *' feem to be inconfiftent with thegoodnefs of *' God :" But are they fo in truth ? This is tlie point to be proved. There is z very great difference [ 204 ] difference between equivocal appearances and authentic evidence. Mr. Farmer prefies home this argument, in his ufual manner, with equal warmth and ftrength of language. Let us hear them both. The former thus conveys his mind : " For let any man think with him- " felf, if it be not a ilrange and hard cafe *' for a man to be put into the power of evil " fpirits i or for apoitate angels, or other im- " pure and wicked fpirits, one or more of " them, to be allov/ed to take poffeflion of *' him, and to teaze and torment him as they " think fit. Is this fuited to that (late of " trial in which we now are ? Can v/e fairly *' reconcile this to the wifdom and equity of " the divine government*?" The latter, af- ter obferving that, " the human fyftem is " fubjeft to invariable laws, fuch as none but " God can controul," thus reafons : " Are " we to take it forgranted, that God will fuffer " thefe laws to be controuled, merely for the " fake of fubjedting the healths, the under- *' ftandings, and the lives of mankind, even thole. *' of the tendered age, and of eminent piety, *' to the caprice and malice of evil fpirits ? " This is a point not to be admitted without " the ftrongeft evidence ; fo repugnant doth » Lard. Cafe of Dem. p. 77, 79. [ 205 ] *' it appear to all our ideas of the equity, goodnefs, and mercy of the gracious pa- " rent of mankind •»." So great is this wri- ter's zeal in overthrowing fuppofed errors, that he often feems to trample on truth itfelf, and to violate thofc facred rules which ouo-ht to be obferved even towards an adverfary. We do not believe, that any of thofe perfons who maintain the truth of dsemoniacal pof- feflions as related in the Gofpel, ever con- fidered them as inconfiftent with thofe invari- able laws, which refped either the univerfe in general, or the human fyftem in particular ; far lefs do they ever fuppofe, that " God will fufFer " thefe laws to be controuled, merely for the fake *' of fubjefling the health, the underftanding, " and lives of mankind to the caprice and ma- " lice of evil fpirits •," or that beings of this nature can either " torment or teaze any one as •' they think fit." We refled on fuch thoughts with horror, and on fuch infinuations with afto- nifhment. Let this argument then be ftript of all mifreprefentaticn, or what may be called the licentioufnefs of reafoning, and it will be found to have juft the fame force againft the equity and goodnefs of Divine Providence it- felf, which it hath againft tlic opinion in dif- pute. For it neither is, nor indeed can be de- ^ Farm, en Dem. p. 167. nied^ f 206 ] Bied, that God has thought proper in his wlfdom to fufFer great numbers to be afBided with diftraflion and madnefs, who were not the worft of men ; now, if this fact can be reconciled with the equity of his government, the means by which it is brought about will be con- fident with his goodnefs. If it fhould flill be objected, that there is a material difference between the cffefts of thofe invariable laws, by which the world, and the human fyftem as a part of it, is wifely governed, and the mif- chievous influence of evil beings, we an- fwer, that the confequence in either cafe, fo far as the goodnefs of God is concerned, is exadlly the fame ; for we do not call in quef- tion the divine goodnefs, when a righteous and benevolent man is ftripped of all that is dear to him in this world, by treachery and vio- lence, or is cruelly murdered, any more than when fuch a one fuftains the heavieft loffes by ftorms and tempefts, or is killed with a ftrokc of lightning, although his wretchednefs, or death, in the former.cafe, was brought about by meaiis of great wickednefs. Thinking men would laugh at us, Ihould we infift upon it, that we muft either deny the power of in- telligent beings to injure one another, or elfe give up our belief of the equity and goodnefs of [ 207 1 of divine providence, and maintain that the world is not governed by invariable laws. § 13. Mr. Farmer lays great ftrefs upon what he has advanced in his " Diflertation on *' Miracles," concerning the inability of created fpirits to controul the laws of nature. " All " the arguments," fays he, '* from reafon, " elfewhere urged again ft any fuperior created *' fpirits pofTefTing the power of working mi- " racles, or producing any effed in our fyf- " tem, contrary to the general rules by which '* it is governed, conclude here. But I Ihall " only obferve, that in every part of the ** world that falls under our obfervation, we *' fee a fixed order of caufes and efFeds, fuch ** as is not difturbed ^y any invifible be- *' ings«." The arguments here mentioned conclude nothing at all againft the dodrine of dasmoniacal poflefTions, becaufe we neither look upon them as " miracks," nor as " effeds con* *' trary to the general rules, by which our fyftem *' is governed." We are not fureiy under any obligation to believe thofe abfurdities, which may be requifite to fiiew the force and propriety of this writer's arguments. He has no right to compel other men to appear « Farm. onDem, p. i6S, as C 20$ ] as fools, that himfelf may have an oppof- tunity of difcovering fuperior wifdom ! How- ever, we fhall readily give him a fecond hear- ing concerning this particular article, as he looks upon it to be of fuch importance. " The grand principle which runs through '* the whole Jewifh difpenfation is, that Je- ** hovah is the one true God, that he is fole " Creator and Sovereign of the world, which " he governs by fixed and invariable laws, *' and that no fuperior beings whatever, be- *' fides God, are able to controul thofe laws, " or that courfe and order of events, which he *' eftablifhed. Accordingly, the Old Tefta- " ment refers to the immediate and miraculous " agency of God alone, all thofe effeds which " are contrary to that order. The Chriflian *' difpenfation proceeds upon the fame prin- " ciple^*' To this we return the following brief anfwer : That the fovereignty of God over the world is as much, and as juftly, af- ferted by thofe who believe the reality of poffeffions, as by thofe who deny it ; that God at no time ever controuled thofe lav/s which are fixed and invariable •, that the Divine Be- ing, as we apprehend, never did in any one inftance ad contrary to that courfe and or- *OnDem. p. 185. der i 209 ] der of events which liimfclf hath eftablifhed ; that neither the Old nor the New Teframent ever afcribes works of this nature to the agency of God; and that the reafun of mankind can- not but cenfure llich ideas, and fuch expref- fions, when applied to the bleffed deity !" §. 14. " A miracle,'* fays an eminent phi- lofopher, Mr. Hume, " may be accurately ' defined a tranfgrejfion of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity ^ or by the inter pofal of fome invifibk agent.— -The raifmg of a houfe or fhip into the air is a vifible ' miracle ^" From this definition he at- tempts to (hew the utter impoffibility of all miracles, fince God can never be a tranfgref- for of his ov/n perfed: laws* Our Divine adopts the fame ilyle, and fays : " There *' is a real tranfgreflion of thefe feveral laws *' of matter and motion, when a (lone is ** raifed up in the air, or fupported on the furface of the v/atcr, without the appli- " cation of any corporeal force •, or when a " difeafe is cured, without the affiflance of ** the fprings and powers belonging to the " human frame, or the application of any ** fuitable medicine .'* He then goes on to fhew, that fince all miracles are contradidions • Effay on Mir, <" Farm, on Mir. p. 8, 9. P to [ 2IO ] to the laws and order ellablifhed in the different parts of the creation, there can be no pro- per evidence of the truth of any miracles, but of fuch as are wrought by God him- fclf, and thence he infers the impoflibi- lity of all dsemoniacal pofTefTions, fince if we allow their reality, we muft acknowledge them to be fo many miraculous events *, This is a very concife method of reafoning. Miracles fhall be juft what the author is pleafed to define them, and thofe things fhall be miracles which he thinks fit to call fo, then the do(51:rines which he wifhes to eftablifli will naturally follow from his own definitions, and thefe muft be received as authentic, not want- ing any evidence in their fupport ! But dif- ferent writers will, as we fee, on this modern plan of reafoning, draw contrary inferences from the fame premifes : as for inftance, *' Miracles are real tranfgrejjions of the laws " of nature i" this Mr. Hume urges as a proof that God never wrought one ; this Mr. Farmer alledges as a clear evidence, that God only can perform a miracle : for the Deity, according to our Divine, has not only controuled thofe laws which himfelf ordained to be invariable^ but alfo aded contrary to that <0n Dem.p. i66, 184. courfc [ 211 ] ' coiirfe and order of events which himfelf hath eftabliftied. The Holy Scriptures no where define a miracle. They indeed call by this name fuch effetSls, as it is evident from the narration, never could have happened without the interpofition of an intelligent nature fu- perior to our own, and ibme of which never could have come to pafs without the imme-- diate agency of God himfelf, but they never intimate that fuch effeds are either contrary to theeftablifhed laws of nature, or even attended with a fnfpenfion of their influence, far lefs do they ever apply to any of the works of God, fuch harfh and unbecoming exprefllons as thefe, a real tranfgrejpion of the laws of matter and motion, a repugnancy to the fettled laws and courfe of nature, a contrariety to the order of caufes and effedls which himfelf hath eftablilhed-, we are therefore under no obli- gation whatever to receive fuch arbitrary and abfurd definitions as the above. And not- withftanding Mr, Farmer is fo very pofitive and frequent in the ufe of this difagreeable language, yet we fcruple not to alk. What laws of matter or motion were tranfgrejfed^ when the prophet's axe was raifed to the fur- face of Jordan ? Can it be proved that this was done without the application of cor- poreal force; and fuppofing that it was fo P 2 done. [ 212 ] done, yet may not the refiftance of any par- ticular body be overcome by an immaterial power, without altering any of the laws which relate to the matter or qualities of that body ? Is it by the application of corporeal force akne that a gentleman puts his hand to his head ? Is it not as eafy for God, by a mere vo- lition, on any extraordinary occafion, to caufe one part of matter to move another agreeably with the laws of nature, as it is for us to put a bowl into motion, or to pufh a ball with a (lick in our hands ? And why is it re- pugnant to the general rules by which the na- tural world is governed, for any fuperior created agents to overcome the refiftance of par- ticular bodies * ? Has it ever yet been fhewn, that there are no fuperior created beings, whofe natural powers extend either to the human fyftem, or to any part of our earth ? Bare affertions will not be fufficient on fubjeds of this kind. And befides, the laws of nature mull be thoroughly underftood, clearly de- fined, and their extent accurately marked out, before we can prove to any one what would or would not be contrary to their influence, or inconfiflent with their operation, or a tranf- grejfwn of their authority. If we really mean • Farm, on Mir. p. 9. Note. to 1 21.^ ] TO perfuade the world, that miracles are thofc fffedts which God produces contrary to that courfe and order of events which himfelf hath eftablifhed, it will be fnfpedled, that we intend either to deflroy the very opinion of their exiftence, or elfe to overthrow men's faith in the wifdom and {lability of Divine Providence. § 15. But we cannot deviate now into en- quiries of this kind ; for although a proper refpedl to our author's argument hath led us into the above remarks, yet it muft appear obvious, that our prefent fubjeft does not re- quire a difcufiion of fuch articles •, fince it is abundantly evident, that thofe cafes which are called d^Emoniacal poflcfTions, whatever be the caufe of them, are not at all inconfiftent with thofe general principles by which God rules the world, otherwife they never could have happened ; neither do we look upon them to be miracles. Evil fpirits are faid to have entered into many, and to have affli6ted them greatly, but thefe events are never afcribed by any facred writer to a miraculous in- fluence ; it is only the calling out daemons which is confidered in this light. We are under no obligation to remove the miflaken difficulties, or perverfe inferences of other P 2 men. t ii4 ] men ', nor to anfwer thofe objedions which may attend an opinion that is not our own. The writer, laft mentioned, is very fond of rcprefenting his opponents, as aftually be- lieving all the ablurdities which himfelf is pleafed to charge upon their avowed fcnti- ments j as if he meant either to draw them into a defence, or perplex them with the ap- pearance of notions which they never held. To the many examples of this nature already given, we mufl; add the following, which is the remaining part of the argument quoted above in the thirteenth fedion ; " The " Chriftian difpenfation proceeds upon the " fame principle; and farther teaches, that ^' as there is but one God, fo there is but one " mediator between God and man, to whom " any power or authority over mankind is *"' delegated, and v/ho, indeed, hath all power, '' both in heaven and earth, given unto him. " Now, if there be no fovereign of nature " but Qod, and no mediator between God " and man but Chrift •, there can be no other *■■ fuperior intelligences, who have any power " over the laws of nature, or over the human " fyftem ir> particular." That there is but ■' one God, and one mediator between God and » Farm. Lcct, Jo Worthing, p. 229. 9 ''men," [ 215 ] " men," are truths never once called in quef- tion by thofe who believe the reality of pofleflions, nor do they fuppofe that any power or authority over mankind was ever delegated to the devil and his angels. God never gave Satan any authority to introduce fin and death into the world ; but will this be allowed as a clear evidence, that thefe greatell of all evils are not juftly imputed to the in- fluence and malice of the devil ? No power was ever delegated to Cain over his brother's life, but would this be admitted as a proof, that Abel was not murdered by him ? And befides, who reprefents created intelligences as having a power over the laws of nature ; or, who denies God to be the fovereign of the world ? But, doth it hence follow, that evil fpirits have no influence over the human fyllem ? We might as well aflert, that men have no power to opprefs and defliroy one an- other, becaufe they cannot controul the laws of nature, or, that there never was a tyrant on the earth, becaufe God is fovereign of the world. § 1 6. The following remarks of the fame writer are too Angular to be omitted. ** I " fliall only obferve here, that the very " miracles performed upon thofe who were Pa " called [ 2i6 ] " called dosmoniacs, ferve to fhew that they " were not really pofleiTcd ^ •" the meaning of which, put into plainer language, is this ; that the very miracles performed on thofe from whom our Lord, according to the ^poftles, caft out daemons, ierve to fhew that no daemons were really caft out -, for the proof of which he thus reafons. " Thofe, indeed, " who affert, that there were real demoniacs " inthe age of Chrift, triuniph in the mira- " cles performed upon them, as highly ufe- " ful to demonftrate the inferiority of evil " demons to that beneficent power which " rules the univerfe, and their fubjedion to " the Son of God. But the Gentiles them- " felves never confidered demons as rivals of " the Supreme Divinity, but rather fup- '"' pofed they derived their power and autho- " rity from the ccleftial gods, and afted in " fubferviency to their defigns." We cannot but flop a little to exprefs our very great admiration. Did the Gentiles, then, acknow* ledge the Supreme Divinity ? Were their ce- leftial gods diftinguiflied from their daemons ? Did the latter adl in fubferviency to the de- figns of the former ? And did the Pagans really confefs intelligent natures fuperior to ^ Farm, on Dem. p. 185 — i8g. men. [ 217 ] men, but inferior to the Supreme Divinity j Or, rather, is not the whole of this pafiTage furrepti'tious ? Is it pofTible, that thefe things fhould be aflerted by him, who hath written fo much to prove, that the fupreme Deity of the Heathens had once been a man, and that all their gods were the fouls of departed men ? and who alfo, on this very principle, hath grounded his hypothefis, in oppofition to the received dodrine, concerning the nature of daemons r If we allow the paflage to be ge- nuine, no regard can be due to the author's arguments. But perhaps Ibme of our readers will be yet more furprifed •, for he thus pro- ceeds : " From the evangelic hiftory itfelf, *' it appears, that the Jews thought Beel- *' zebub able to controul all other demons as *' his fubjecls, and to expel them from the " bodies of men. What good end then could '' be anlwered by proving, what Gentiles and Jews were ready to acknowledge, that de- mons were inferior to the fupreme Numen ; " and that Chrift had equal power with Beel- *' zebub ? Can we difparage that great miracle, " the cure of demoniacs, in a more efFedlual *' manner, than by reprefenting it as wrought ■' with fuch intentions as thefe ?'* No, verily! Nor can this writer more effedually difparage (lis own charafler, as a man, than by giving fuch [ 2l8 ] luch unjufl: reprelentations as the above, of their intentions, who have Ihewn the fubjec- tion of dsemons to the Son of God. Was it their defign to prove " that Chrift had equal *' power with Beelzebub ?" What then was their intention, who faid, " Lord, even the das- " mons are fubjedt to us, through thy name ;'* and what did he mean who anfwered, " I be- *' held Satan fall, as lightningfrom heaven * ?'* Was it to fhew, as is here I'cornfully inti- mated, " what both Jews and Gentiles were *' ready to acknowledge, that he had equal '' power with Beelzebub ?" However, we are not yet afhamed to repeat, in the words of our Lord himlelf, the good end which was an- fwered by the ejedlion of dasmons ; " If I " with the finger of God caft out demons, *' no doubt the kingdom of God is come up- " on youf." § 17. But, according to this Author, we are under a delufion, fmce the fact here alledged is only a pretence, and can never be an evi- dence of the kingdom of God ; for thus hq fpeaks, " The cure of demoniacs feems to " me to contain in its own nature, a proof ** peculiar to itfelf of the abfolute nullity of *' demons, and thereby a confutation of the • Luke X. 17, 18. t Ibid. xi. 20. " doftrine [ 219 1 " doarlne of poflfeffions \'* What can be done with thofe perfons who are refolved, whenever they pleafe, to confider the ftrongeft aflertions of any fa6l to be the fame thing with denying it ? Our prefent defign is only to (hew, that the argument here laid down is not fufficient to fupport this peculiar opinion. If," fays he, " demons poflefs mankind, they mull do it either by their own natural power, or by a power fupernatural and mi' raculous, occafionally imparted to them by God for that purpofe." The fuppofition of a miraculous power, in this matter, is out of the queftion -, concerning the other he thus proceeds. " Now, if demons have a natural power of entering the bodies of mankind, why did they not return to thofe bodies from which they were ejeded ? Was a return to them more difficult than their entrance into them at firfl: ? If you affirm, that they were perpetually rejlrained by God from exercifing their natural power of re-entering the bodies from which they had been expelled ; you affirm more than you can fupport by any pofitive proof, and what is in itfelf very improbable-, for de- mons cannot be reftrained from ufing their J QnDcm^ p. 187, i88. " natural [ 220 ] " natural powers without a miracle^ a perpetual *' miracle.''* It always gives us pleafure when we can ufe this writer's ov/n method of reafon- ing» becaule we are then not fo likely to give offence, we, therefore, chearfully return the following anfwer in his own way. If you affirm that dasmons cannot be reftrained from ufing their natural powers, without a miracle^ a perpetual miracle, you affirm more than you can fupport by any pojitive proof, and what is m itfelf very improbable ; for if God can by- no means reftrain fome of his creatures from doing mifchief to others, without a miracle, we can have but a fmall degree of rational and well grounded hope in his power and pro- tedlion, not having any warrant, either from reafon or revelation, to expert fuch an inter- pofition for our defence, as amounts to an alteration of the laws of nature. Is it cre- dible, that God fhould allow even to men, as the inftruments of his providence, an abi- lity of retraining the natural powers of the moft wicked and abandoned among them, from doing further mifchief, without a mi- racle, and yet, that this privilege of fecuring advantages to his creatures ffiould be denied, not only to the fuperior minifters of his go- vernment, but alfo to himfelf, the Maker and righteous Sovereign of the univerfe ^ You firft [ 221 ] firft lay down one abfurdity, and then you infer another from it : daemons, it feems, could not be redrained from returning to thole bodies out of which they had been call, without a perpetual miracle, but tiic cure of thofe dsemoniacs mentioned in the Gofpel was lading ; hence it is inferred, that thofe perfons never were really poirelfed with daemons : and thus it is made evident, that the cure of dtemoniacs " contains in its ** own nature a proof PECULIAR to itfelf " of the ablblute nullity of dcemons, and " thereby a confutation of the doftrine of pof- *' feflions." We do confefs, that one of the mod peculiar ajG^ertions that v/as ever made is here fupported by as peculiar an argument as was ever offered, at lead by a chridian divine, namely, the inability of God to re- llrain wicked beings, without a perpetual mi- racle, from doing inifchief to thofe who rely on his protection ! We hope never to enter- tain fuch ideas of the divine pov/er and good- nefs. Surely this writer could not fuppofe, that any one would be induced to give up the exprefs tediniony of Scripture, on account of fuch arguments as thefe ! o § 1 8. Exprefs tedimony of Scripture! Thofe, indeed, who build their faith in 7 " poJfrJp.o>u [ 222 ] " pojfeffmis upon the fuppofcd teftimony of " revelation, muft allow, that difpojfejfions can " have no other iupport ""." We beg pardon for our ignorance, not knowing that among profefled Chriftians, any better fupport was wanted. But you Ihould have further con- fidered, " that by reding the reality of dif* " pofleflions on Revelation, you make it "■ merely an objed of faith, not of Jenfe ; " and confequently the ejection of demons '*■ could not, in this cafe, furnilh a fenftbk " and public proof of Chrift's power over " them, nor indeed furnifh any proof of it " at all to unbelievers. For the proof would " not arife from the miracle, but from the " declaration of Chrift concerning it ; and *' confequently the miracle v/ou\d pre-fuppofe " faith, inftead of begetting it, and be ule- " lefs to thofe for whofe convidtion it was " defigned. Equally ufelefs would it alfo be " even to believers : for what evidence can " arife from the miracle itfelf, when the very *' reality of it is known only by the teftimony " of the performer ? To propofe invijible *' miracles as means of convidion, is not to " enlighten, but to infult our underftanding." To thefe friendly hints is added an encomium on fome queries put by unhcUevcrs, together " Farm, on Dem. p. 392. Note ^. with [ 223 ] With a charge of grofs mifreprefentations of genuine chriftianity by chrijlians. For what end, or for who Lett, to Worthing, p. 123. 0^3 proper^ t 230 ] proper, as perhaps it may be needful, in o^- der to caution ferious and well-meaning per- fons againfl receiving opinions, the pernicious tendency of which may not haye been at firft pbferved. Notwithftanding the foregoing paragraph of Mr. Farmer, it is every where declared throughout the whole New Teftament, " That *' the competency of the apoftles and evan- " gelifts, as witnejfes of thofe faEls^ which they "have recorded in the Gofpel, did both in " their own, and in the judgment of their ^' Lord, arife from y^/>^;z^/«r^/inftru6tion and ^l aiTiliance.'* Quotations on this article would be endlefs, we Ihall therefore content our- felves \yith two, which we apprehend are fufficient to decide the matter. " The Com- " forter, the Holy Ghoft, whom the Father " will fend in my name, he fhall teach you ^* all things, and bring all things to your " remembrance, whatfoever I have faid unto " you '." " Ye are witnefTes of thefe things : " And behold 1 fend the promife of my fa- " ther upon yoii : but tarry ye in the city of " Jerufalem, until ye be endued with powe^ " from on high." For " ye fhall receive power '* after that the Holy Ghoft is come upon you j *' and ye fliall be witnefTes unto me both in Je- ' John xiv. 26. ** rufalem, C 231 ] *' rufalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, " and unto the uttermoft part of the earth •.** Sober Chriftians will hardly fay that the apoftles, as witnejfes of the fa^s which they have recorded, received that divine afTiftance, for which there was no occafion^ and -without whichi they were capable and competent judges. In another place of that fame '* Letter " to Dr. Worchington," Mr. Farmer thus ex- prefies himfelf : " It is abfurd to fuppofe, that ** the evangelifts gave their teftimony either "..tOipoirefTions or difpofleffions, in the fenfe "fin which you explain them. They tell us, ".that they teftified only fuch things as they had heard imdfeen. You, on the contrary, make them teftify what they neither faw *' nor heard '." In order to add the greater weight to this particular claufe, " They tell us^ that they teftified only fuch things as *' they had beard and feen^'* he refers us to an interefting paflage of Scripture •. Our au- thor's terms in the foregoing claufe are fuffi- ciently offenfive, but his reference indicates a -want: of candour. We pafs by the grofs abufe of words, and Ihall content ourfelves at prefent wich obferving, " That none of the « Luke xxiv. 48, 49. ASs i. 8. < p. 122. " I John i, I and 3; 0^4 *' facred [ 232 3 " facred writers have ever told us, that they " teftified only luch things as they had heard " and feen -, and that the paffage to which " our author refers in the foregoing claufe, *' diredtly contradids his aflertion." If this gentleman confiders the evangelifts as " tefti- " fying only fuch things a? they had heard and ^^ feen'* m the common acceptation of thefe terms, and really looks upon the Gofpel hiftory to have been \^nittn without any fupr- natural infpiration and afiiftance, let him fay fo in open and ingenuous language, and not throw out fuch hints as thefe, which can only ferve to embarrafs the fubjedt, and mif- Jead the reader, while they add no real weight to the arguments which he means to urge. The 111 cam of life hurries on the bulk of mankind too fall for minute obfervations on wJiat they read. This may fometimes be fa- vourable to the end propofed by ambiguous infinuations ; and it may perhaps afterwards become as unfavourable to the character of a writer, who happens to throw out doubtful ideas in a fufpicious manner. . However, the evangelifts affirm, that a dsemoniac fupplicated Chrift, in the name of a multitude of in- vifible beings, that they might be fuffcred to go away into an herd of fwine feeding at a diftance j that our Lord gave them leave j and^ [ 233 ] and, that immediately the man was not only delivered from his fufFerings, but the whole herd, two thoufand in number, running vio- lently down a fi:eep place into the fea were choked. Now, fuppofing that in this cafe they " teftified only what they heard and faw," how couid either themfelves or the reft of the fpeftarors avoid believing the reality of difpoffeflions -, or, how can we admit the ftory as related by the facred penmen with- out acknowledging a dzemoniacal influence ? As Chriftians we muft look upon them to •have been faithful in their narrations. If we fay, that thefe facfls were not as recorded by the evangelijls, we not only rejed: their com- petency as witnejfes^ but we alfo deny the truth of .their hifiory. To alter ':heir terms in explaining thefe fads, and to introduce caufes and agents different from thofe which they have mentioned, is in truth to tell the world, that the facred penmen were :n an error, and that they ought, not to have exprefled themfelves as they have done on this oc- (lafion *. § 21. But our author proceeds, " There " is no fort of evidence from the New Tefta- • Se« 5 8. ij " ment. \.- I 234 ] mentythat demoniacal polTefrion, confidered ^*; as the caufe of infanity, was made the fub- *l ]e<5t matter of revelation. It is never taught *' as a dodrine; never aflerted either by '' Chrift or his apoftles, when they were open- ** ing this contents of their commiffion, though *' they moll faithfully revealed the whole " counfel of God. Indeed it is a fubjedt ne- *' ver profeffedly treated of ; fcarce ever in- " cidentally mentioned, but in relating the " diforder and cure of demoniacs *." Thefc things from other men would have filled us with furprife, but nothing from this gentle- man will ever produce any fuch effeft. The abovt afiertions were occafioned by a remark of Dr. Worthington'Sj which wc fcruple not to rej>eat: " That matters of dodrine are de- ** livercd in the Gofpel as doftrirte — and that *^ matters of fad are all alike reported as '* fafls which tpaily happened ; and are ge- ** netally received as fuch.'* But, fays Mr. Farmer, " Where is the dodrinfe of poflelTions " fo delivered « ? " Poffeffions and difpof- feflions are fpoken of as fads, juft as wc are informed that Chrift opsned the eyes of the blind. But would it not be ridiculous for any one to a(k, " Where is the dodrine 7 Let. to Worthin. p. 124, 125. * Ibid. Note. " of [ 235 ] ^' of blitidnefs delivered ?" We cannot tell how to reconcile the foregoing paragraph v/ith a candid and ingenuous mind ; for daemohia-' jcal poflefTions, and the ejedtion of evil fpirits, are affirmed in all the fpecial commiflions that Chrift ever gave to his apoftles, and the ori- ginal defign of their appointment, as well as the opening and execution of their com- mifTions, are fet down with the greateft exa6t- nefs. Our Lord's nrft choree of the twelve, together with the end propdfed by it, is thus de- fcribed : " He called to him his difciples, " and out of them he chofe twelve, whom alfo " he named apoftles:" — and^ ''ordained them " that they fhould be with him, and that he " might fend them fotth to preach, and to " have power to heal ficknefles, and to caft " out devils*." The aftual communication of that power over daemons, which was at firft in- tended when the twelve wete ordained, is. after- wards particularly exprefled: " And when he " had called to him hi^ twelve difciples^- Re " gave them power over uhcMn fpirits, to *' caft them out, and to heal all manner of •*' ficknefs, and all manner of difeafe ^" Hei-e alfo ficknefles and difeafes of every kind * Luke vi. 13. Mark lii. !4, k. y Matth. X. I. are I 236 ]j are clearly diftinguifhed from poflefllons.' Next, the exprels. orders which were given to the twelve, to go forth and caft out daemons, are diftin£tly recorded : " Thefe twelve Jefus " fent forth, and commanded them, faying— *' As ye go, preach, faying, the kingdom of *' heaven is at hand, heal the fick, cleanfe *' the lepers, raife the dead, cafl out devils.* " And the performance of this mifTion is as carefully related : " They went forth and *' preached that men Ihould repent, and they " caft out many devils, and anointed with *' oil many that were fick, and healed them *." When our Lord gave to his apoftles their final commiflion to preach the Gofpel to all nations, he fpake in the following manner : " Go ye ' into all the world, and preach the Gofpel ' to every creature." — *' And thefe figns fhall ' follow them that believe : In my name fliall ' they caft out devils ; they fhall fpeak with * new tongues *." — And the accompliftiment of thefe promifes, after the afcenfion of Chrift, is minutely expreffed in the facred hiftory % as is well known even to common readers. We therefore leave it for others to determine, with what truth or candour it can be faid » Matth, X. 5, 7, and 8. '' Mark xvi. 15 and 17. * Mark vi. 12 and 13. « A^s v. 16: [ 237 ] by any one, " That the cafting out demons " was never afiferted either by Chrift or his apoftles, when they were opening the con- " tents of their commifTion •, and that it was *' fcarce ever incidentally mentioned, but in ** relating the diforder and cure of demo- § 22^ According to Mr. Farmer, it hath" been fuppoled by feveral theological writers, *' That the devil was permitted, about the " time of Chrift, to give fome unufual proofs *' of his power and malice in attacking the *' bodies of men ; and that it was necefTary, " as well as proper, for our Lord to af- ** ford lenfible and public evidences of an *' abfolute power over Satan and his confe- *' derates, by difpofTeiring them." In oppofi. tion to this opinion, as ftated by himfelf, our author fays, " Whenever God commiflions *' his meffengers to perform miracles for the *' conviftion of mankind, he inftrufls them *' to explain to the world the great ends pro- *' pofed by them.— The filence of Scripture " thereforeconcerningwhat is fuppofedto have *' been the grand and peculiar defign of the *' cure of demoniacs, is a fufficient reafon for " rejedting it ; unlefs it can be clearly andcer- *' tainly inferred from the nature of the work itfelf. [ 238 ] " itfelf, which no one will affirno that under- " (lands it aright ''." Now, it does not ap- pear even from this gentleman's own ftate of the cafe, that the writers here alluded to ever confidered the above fuppofition of theirs, as containining the grand and peculiar defign of the cure of demoniacs •, he therefore gives a very unjuft turn to their ideas on this occafion. However, without concerning ourfelves at all about the propriety or impropriety of human fuppqfitionsy unfairly reprefented, we beg leave to obferve, " That the exprefs declaration of ' " Scripture, concerning the immediate defign of *' calling out dsemons, is Vifufficient realbn for " admitting the fad as fiat ed by the evajtgelifis'* The word of God is not altered by the fup- pofitions of any author. The miraculous cure of bodily difeafes, without doubt, ought to be confidered as an authentic proof that Chrift was truly fent of God, but this could not, of itfelf^ be an immediate and decifive evi- dence, that the KINGDOM of God alfo was truly come. But our Lord urges the calling out dasmons as a dired proof, in its own nature, of that kingdom, the very end of which is to " deftroy the works of the devil." " If I," fays Chrift, " by the finger of God ** caft out daemons, no doubt the kingdom < On Dem, p. J79~38S« ^^ ' [ 239 1 ** of God is come upon you." This was never faid, nor indeed could it have been faid, with propriety, of any other miracle, no not even of the refurredtion of a dead body to life ; becaufe fu-ch a work was only an au- thentic proof, that he at whofe word or prayer it was performed v/as a true meflenger of God, and that what he delivered was agree- able to the Divine Will, yet ftill, it was not peculiar to the kingdom of heaven. But, the cafting out demons was a proper evidence of our Lord's power over the devil and his affociates^ and a dired fpecimen of its exercife in aholijhing th infMence of evil fpirits, and was therefore, in fad, the real appearance of that very kingdom of God, out of which Satan with all his legions Ihall be caft, as alfo every thing that offendeth or maketh a lie. Jefus, therefore, in order to illuflrate more fully the defignof this work, as here exprefTed by himfelf, immediately adds a further re- mark, which never can be applied to bodily difeafes : *' When the ftrong one, armcd^ kecp- '' eth his palace or court, his goods are in peace; " but when one ftronger than he cometh upon " him, and fubdues him, he taketh from him " all his armour vfhcre'm hetruiled, and divideth " his fpoil *." Here the chief of evil fpirits is • )uuke si. u, 2i. defcribed [ 240 ] defcribed as "the ftrong one," luppo'rted by hi^ aflbciates, in "keeping" what he had unlawfully- plundered •, and Chrift is reprefented as " over- " coming him,'* and as calling out alfo thofe af- fociates, the inftruments of his power •, which is indeed to " take from him all his armour, on ** which he depended." By ihis fad Jefus proves himlelf to be " ilronger than he," and renders it evident, from the very nature of the work itfelf, that he is the true promifed " feed, who " was to bruife the head of the ferpent *, and " deftroy the works of the devil." Hence Chrift with the ftri6teft propriety urges this miracle above all others, as a direct: proof in its own na- ture that " the kingdom of God is come unto " us ;" becaufe the eftablifhment of this king- dom neceflarily implies the final overthrow of him, who had wickedly brought into the world fin, and forrow, and death. We can- not therefore rejed the plain and obvious fenfe of thofe terms in which our Lord exprefleth the immediate and peculiar defign of cafting out daemons, without denying the chief doc- trines of revelation, as well as the truth of the Gofpel hiftory, and turning the word^ of the Son of God into foolifhnefs j while we muft reprefent the Saviour of the world as trifling with mankind. • Genef. iii. 15, Wd t 241 1 We Ihall now clofe this chapter with ob- ferving. That many of the arguments, urged by Mr. Farmer againft dasmoniacal pofleflions af- fed the competency of the apoitles as witneiTes, and the credit of the facred hiftory, as much as they can do the do<5lrine in difpute ; while at the fame time they imply a denial of the moll capital articles of the Chriftian faith, exprefsly ajferted in the Holy Scriptures. The principles, on which he grounds all that he hath written concerning the nature of miracles, and the agency of evil fpirits, are thefe, " Thac *' none befides Jehovah, the one true God, can *' controul the laws and courfe of nature; " and that no fuperior beings whatever, but " God himfelf, are capable of producing anv " efFedts on this earthly globe, or within " the limits of the human fyflem.'* Hence he appropriates all miracles to God alone 1 having firft, without any real occaficn for it, or advantage to his own fyflem, arbitrarily defined fuch works to be a violation of the laws of nature : and on the fame principle he rejefts dsmoniacal pofTefnons •, after afTur- ing us, without any proof, that all eilefts arifing from the fuppofed influence of evil fpirits would be contrary to thofe general rules by which the world is governed, as \\'A\ R as [ 242 1 as inconfiftent with the natural power of fuch beings. His arguments, therefore, on this fub- jeft, notwithftanding the great pains which he hath taken to conceal it, feem to be di redly pointed againft all that hath been advanced by the facred writers, concerning good and evil angels, the entrance of fin and death into the world, the pernicious agency of the devil, and the reafon which is every where afligned in the Gofpel for the appearance of Chrift and the kingdom of God. That v/e have not here mifreprefented either this gentleman's princi- ples or arguments, fliall be made ftill more apparent in the fubfequent chapters. CHAP. [ 243 3 CHAP. VI. ^'be Principles on ijohich Mr. Farmer denies the Agency of fuperior Beings within the Limits of the human Syjlem^ examined, and floewn to he either inapplicable to the Gofpel Demoniacs, or a fiat contradi5fion to the Holy Scrip- tures. MR. Farmer begins his " Introduftlon to " his Effay on Demoniacs," in the fol- lowing manner : " In a late Differtation on Miracles, the Author attempted to fhew, that all efFedls produced in the fyfteni of nature, contrary to the general laws by which it is governed, are proper mi- " racles j and that all miracles are works appropriate to God." This gentleman Oiould have lirfl: proved, that there ever were any " effecbs produced in the iyftem of *' nature, contrary to the general laws by which " it is governed." Without thi?, his "DifTerta- *' tion on Miracles" muft be confidered as a vague and groundlefs hypothefis, and himfelf as zealous in applying to God certain effeds, whicii, for any thing that yet appears, never had any real exiftence. " This," to ufe his R 2 own t 244 1 own language, " is the fault in reaibning that " logicians call begging the queftion ,'* for although he may view his own fuppofitions as on a level with authenticated fads, per- haps other men will not view them in that light. He hath not even attempted to fliew, that the refurreclion of a dead body to life, or any other miracle, is an effefu- perior created beings may ftand in fome re- lation tQ our fyftem, and frequently operate within t 255 1! within its limits, in a manner imperceptible by the human fenfes. The truth of this is all we contend for, which, if allowed, will render it impoflible for Mr. Farmer to lliew that the common phraleology of Scrip- ture, concerning the prefent fubjecl, is not finally proper •, or to prove that there never was a real daemon iac in the world. The im- pofTibility of fuch a facb, which he often af- ierts, never can be fhewn, while he alkws that fuperior fpirits may operate within the limits of the human fyflem. The fads in queftion are not confidered as miraculous events. If it be faid, that Mr. Farmer doth not alloiv^ that fuperior fpirits may operate within the limits of the human fyftem, but that he only fays, *' He did not intend to difpro've it,'* may we not then infer, that he neither allows nor difproves the influence of fuperior beings within the limits of the human fyflem ? If it be anfwered, that fuch an aflertion as this, in open defiance of two large o6lavo volumes, might juftly be confidered as uncandid, w€ re- ply, that it is certainly fair to leave this note in its native obfcurity, and to be determined by our Author's own fubfcquent afiertions 'on this point, and by that account which him- felf afterwards gives concerning his real in- tention, both in that fedion to which the ■ ^ 6 note [ ^5^ ] note is annexed, and in the foregoing one. He cannot well objed to his own decla- rations. § 5. We fnall, therefore, proceed to what our Author further advances concerning the agency of fuperior fpirits. " God," fays he, " is manifeft in every part of nature, bur *' who can point out the effeds of other *' fpirits, and their operations on the univerfe ? " And if we fee no effeds of their agency on *' this earthly globe, if no fuch effefts have " ever been feen ; there can be no ground *' from reafon to afcribe it to them." This fentence evidently fnppofes, that no effeEis arifmg from the agency of fuperior fpirits, *were ever feen on this earthly globe •, if fo, neither any dodrine nor hiftory can be fup- ported, which either implies or alledges fuch fa6ts. The [confequences are too obvious to be overlooked. He then immediately adds, *' It is as repugnant to the obfervation and " experience of all ages, to afcribe to evil fpi- •' rits a miraculous power, as it is to afcribe *' life to the inanimate, or fpecch to the brute ** creation "." This undoubtedly fuppofes, that evil fpirits in themfelves are no more ca- ". On Mir. p. 82, 83. pable t 257 1 pable of* v/oiking miracles, than dumb am- mals are of fpeech, or (locks and (iones of fpontancous motion and intelligence. Supe- rior beings, therefore, could bear no part in the performance of fuch works, unlcfs them- felves were firft made the fubjefts of a miracle, as much as Balaam's afs was when it fpoke, or as much as a (tone would be, Ihould \t rife up and deliver a me(rdge. In what light, then, we are :o confider the agency of fuperior be- ings as nientioned in the Scriptures, and wliat kind of pofTible influence is allowed thefii within the human fyftem, let the reader judge. Afterwards, near the clofe of this very fedion^ at the beginning of which is the above-cited note, our Author thus fums up the whole of his argument. " In the foregoing fedion, *' we have endeavoured to (hew, that if we *' reafon from analogy, and that view which " we are able to take of the works of God i the ** various orders of beirtgs fuperior to the hu- ** man kind, a^ only within a certain limited *' fphere. And if what we have advanced " farther in the prefent fection be juft, this " lower Ivor Id is not their appointed fphere of *' aSion.''^ This is equally clear and decifive; for if *' the various orders of beings fuperior "' to the human kind a5l only "jjithin a limited ''^ fphere \' and if " this lower "j^orldis not their S ** appointed [ 258 ] ^* appointed fphere of aEiion^^ tlien they ftand in no relation to our fyflern, nor ever operate within its limits ; " and confequently," as this gentleman fays, ^' they are prevented from *' working miracles by the very law of their " nature °— ." But how that note, already mentioned, ftole into fuch an interefling part of his book, and why it fhould contradi6t what goes before it, what flands over it, and the ftrongeft affertions that follow ir, who may prefume to tell ! § 6. In the next chapter, our Author is pleafed thus to exprefs himfelf. " We do not " however deny, that Chrift might employ " angels in executing his orders, and par- *' ticularly in working miracles ; for they are " all made fubjed to him. Neverthelefs, it *' does not appear from the Scriptures, that *' they can perform miracles of themfelves, " and without an immediate divine com- *' miflion. On the contrary, according to *' the Scripture account of them, if they " brino- any mcffages to men, they tirfl receive '* them from God % if they controul the " courfe of nature, it is by authority from ** the Lord of nature; and if they interpofe * Oft Mir.,p. 87, 88. t 259 ] at all in the affairs of our fyftem, it -Is not as they lee fit thcmfelves, but according to the command of God, as the minifters of his will, which they execute as punc- tually as thofe pafTive inftruments of his providence, the luminaries of heaven, and " the elements of nature p." And, then, he goes on to perluade his readers, that the inanimate parts of the creation are in the Scriptures ftyled angels : the inftances which he gives fliall be examined in the next chap- ter. Here let it be obferved, how careful this writer is never to fiy, either that Chrift did employ intelligent beings fuperior to men in working miracles ; or, that they ever did bring any meffages to men, or ever did interpofe in the affairs of our lyftem. No, he has never yet allowed any of thefe things, nor are they ever mentioned by him unlefs hypothetically with an z/, or a fuppofing it to be fo. And if we would exprels the real meaning of the above paffage, in connexion with the fore- going arguments, and the profeffed defign of his realbning as Hated by himfclf, it muff be in the following terms : " We do not, how- *' ever, deny, that Chrift, in working miracles, *' might employ thofe intelligent natures, f On Mir. p. 148. S 2 [' Whof^ [ z6o j '* whofe appointed fphere of adion is Sacnriiy " or any other of the heavenly bodies ; for " they are all made fubjecl to him. Never- *' thelefs, it doth not appear from the Scrip- " tures, that they can tranlport themfelves " hither, and pet-form miracles on this globe, " of themfelves, without immediate divine '* afliftance, and a fpecial commilTion. On " the contrary, according to the Scripture " account of them, ^ they who live in " the polar ftar, or any other diitant globe, " bring meflages to us, or men carry par- " ticular orders to the planets, they mud *' firfl: receive them from God ; if thofe in- " telligent beings which belong to Jupiter, " controul the courfe of nature on our earthy " or the human fpeeies perform wonders in " remote worlds, it muft be by an authority " from the Lord of nature; and // the in- *' habitants of diftant globes interpofe at all " in the affairs of our fyftem, it is not as ** they think fit themfelves, but according to " the command of God, by whofe power ** alone they can be conveyed to the earth, " and without whofe immediate energy they " could not fubfifl and operate here ; fo that ** they mufl perform his will in as pafTive a " manner as the luminaries of heaven, or the " elements of nature.'* We cannot fuppofe, thap t i6i ] tiiat our Author meant fuch a concefTion as v/ould have been a flat contradiction both to every argument that he had advanced for above an hundred pages, and to his own molt exprefs aflertions ; or that his language be- came fo happily obfcure, and was fo well calculated to ward off the Scripture account concerning good angels, by a mere accident. No, no : fuch thoughts would derogate from the acknowledged merits and abilities of this writer. If we have, in any refpedl, now put a wrong conftrudtion upon what he real'y intended in the above paragraph, we are very much miftaken. For, in the beginning of this fedtion, he only fpeaks of angels as fymboli- cal of an extraordinary providence, and mi- raculous interpofitions ; and about three pages before this, lie delivers his mind in the follow- ing fignificant language. " The bed argu- " ments which reafon can employ to prove ** the exiftence of fuperior created intelli- " aences, do much more ftrongly prove, that *' they can adt only within that particular " fphere appointed them by their creator. It " has likewife been fhewn, that the obler- " vation and experience of all ages are a full ** demonftration that they are not at liberty " to perform miracles in this lower world-, ^* no fiv^h works having ever been performed 5 3 " i« L 262 ] *' in it, but fuch as may fitly be afcribed to " God '." This pafiage fufficiently fhews, that we have not mifreprefented our Author's rea- foningj for it may be confidered, both as a grave and deliberate repetition of his real opinion concerning the agency of fuperior be- ings, and as a proof that if he ever faid Chrift might employ fuperior i'atelligent na- tures in v^orking miracles, he only fpake of it as a thing poffible to the Deity, and not as vjhdLX. ever had really happened •, fince he fays, we have " a full demonftration, that they are not *' at liberty to perform miracles in this lower *' world, no fuch works having ever been *' performed in it, but fuch as may fitly be *' afcribed to God." If this gentleman therefore was fincere in his " DifTertation on Miracles," he muft be confidered as intending to prove that fuperior beings have no more power within the limits of our fyftem, than men have in diftant globes -, and that there is no other pofTibility for their influence here, than there is for cur's in remote worlds. And that this was his real intention we have other proofs at hand, were they needful. On Mir. p. 142, 143. § 7. Wc C 263 ] § 7. We cannot well omit the following fentence, which makes a part of the 1 aft- quoted paragraph. " Deifts," fays he, " more efpecial- ' ly, who deny the exiftence both of angels ' and devils, muft allow that if any miracles ' are performed, they can have none but God ' for their author, and that the fettled courfe of ' things is unalterable but by his immediate * will ^" We hope that Mr. Farmer and the Deifts are not the only perfons who maintain, that the fettled courfe of things is unalter- able, but by the immediate will of God.'* But we do not recollect that this gentleman any where confefles the exiftence either of an- gels or devils, any more than they •, we do not therefore underftand why Deifts ftiould be reprefented as denying this article, any more than himfelf. He had, indeed, before informed ns, that " unbelievers, in order to difcredit " the evidence of the Jewifti and Chriftian *' revelations," urged the power of fuperior created beings, as equal to the performance of miracles, and maintained that their reality j " alone would not eftablifti their divine ori- " ginal, becaufe the works might be per- *' formed by other powers, lower than the *' divine '." And in the fame paftage, the following words are immediately added, " Nor 'On Mir. p. 142, 143. * Ibid. p. 43, 44. S 4 ** i* f 264 ] *'' is this the language only of the avowed adverfaries of all fupernatural revelation, " but even of very many of its fincere and *' zealous advocates, — '* among whom he men- tions and attacks the great " Dr. Clarke." But we are now given to underftand, that thdfe *'a«- " klievers,'* who in this manner fought " to dif- " credit the evidence of the Jewilh and Chrif- " tian revelations,'* were not Deifls ; for the *' Deifts," as we are here aflured, " deny the exift- *' ence both of angels and devils.'* Thofe " un- *' believers'* mentioned in the above-cited paf- fage were certain perfons who held opinions concerning this fubjed: in common with Dr^ Clarke, whereas the " Deifts " agree with our author in denying the influence of fuperior beings on this earthly globe, and in maintain- ing ;hat none can perform miracles befides God himfelf. This agreement between Mr. Farmer and the Deifts we are very ready to acknowledge, and to fupport the facft with additional evidences. He fuppofes, that there may be " in the univerfe creatures as " much fuperior to man, as man is to the ■*' meaneft reptile," but at the fame time main- tains, " that they cannot extend their natural " powers beyond a certain Ifmited fphere of " aftion appointed them by God, and hence he ^* infer§ th^t their influence reacheth not to '' this [ ^^s ] ** this earthly globe*." Lord Bolingbrokc fuppoi'es the cxiitence of fuperior created in- telligences, and thinks it probable, " that " there may be as much difference between " feme other creatures of God, and man, as *' there is between man and an oyfter '.'* And yet in oppofition to Mr. Wollafton, who fays, that there may be above us beings of greater powers and more perfed intelleds than we are, adling as the minifters of Divine Providence, his lordfhip reafons juft as Mr. Farmer does. He pretends, that no direfb proof can be given for the agency of fuch be- ings, and argues that " if thefe angels aft *' by the immediate command of God, it is ** in oppofition to his general providence, *' and to lupply the defects of it; and that *' it is to give up the government of mankind ■*' to thofe beings.** Our Author urges the very fame idea with his lordfhip in the fol- lowing manner : " If it be true in fa6t, that *' God governs the world by general laws, *' and it be neceffary that he Ihould do fo •, ** he has not delegated, he cannot delegate, " to any of his creatures any power over » On Mir. p. 57 — 60. » Leiand, View of Deif, rol. ii, p. i-^S* 7 [' them. [ 2^6 1 *' them. To do this would be to refign the *' reins of government ^." § 8. Mr. Farmer and his lordfnip agree alfo in what we call an uncandid method of reafoning, while each combats opinions that never exifted in the minds of thofe perfons againft whom they dired their arguments. Mr. WoUafron never intimates that thefe fu- perior beings can controul the laws of nature, nor doth he fay that they ever " aft in oppo- " fition to God's general providence." On the contrary, he thus delivers his opinion : " As *' we ourfelves, by the ufe of our powers, do " many times interpole and alter the courfe *' of things within our fphere from what it ** would be, if they were left entirely to the *' laws of motion and gravitation, widiout ** being faid to alter thofe laij^s \ fo may thefe *' Juperior beings likewife in refpeft of things " v/ithin their fpheres, much larger be fure, ** the leaft of them all, than ours is : only with " this difference, that as their knowledge is " more excenfive, their intellefts purer, their *' reafon better, they may be much properer *' inftruments of Divine Providence with re- " fpedt to us, than we can be with refped one T On Mir. p. 97. [ ^67 ] ** to another^ or to the aniinah below us. I can- *' not think, indeed, that the power of thefe " beings is fo large, as to alter or fufpend the " general laivs of the world •, or that the world " is like a bungling piece of clock-work, *' which requires to be oft fet backward or " forward by them ; or that they can at '* pleafure change their condition to ape us, " or inferior beings yet (I will repeat it *' again) as men may be fo placed as to be- " come, even by the free exercife of their own " powers, ijtjlruments of God's particular pro- " vidence to other men (or animals) ; fo may " we well fuppofe, that thefe higher beings " may be fo difiributed through the univerfe, " and fubjed to fuch an ceconomy (though I ** pretend not to tell what that is) as may " render thetn alfo inftruments of the fame " providence; and that they may, in pro- " portion to their greater abilities, be capable, " coifificntly with the laws of mture, fome way *' or other, though not in our way, of in- *' fluencing human affairs in proper places *." In this pafTage thofe dodrines are concifely ex- prefled, which Mr. Farmer hath undertaken to refute in his " Diifertation on Miracles." Now what hath he done towards fuch a refutation ? * Wollaft. Rel. of Nat. Seft. v. No. i8. 5 He [ 26S i He hath urged a great many ufelefs argiiments in order to fhew, that although the created in- telligences of different fyflems around us may be far fuperior to men, yet their fphere of adion is limited, and as much confined to their own proper globe as ours is to the earth -, that no one can point out the efFeds of Ipi- rits, and their operation on the univerfe ; that no efFeds of their agency have ever been feen on this earthly globe; that no fuperior creat- ed beings can controul the laws, and overturn the courle, of nature ; that to inveft them with fo great a power, would be to refign the reins of government •, and that for tliefe reafons, neither good nor evil angels, nor the fouls of departed men, can work miracles. On thefe principles, as we have feen, he grounds his EJfay on Demoniacs. But who fuppofes, that the proper inhabitants of diftant globes have any influence within the limits of the human fyftem ? Who imputes to fuperior created be- ings a power over the laws and courfe of nature ? Who contends for a miraculous in- fluence of fuperior fpirits in the common ad- miniflration of God*s providence ? Or, who afcribes to dead men an influence over the af- fairs of this world, much more, a miraculous power ? The facred writers, without fuppofing any of thefe abfurdities, frequently fpeak of fuperior [ 269 ] fuperlor beings as operating within the limits of the human fyflem, and [q may other men. Our Author has not yet fuggelted any argu- ment that afFedts the principles on which this dodrine is grounded. On the contrary, he takes for granted the very things which ought to have been proved by the cleareft evidence, *' That there are no fuperior created intelligen- *' ces, but fuch as are as much limited in their *' operations to fome diftant globe or other, *' as men are to the earth j" and then he la- bours to prove, that fuch beings can have no influence on this earthly globe, and that they are prevented by the very law of their na- ture from working miracles : juft as if opinions of this kind had really been maintained by thofe perfons whom he would be confidered as having refuted. § 9. We fiiould not have been fo minute la our enquiries concerning thofe principles on which Mr. Farmer rejedls the agency of fu- perior created beings within the limits of the human fyftem, if he had not rtiewn fo much difpleafure on being fuppofed to deny the in- fluence of fallen angels on this earthly globe. '* I cannot," fays he, writing to the lare Dr. Worthington, " conclude this letter with- " out obferving farther, tbat frqm the prin- " ciplcs [ 270 ] " ciples here contended for, viz. " That pof- **" feflions 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 fepa- " ration from the body *.'* Upon this we beg leave to obferve, that Mr. Farmer hath no where denied the exiftence of fallen an- gels, and that, to the beft of our knowledge. Dr. Worthington hath no where charged him with znyfuch denial. Mr. Farmer hath indeed been very careful never to allow the influence of fallen angels, within the limits of the human fyftem ; and, very confiftently with his wonted circumfpeftion in this article, he thus proceeds, " You are plealed to tell the world, " that I have *"' made fhort work with the devil and his an- '"' gels, and have done more than all the exorr '"' cifts put together ever pretended to ; that I *'" have laid the devil, and all other evil fpi- *'" rits, 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." Wc have frequently admired this gentleman's ex- treme caution, in the ufe of terms, as often as he toucheth upon thofe things which he * Far. Lett, to Worthin. p. 82, 83, doth ce [ 27. ] doth not choofe openly to avow. Whenever It is laid that Mr. Farmef has laid the devil, and baniflied allmher eViirpirits out of the world, wle do readily agree with him, that *' there is no truth in this language ;'* nor do we fuppofe that he confideredhimlelf as having done any fuch thing. But whenever it is faid, that Mr. Farmer hath, iattempted to prove, that no fupenor created fpirits e'ver operate with- in the limih of the )nman fyfiem, we do affirm, that there is mvich truth. in thisriarration, "fqr we have' his dwn exprefs declarations in fup- port of the .fad, by whomfqever related. However, . lie goes on with his defence, " I " have never denied, nor could I, withoutgceat *' abfurdity, take upon me to deny, the exifl- " ence of evil fpirits originally of a raak *' fuperior to "mankind. And, as we are ig- " norant of the laws of the fpiritual worlds jt *' would be great prefumptioh to take upon us " to determine the fphere of their operation,'* To this it.may be juftly anfwered, that there was no occafion for Mr. Farmer, on his prm- ciples of reafoning, either to deny or confefs the exiftence of evil fpirits originally of a rank fuperior to mankind ; and that he hath accordingly been very careful neither to deny nor confefs the exiftence of fuch fpirits. ^Neverthelcfs himfelf hath told us, " that he .*' endeavoured t 27i ] *' endeavoured to fhew, that the various 6t- *' der^ of beings fuperior to the human kind, a^ only within a certain limited fphere ; and *' that this lower world is not their appointed ^^ fphere of a5f ion 't^ and, even in this defence ©f himfelf, he takes care not to allow the in- fluence of evil fpirits, and at the fame time, intimates that it would be great prefumption in any one to determine the human fyltem to be the fphere of their operation. " But,*' fays he, *' the queftion is, whether poflelTions *' are referred to fallen angels, or to human *' fpirits ? To fay they are referred to the *' latter, is by no means to banilh the for- *' mer out of the world." This latter claufe of the fentence is very true. But when it is repeatedly faid, " that the various orders of " fuperior intelligences are confined within " the limits of their own proper fyftem or " fphere of aftion, that their influence *' reacheth not to this lower world, and that *' no effefts of their agency have ever been " feen on this earthly globe i" then it is, in fa6t, plainly afTerted, that there are no fupe- rior beings that ever had, or can have, any influence over mankind -, and fince the whok of the EJfay on Demoniacs is profefledly ground- ed on thefe principles, the frjl queftion un- doubtedly was, " Whether there are any fupc- ;: ripf. [ 273 ] rior evil fpirits, or fallen angels, that are ca- pable of operating within the limits of the *' human fyftem ?" This Mr. Farmer hath evidently anfwered in the negative, if there be any fincerity or meaning in the foregoing language, and, agreeably with the argu- ments on which this anfwer is founded, lie hath undertaken to fhew, that by daemons the facred writers meant nothing more than the fouls of departed men ; that the term Satan is not put for any fallen angel j and that there never was or could be a real dfemo- hiac in the world. He hath alio explained almoft every pafiage in the New Tcllament, where the word devil occurs^ fo as to exclude the idea of any intelligent being, fuperior ta the nature of man, and has interwoven the leading principles of his Dijfertalicn on Miracles with every capital argument in his Ejjay on Demoniacs. Thus he tells us, and reters to his " Diflertation" for the proof, that *' The grand principle which runs through the " whole Jewifh difpenfation, is, that Jeho- " vah is the one true God— that no fuperior beings whatever, befidea himfclf, are able; to eontroul the laws of nature — that the Chriftian difpenfation proceeds upon the fame principle;" — whence he draws the following remarkable inference ; " Now^, if there be no T " fovereiga [ 274 1 *"' Ibvereign of nature but God, and no me- " diator between God and man but Chrift ; " there can be no other fuperior intelligences, '* who have any power over the laws of na- " ture, or over the human fyftem in partj- " cular." It is left for others to judge what truth there is in this language^ we mean nothing more at prefent, than to alTert, that it is Mr. Farmer's •, who, notv/ithftanding this and many other paffages of the like kind, thus goes on with his complaint : " I do not re- " member that Mede, or Sykes, or Lardner, *' were ever charged with, or even fufpeded " of, what you impute to me, and what you " might, upon the fame grounds, have im- " puted to them." In anfwer to this, it may be faid, with great truth, that " Mede," " Sykes," and " Lardner,'* all of them, acknowledged the influence of fuperior created fpirits on this earthly globe, and exprefsly aflerted the agency of the devil, but our author has never done any fuch thing ; there is not, therefore, the fame ground for imputing to them that opi- nion of which Mr. Farmer hath been juftly fufpeded. For he reafons, as we have feen, in fuch a manner, that his arguments can have no force, without denying the influence of all created fuperior beings, within the limits of this earthly globe, and frequently, in con- nedtioii f 275 ] hedlion wich what no one denies, takes an op^ portiinity of afTerting this very thing, which no Chriltian can believe j as for inftance, when he fays, " That bcfides God and Chrift, there can be no other fuperior in- " telligences, who have any power over the " laws of nature, or over the human fyjiem in *' particular.'" Nay, in oppofition to Dr. Sykes, he affirms, that thofe remarkable words of Peter^ *' Chrift healed all that were op- *' preffed by the de'SiU" fignify nothing more than that he healed all manner of ficknefs and difeafes among the people ; nor will he allow that the apoftle, in that paflagCj really intended by the term devils any intelli- gent nature fuperior to men. It is beneath this gentleman to think of evading, by little equivocations, the import of his own reafon- ing and language. If the defign of his books hath been mifunderftood, and if he really be- lieves an influence from fallen angels over mankind, why then did he not fay fo, like a perfon of integrity and candour; which would have been his beft defence from the charge of having " banifhed the devil out of tne world ?'* But while he refufes to acknowledge any fuch thing, himfelf fupports the very fufpicion of which he complains ; and his fevere cenfurcs on other perfons for underftanding his T 2 book^. [ 276 1 books, ill a fenfe which he will not difown,. have the appearance of difingenuous con- dud. § 10. But after all, if Mr. Farmer {hould at any future time aflert, (what we think to be fcarcely polTible) " that he did really be- " lieve, while he wrote his Dijfertation on " Miracles^ and his EJfay on Demoniacs^ that " there are fuperior created intelligences both " good and evil, which operate within the " limits of the human fyftem," his " Eflfay" will become a mere hypothefis, and all his arguments againft djemoniacal poffeffions mult fall to the ground, as totally ufelefs •, fince no one imputes thofe efFefts to deceafed perfons : they are afcribed to beings originally fuperior to the nature of man, whofe operation, with- in the limits of the human fyftem, will, in this cafe, be acknowledged by himfelf. Nor do we fuppofe, that poiTeflions are miracles ; by no means: the Scriptures never fpeak of them as fuch : common occurrences cannot be attributed to a miraculous power, by whatever means they may be brought to pafs. Now, he hath not even attempted to prove, that although fuperior fpirits do ope- rate within the limits of the human fyftem, they are yet not capable of producing any of thofe [ 2-7 ] thofe ordinary effefts which we obfcrve in the world; or that they never operate upon mankind in a manner imperceptible by the human fenfcs : hence then ic clearly follows, according to this fuppofition of Mr. Farmer's opinion, that the chief article to be proved, in this controverfy, is never once mentioned ; while we are amufed with learned difquifitions, concerning various articles which are nothing at all to the purpofe. On the other hand, if, agreeably with the principles of the " Diflerta- ** tion," to which we are conftantly referred in the " EfTay," Mr. Farmer really believes, that there are no Iliperior created intelligences, which ever did or can operate within the limits of the human fyilem, and on this fuppofition grounds all his reafoning againft dcemoniacal pofTefTions, then the whole of his two volumes muft be confidered as a calm and direct con- tradidion to the language of Scripture, con- cerning the agency both of good and evil angels, the entrance of fin and death, and the defign of our Lord's appearance in the world, which was to " deftroy the works of the de- " vil-,"and all that he hath written concerning angels and d:rmons, in this cafe, can be viewed in no other light, than as an attempt to conceal the oppofition of his doctrines to the principles of revelation, while we arc cn- T 3 tertaincd [ 278 ] tertained with cogent reafoning in defence of what no one denies, and with glo\ying argu^ ments in oppofition to what was never be- lieved. But the decifion of this point is left for his future determination. CHAP. VII. ^'he Scripture Doulrim concerning Angels both good a?id evil, end their agency zvithin the human Syfteni, briefly examined and fiated j to- gether with the confe^ucnces of their In- fluence, § i.T¥ TE lliall now proceed to examine V T Mr. Farmer's interpretation of thofe paflages of 3cripture, which relate to *■ the miniflry of angels ;" and then endeavour to point out fomx fails, which afcertain the interpofition of fuperior beings, grounded on fuch an evidence as we think can never be overturned, fo long as the truth of Chrif- tianity is acknowledged. But before we enter upon this part of our fubjedl, it will be necefTary to obviate fome prejudices that have t?eep unjuftly raifed againft thofe perfons who, ^ believe [ 279 ] believe the influence of evil fpirits. *^ WitK *' regard to Chriftians,'* fays our author, *' it is in words, chiefly, that many of them " differ from the ancient Pagans, who deified " the fuppofed principle of evil. If they " refufe the devil the name of God, they go " very far in allowing him the attributes and " prerogatives of God-head. They conceive *' of him as a kind of omniprefent and om- *' nifcient Ipirit, and afcribe to him fuch a " dominion over the human race as can be- " long to none but the fovereign of the uni- " verfe. To the devil they afcribe frofts, *■' and tempefts, and infeftious air, blights " upon the fruits of the earth, the difeafes of *' cattb, the difailers and diftempers of men's " bodies, phrenfy and the alienation of their *' minds, and the pov/er of infii6ling even " cruel deaths*." Vv^e think it not worth while to point out all the veiy exceptionable particulars both expreffed and implied in this paragraph, yet perhaps the following brief anfwer may not be improper : " That the ** o-reateft part of the ancient Heathens never '•' deified the fuppofed principle of evil, ami *•' that this charge could at no time belong to *' ?nany of the Chriftian name, never to iudi ? Farm, on Mir. p. '03 — iot. T 4 [ 2So ] " as acknowledged the authority cither of the " Old or NewTeftamentrThatthofe Chriftians '* in genera], who have afierted an influence " from the devil over mankind, never al- *' lowed him either i\\e attributes or preroga- tives of God-head ; they have neither con- " ceived of him as a kind of omnifcient and *' omniprefent fpirit, nor afcribed to him a do- " minion over the human race, far lefs fuch a " one, as can belong to none but the fovereign of " the uni-verfe ; nor have they put the ele- " ments, together with the fruits of the earth, " and the dileafes of animals, into his power." Truth obliges us to confider both the above and the following reprefentation as equally uncandid. " In a word, if we entertain " juft and honourable fentiments of the " conftitution of the univerfc, and its all- " wife and benevolent author, can we believe *' that he has fubjeded us to the pleafure and " difpolal of fuperior beings, many of whom *' are fuppofed to be as capricious and male- *' volent as they are powerful ? Has God " put our very life, and the whole happinefs " of it, into fuch hands ? This fome main- *' tain he has done j and this he muft have " done, if he has granted them the power of "^^ working miracles at pleafure : an opinion " which cannot fail to rivet Heathens in their y ," idolatry.^ [ 28i 1 " idolatry, and Chriftians in the moft detef- *' table luperftitions." To thefe horrid charges we humbly fubmit the following anfwer: " That we do entertain the moft honour- " able and exalted fentiments of the conftitu- " tion of the univerfe, and of its all wife and " benevolent author ; that we do not know of ** any Chriftians, who confider God as having " fubjefted men to the pleafure and difpofal of " fuperior beings both capricious and malevo- lent, and as having put our very life^ and the " ivhole happinefs of it, into fuch hands ; nay, " we firmly believe, that every one who truly ** fears Go-.i, fo far from maintaining fuch ** things as thefe, cannot even think of them '*' without horror ; and that the Divine Being *' never did grant to any fpirits, much lefs to *' evil ones, the power of working miracles at *' pleafure." Such injurious and unfupported afiertions as thefe, by no means indicate a benevolent and candiq mind. We are, in- deed, told by one, who could not but know the truth of what he faid, in this cafe, " that " controverfial writers, inftead of anfwering ** the arguments of their opponents, too " often ftrive to render their perfons odious " by mifreprefentation and calumny ^, '* but ^ Farm. Letter to Worthing, p. 5. we [ 2S2 ] we never had before more decifive evidences of the fad. § 2. The facred writers exprefsly afiert the exiftence and influence of created intelligent natures, both good and evil, fuperior to men, yet the above-mentioned author never ac- knowledges this, but always takes care to avoid it, by ufmg either doubtful or evafive terms ; and there is great reafon to believe, that he confiders God as having never ufcd the agency of fuperior intelligent beings of any kind, in the adminiftration of his providence among men. How far fuch an opinion coin- cides with the general faith of the world, in all 9ges, concerning this fubjeft, is not for us to determine ♦, but it cannot well be reconciled with the language of the Holy Scriptures. He confefTeth, indeed, that frequent mention Is made of " angels," either as the inftruments or fymbols of an extraordinary providence, and confiders the words of our Lord to Na- thaniel in a figurative fenfe, '' Hereafter ye *' fhall fee heaven open, and the angels of " God afcending and defcending upon the '' Son of Man j* " which paflage he thus ex- plains, " That Chrill here foretels his mi- ,■' racles, and not the vifible afcent anddefcent * John i. lalL "' of L 283 ] ** of angels upon him during his miniftry, is " evident from hence, that the prophecy was *' not accomplilhed in this latter fenfe of it'." Any one, that can read, hath it in his power to contradicl fuch aflertions. Angels appeared and miniftered to our Lord in the defert, in his agony, at his refurreftion, and afcenfion into heaven •, and often vifibly interpofed for the aid of the apoftles. But although it is here acknowledged, that mention is made of anc^els as injlruments^ as well as fymbols of an extraor- dinary providence ; yet we are not hereby au- thorized to apply this concefTion to fuperior intelligent beings ; becaufe our Author thus explaineth himfelf : " The Pfalmift, when ce- " lebrating the empire of God over the ma- *' terial world, fays. He maketh the winds his *■ angels or mejjengers^ and lightnings his mini- *■ jlers. For fire and hail^ fnozv and vapour, " and fi or my winds fulfil 'God^s word" And then we are told, that " many learned writers " think the angel of the Lord frniting Ilercd, is " explained in the text itfelf of an extraordi- " nary dijlemper inflicted by God, Ads xii. 23;" that " God's fending an angel to Jertifalem " to deftroy it^'' feems only another form of ex- prefTion for " his fending a pcfiilcnce upon Ifrael •,'* and that " the Tfalmift explains the thun- ^ J^rm. on Mir. p. 1 47. Note *. " der. C 28+ ] *^ der^ and hail, and fire, which came upon the *' Egyptians, by God^s fending evil angels among *' them" To which things the following lingular pafiage is added. " On the other " hand, it may be alledgjed that the facred " writers feeni to have thought that God ad- " miniftercd a particular providence by the in- " flrumentality of his angels i and confequently *' in defcribing the effects ot a fpecial divine in- " terpofition, would very naturally make nien- " tion of the agency of thofe miniftring fpirits, " much in the fame manner as is done in the *' palTages here cited *." We now beg leave, in our turn, to fay, " On the other hand, it is al- " ledged that the facred writers a5lually thought " that God adminiftered a particular providence *' by the infttumentality of his angels, and con- *' fequently did very naturally make mention *' of the agency of thole miniftring fpirits in a *' manner very different from what is done in the ** paflages here cited •," and this we think will appear obvious by a more faithful quoZciUon of the above-mentioned places of Scripture. § q. " ThePfalmift," after he had fet forth the power and majefty of God in the for- mation of thofe things which are defcribed under the name of the heavens, before he • Farm, on Mir. p. 149, 150. Note ^ pafles t 285 ] pafles to the creation of the earth, celebrates the wifdom of Divine Providence in cm- ploying angels, as his fervants for the per- formance of his will, *' Who maketh his *' angels fpirits, and his minifters a flaming *' fire : Who laid the foundations of the " earth, that it fhould not be removed for *' ever. Thou coveredft it with the deep ^—." Is it likely, that the Pfalmift would take no- tice of winds and tempefts, and their ufe in the earth, before he had mentioned the creation of the earth itlelf ? But we have the exprefs teftimony of the apoftle, concerning the fenfe of this paflage, " W^hen he bringeth in the " firft begotten into the world, he faith. And let all the angels of God worfhip him :'* And of the angels, he faith. Who maketh his angels fpirits, and his "" minifters a flaming fire *."" In order to evade the force of thefe words, it is added, " Nor is it certain that thefe words, Heb. i. 7. *' are applied to intelligent beings ; as the ** apoftle feems to have had no other view ia " citing them, than to obferve, that the veiy " name of ^;/»-^/j (however' applied) imported *' minijlry and fub}e£Iion •, whereas that of Son *' implied authority and dominion *.'* Conjec- tures and fceptical terms are not fuincient * Pfal. civ. 4—6. « Heb. i. 6, 7. • Farm, on Mir, p, 149. Note «. here ((tC [ 285 ] here to obfcure the light of divine truth, fincc it is the profejfed intention of the facred pen- man to fhew the fuperior excellence of Chrift, Being made fo much better than the angels^ as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. But what comparifon can there be in this refpedt between " the Son of God" and " winds and tempefts ?" Even the fouls of meri are better than they. Religious " worlhip" and adoration is enjoined upon the angels here mentioned, but the fame phrafe is never ap- plied to the inanimate parts of nature. An- gels alfo, in this place, are called " minifters," or public officers, whofe fervice muft be re- gulated by certain laws and ordinances, which themfelves are fuppofed to underftand and ob- ferve as the rules of their conduft. This is the import, both of the word made ufe of by the Pfalmift, and of the term introduced by the apoftle. In no other fenfe, can the angels be juftly ftyled " minifters," and " miniftering *' Ipirits j" as is evident from the conftant ap- plication of the fame terms to the Levites of every rank, to all forts of officers both under the Jewilh and Chriftian difpenfation, and evert to our Lord himfelf, as " the minifter of the " faniftuary and true tabernacle *." But where is this title ever given to inanimate things? • Heb, viii. 2. [ 287 ] We cannot difmifs this palTage, without point- ing out the application which the lacred wri- ter himlelf makes of all that is here advanced ; this will, if pofllble, render it flill more ob- vious, that by. " angels" we are here to under- ftand intelligent beings. " For," fays he, *' if the word fpoken by angels was ftedfaft, " and every tranfgrefTion and difobedience received a juft recompence of reward j how *' fhall we efcape, if we negled fo great fal- " vation, which began to be fpoken by the " Lord f— ?" §4. In "the hundred and forty-eighth Pfalm'* the facred penman calls upon every part of the univerfe to celebrate God, and proceeds in the moft exa6b manner. " Praife ye the Lord " from the heavens i praife him in the heights; " praife ye him all his angels ; praife ye him " all his hofls :" and then, after calling upon " the fun and moon, and all ftars of light,'* and fhewing their original and duration, he thus goes on, " Praife the Lord from the earth ; *' ye whales, and all deeps -, fire and hail, " fnow and vapours, flormy wind, fulfilling '* his word *." Here, every circumftance of order, with refped to the different ranks of beings, as well as the moft cxprefs language, f Hcb. ii. 2, 3. • Vcr. 1-8. prove [ 288 ] prove to men of the loweft capacity, that " the *^ angels of God'* are clearly diftinguiftiedfrom *' fire and hail, fnow and vapours, and ftormy '' wind fulfilling his word." As to the cafe of " Herod," it will be fufficient for theprefent to obferve, that this writer hath not been able to point out one pafiage in the New Tefta- ment, in which the phrafe angel of the Lord is put for any thing befides an intelligent be- ing. Concerning " the peftilence upon Ifrael," and *' the angel fent to deftroy Jerufalem," we have the following plain account in the Scrip- tures, " So the Lord fent peftilence upon " Ifrael ; and there fell of Ifrael feventy " thoufand men : and God fent an angel unto *' Jerufalem to deftroy it : and as he was " deftroying, the Lord beheld, and he re- *' pented him of the evil, and faid to the an- " gel that deftroyed, " It is enough, ftay "" now thine hand.'* And the angel of the " Lord ftood by the threftiing- floor of Or- " nan the Jebufite. And David lift up his " eyes, and faw the angel of the Lord ftand *' between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn fword in his hand ftretched out over " Jerufalem. Then David and the elders of ** Ifrael fell upon their faces *." We leave the * 1 Chron. xxi. 14—16, meaning E 2S9 J meaning and dcfign of this pafiage to the con- fideration of every unprejudiced mind. The lad df the above-mentioned quotations runs thus, ^* We read, Exodus ix. 2^, 24, that the Lord " fefii upon the Egypiia?is thuhde}\ and hail^ and '* fire: and the Pfahtjift fpeaking of thefcjudg- " ments, fays, God fent evil angels a-mong them, " Pfal. 48, 49*." To thisafTcrtion the words of the facred penman are a fufficient anfwer, *' He " fent divers forts of flies among then.—, nd frogs, which deftroyed them : He gave alfo ** their encreafe unto the caterpiller, and their " labour unto the i.ocuft : He deftroyed their '* vines with hail, and their fycamore-trees with froft: He gave up their cattle al- " fo to the hail, and their flocks to hot thun- " derboks : He caft upon them the fierce- nefs of his anger, wrath, and indignation, *' and trouble, by fending evil angels **."—• He that can quote paffiiges of Scripture, in the manner of our author, may prove what- ever he pleafes from the word of God. § 5. We fhall now, out of the many in- fiances left on facred record, feled the fol- lowing hiftorica! fafts, not unworthy this gentleman's notice : he may call them by * On Mir. p. 150, Note ". '' Pfa'. Ixxviii. 45, i^c. U whac [290] what name he pleafes, but they never can be reconciled with his principles of reafon- ing, and too frequent affertions, concerning the inability of fuperior created beings to produce any efFeds on this earthly globe. The words of the infpired writers Ihall be? given without any comment ; they are worth a thoufand arguments on this fubje<5l, and undoubtedly afford us the moft authentic ac- count, that we can have of their own real opi- nion. " Whiles I was fpe:aking," fays the pro- phet Daniel, " and praying, and confeffing,— *' and prefenting my fupplication before the " Lord my God— *yea, whiles I was fpeaking " in prayer, even the mighty Gabriel, whom *' I had feen in the vifion at the beginning, " being caufed to fly fwiftlv, touched me,— » *' and talked with me, and faid '.•^-"— The evangelift Luke, on three different occafions, thusexprefTcth himfelf : "And there appeared — • ** an angel of the Lord, Handing on the right " fide of the altar of incenfe — and the angel ** faid unto him, " Fear not Zacharias"— • " And the angel anfwering, faid unto him, "" I am Gabriel, that juft this inftant •'" ftood in the prefence of God, and am **" fent to fpeak unto thee, and to Ihew *'" thee thefe glad tidings."" — — Again r *Dan. ix. 20, 21, 22. I ** The [ 291 ] " The angel Gabriel was fent from Godi " unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a " virgin and the angel came in and faid " unto her"- -The meffage is given at large by the evangelift. Concerning the fhepherds who were keeping their flock " in the fame country," at the time of the birth of Chrift, it is faid, " And lo ! an angel of '* the Lord came upon them — and the angel *' faid unto them, " Fear not : for, behold, I "" bring you good tidings of great joy !— '* *' And fuddenly there was with the angel 3 " multitude of the heavenly hoft, praifing God, " and faying, "Glory to God inthehighefl:."— *' As foon as the angels were gone away from " them into heaven, the fhepherds faid^" • Concerning the refurredlion of Chrift, the fa- cred hiftorian thus writes, " An angel of the *' Lord defcended from heaven, and cam© " and rolled back the ftone from the door, ** and fat upon it. His countenance was *' like lightning, and his raiment white as " fnow : and for fear of him the keepers did " fhake, and became as dead men. And the *' angel anfwered and faid unto the women, *'" Fear not ye ^"" The apoftles are faid to have been releafed from confinement in the •^ Luke, i. II. 13. 19. 26. andii. 9—15. * Matth. xxviii. 2—5. U 2 'following [ 292 ] following manner, " But an angel of the Lord by night opened the prifon doors, '' and brought them forth, and faid, *' Go, "" ftand, and fpeak in the temple to the peo- *"' pie all the words of 'this lifcX"" The remarkable deliverance of Peter is thus related: —"Peter was deeping between two foldiers,. " bound with tv/o chains ; and the keepers *' before the door kept the prifon. And be- *' hold, an angel of the Lord came upon. " him, and a light fliined in the prifon •, " and he fmote Peter on the fide, and raifed " him up, faying, " Arife up quickly ;" and "his chains fell off from his hands: and- " the angel faid unto him, " Gird thy- "" felf, and bind on thy fandals." And fo "■ he did : and he faith unto him, " Call "" thy garment about thee and follow me.'* " And he went out and followed him, and " will not that it was true which was d6ne by " the angel •, but he thought he faw a vifion. *< They went out, and pafied on through *' one ftreet, and forthwith the angel depart- " ed from him "." Agreeably with thefe fafls, the facred penman lays down the following ge- neral doftrine, " That all angels are miniftering *' fpirits, fent forth to minifter for thofe who *' fliall be heirs of falvation^'* although he doth » Aftsv, 19,20. " Ibid, xli: 6—10. ? H«b. i. 14. not [ 293 J not fay, that their fervicc^ iliall always be performed in as conlpicuous a manner as in the foregoing inftances; fo that no room is left for the expectation of miracles. The law was given by the miniflry of angels, and by them were performed thofe ailonilhing effcfts which attended its promulgation. Tliis is evi- dent both from the Old and New Teitainent. The Jews themfelves frequently boafted of the fact. Stephen fpake of it as an ac- knowledged truth, when he faid, that their Fathers " received the law by the diipo- "fition of angels ^i" and the apoftle Paul declares, that " it was ordained by an- "gels *.'* That was originally as much froqi God as the Gofpel, for he is the author of both ; accordingly the comparilbn, which is drawn in the above-mentioned paiTage to the Hebrews, does not relate to the author of the Law and Gofpel, but to the different kinds of miniltry that attended the publication of each i the one was the word delivered by an- gels, the other was the great falvation fpoken by the Lord, who hath obtained a more tx- cellent name than they. Angels caufcd thofe articulate voices by which the law was con- veyed to the ears of the people.; hence it is Ityled " the word fpoken or pronounced by ^n- P Ads vii. 53. • Gal. iii. ig. U 3 " gels * .'> [ 294 1 '* gels *'," which remaineth in our hands to this very day. With what propriey then can it be faid by a Chriftian divine, that no ef- fe<5ts of fuperior created fpirits are feen, or ever were feen, on this earthly globe '? It is hoped that Mr. Farmer will fhew why we ought to rejed the obvious fenfe of thefe quotations, before he proceeds to increafe the fevere cenfures pafTed on thofe who cannot receive his opinion. § 6. The fall of certain angels into fin and rebellion againft their maker, together with their fiibfequent influence over mankind, is exprefsly aflerted in the Scriptures. " God *' fpared not the angels that finned, but caft *' them down into Tartarus, and delivered •' them into chains of darknefs, to be re- *' ferved unto judgment." And again, "The " angels which kept not their firft eftate, but *' left their own habitation, he hath reierved " in everlafting chains under darknefs, unto " the judgment of the great day '," One v/ould imagine, that no teftimony could be more dired and full concerning the apoftacy ■ of intelligent beings fuperior to men, than f Heb, il. 2. 1 Farm, on Mir. p. 82. 142, 143. r z Pet. ii. 4. Jude ver. 6. what [ 295 ] what is here given. Yet even this is confi- dered as a doubtful point j for thus Mr. Far- mer fpeaks of '* the devil and his angels. ** It is generally fuppofed, that thefc wicked *' fpirits were originally inhabitants of the ^' celeftial regions, and equal in rank and *' dignity with thofe who preferved their in- " nocence. Now fuppofing this to be the " cafe i"^- — Again : '* If Peter and Jude ** are here fpeaking of fuperior fpirits •;"— And in his EJfay on Demonia/:s, he fays, *' The " Greek word, from whence conies the Eng- *' lilh name, Devil^ when ufed in the fingular '* number in the New Teftament, is generally ** fuppofed to refer to one particular evil fpi- *' fit, the chief of the fallen angeU* — ." What inference can we fairly draw from fuch fcep- tical language, unlefs the following, " That *' the fall of fuperior fpirits info fin ; their for- *' mer refidence in heaven ;, and the appli- " cation of the name. Devil, to their head, " are fuppofed fafts, the truth of which is *' by no means evident ?" However, be that as it may, our Lord fpeaks with great cleatr nefs concerning this matter, he fays, " The " devil — abode not in the truth, therefore " truth is not in him : when he fpeaketh a f On Mir. p. 151, 152. ' OnDem.p. 12. y 4 -' i'^> C 296 ] " lie, he fpeaketh from things proper to hm- felf, becaufe he is a liar, and the father o'i " it"." The apoftle Peter, under the gui- dance of the Holy Ghoft, in allufion to fonie ancient tradiuons, which are alfo taken notice of by Jude, fiiys, " That God call the finning " angels down into Tartarus -," that is, in- fo the dark air which furroiindc the earth. This idea of " Tartarus" differs not very much from that received among the earlieit Greeks'; which feems, indeed, to have been originally borrowed from fome authentic traditions, though, like many other truths that fell in their way, corrupted. They placed " Tartarus'* near thofe extremities of the earth and Iky, where, according to them, the fun never fliines, and make it the abode of thofe daemons, which, at the commencement of the worlct, " were call out of heaven by Jupiter ". But it was not the defign of the apofde to give his fanction to Heachen fables, wherein the truth of God is fo often abufed j he intended no- thing more than to fhew, that the angels v,'hich finned were caft down from the manfions of light and bleffednefs, into the lower regions which furround the earth; and his account of ■ " John viii. 44. 'Horn. Iliad, viii. ver. 489. Hef.Theog.ver. -jzg, Sec. [ 297 ] this matter well agrees with other parts of the Jacred writings. § 7. We are told by our author, that whatever place " Tartarus" refers to, the fallen angels " can have no dominion there j JL is " not their hdgdom, but their -prifon^ their " conjiant m\(\ perpetual \iv\^on'^.''' And then he immediately adds : " how inconfiflent is *' this reprefentation of their cafe, with their " Iharing with God the empire of the world, " and controuling the laws of nature and *' Providence ? Nor does the Scripture on ■ " any occafion contradid this reprefenta- " tian — :" We do not believe, that there are any Chriftian writers, who reprefent f;illen an- gels as " Iharing with God the empire of the *' world ;" or, as capable of " controuling the " laws of nature and Providence :" thefe in- fmuations, therefore, fo often repeated, can be confidered in no other light, than as inflances of mifreprefentation, wliich become the more aggravated, on account of their frequency. It is not eafy to difcover what ideas this wri- ter had under the terms dominion, kingdom, and prifon^ however, the following is given as a fufiicient anf;ver to the above-quoted para- "^ On Mir. p. 153, graph : t 298 ] graph : ** Whatever place Tartarus refers to, *' the fallen angels have no dominion there ; it " is no where fpoken of as their kingdom -, nor *' is it ever once called, in the Scriptures, " their prifon^ far lefs their conjiant and per- ^* petual prifon. The facred penmen never *' reprefent fuperior fpirits as confined within ** walls and dungeons ; nor do they once in- *' timate, that fuch beings are to be brought '' forth to an ignominious exectition.^* Thefe terms, referved in everlajiing chains, have al- ways been underftood as metaphorical ; and fince we cannot conceive of fpirits as bound in the mamier of human bodies, fome have thought the irrefiftible power, and immutahk will, of Qod as their righteous governor and judge, to be the eternal chains by which the (inning angels are kept to the judgment-day : and, indeed, thefe terms were ufed by the moft ancient Greek writers, as figurative of that power and will which pannot be over- pome *. The word, darknefs^ hath been in- terpreted, as denoting only that condition of life which is full of mifery and horror ^ for fo the term is applied, in other parts of Scripture, and not as referring to any parr ticular place of confinement. It hath alfo ^ |{oiD> Iliad, viii. ver. 19, and xy. ver. 19. ' been [ 299 ] been ftippofed, that this phrafe was defigned to reprefent the dark air, or the regions yrhich furround the earth, as the appointed limits, beyond which thofe wicked fpirits are not allowed to pafs ^. Every one, with- out deciding on thefe articles, will feel the abfurdity of underitanding the metaphorical language of "Peter" and " Jude" in a literal way. Whatever thofe limits be, within which fallen angels are kept to the judgment- day, they may yet be capable of doing great mifchief; and indeed the repeated aflerrions of holy writ, as well as the prefent condition of mankind, afford us too many evidences both of the inclination and ability of thofe beings, in this refpedt : ncverthelefs, we do not look upon the exercife of their power, any more than the deftrudtive tyranny of a Nero, to be inconfiftent with the unerring Providence and perfeft government of Al- mighty God. They who believe the power of fallen angels to affedt human nature, arc under no more obligations to reconcile the influence and wickednefs of any creature with the rectitude and perfedtion of the divine go- vernment, than other men who profefs to be- lieve the exifl:ence of God. For, as the learn- ed Sherlock well obfervcs, " No body is y Poll Synop. in Pet, &c. " exempt C 300 ] '* exempt in this cafe, but the Athelil ; and " his privilege comes from hence, that he " has no account to give of any thing, for !' all difficulties are alike upon his fcheme '.** cc § 8. " God created man in his ov/n image, in the image of God created he him *." This " image," as we are aflured, included in it " knowledge, righteoufnefs, and true holi- " nefs ^ -," and thus Solomon evidently under- ftood it, when he faid, " Lo, this only have I " found, that God created man upright *".'* The queftion, then, is this, " How came he to " be otherwife?'* The entrance of moral evil into the world is neither a jeft nor a fable. We cannot fuppofe, that the facred penmen would either feek to amufe or perplex us, in defcribing fo awful an event. The account which Mofes gives of the fall, is well known. *' Now the ferpent was more fubtil than any " beaft of the field, which the Lord God *' had made : and he faid unto the woman, *' Yea, hath God faid, ye fliall not eat of " every tree of the garden ?" — And again, *' The ferpent faid unto the woman. Ye fhall "not furelydie-, for God doth know, that * On Proph. 2 DifTert. •» Eph. iv. 24. Coloff, iii. 10. » Gen, i. 27. ' Ecclef. yiit 29. " in r 301 ] ** in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes- fhall be opened, and ye lliall be as gods," ** knowing good and evil *." — The narration- itfclf will not allow us to fuppofe, that, no- thing more was here intended tiian a creep- ing animal. . Mofes never meant, that we fhould afcribe not only Ipeech and reafon to- a beafl.of the field, but alfo a direct attack' upon the honour of God, and the propriety' and juftice of his holy commandments. That' would be to deftroy all difcindions, and make the ferpent to be what it really is not. We muft, -therefore, grant, that Mofes defcribes- in the ferpent the artifice of the chief of the apofcate angels, who firit began a revolt from- God, broke the law of his creation, and made ufe of the ferpent in feducing man-' kind. We might urge many ftrong argu- ments, derived from the nature of the fentence, which was pafled, and the different punifhments denounced on each party concerned, but we have the exprefs teflimony of the apoftles in fuppor:: of the interpretation here given ; for thus they explain themfelves. — '' That old *' ferpent, called the devil, and Satan, which *' deceiveth the whole world '^." It is accord- ingly faid, that *' the devil finneth from the • Gen. iii. i. 4, 5. «» Rev. xii. g. 3 " beginning [ 302 ] ** beginning*;** and he is called " the tempter,'* " the deceiver,'* " the deftroyer V* That fin^ to the committing of which he deluded the firft man, brought moral depravity, and death, upon the whole human race : hence it is faid, that " he who committeth fm is of the devil j" that *' the imagination of man's heart is evil *' from his youth ;*' that " by one mart *' fm entered into the world, and death *' by fin, and fo death pafled on all men^ *' for that all have fmned ;" the devil is exprefsly ftyled, him that had the power of death ^ When the ferpent had, by his arti- fice and fubtilty, beguiled man into fin, death mult follow, in confequence of the righteous judgment of God, and the prior denunciation of his law. We fee the reafon^ then^ why the devil is faid in the Scriptures, to " have the power of death •," for if he could introduce " fin, the wages of which is deatht," he had, beyond all doubt, the power of bring- ing in death, and fo far as fin and death prevail, he mufl: be confidered as the author of both. This dodrine is clearly fupported by our Lord himfelf. The Jewsy while they • 1 John HI. 8. *■ Ibid. Gen. via. 21. PLom. v. 12. Heb. 11.14. • Matt. iv. 1 — 12. 1 Theff. iii. 5. Rev. xii. 9. Ibid. ix. II. t Roi"' vi. laft. oppolcd ^ t 303 1 ©ppofed the revealed will of God, fought t<5 kill Jefus; the devil, while he abufed the word of God, attempted the deftru6bion of mankind ; Chrift, therefore, juftly compared the condudl of the one, with the works of the other. " — -Ye feek to kill me, becaufe " my word hath no place in you — But now " ye feek to kill me, a man who have told *' you the truth, which I have heard of *' God — Ye are of your father the devil, and " the lulls of your father ye will do : he was *' a murderer from the beginning, and abode ** not in the truth, therefore truth is not in *' him : when he fpeaketh a lie, he fpeaketh ** of his own : for he is a liar, and the father *' of it '.'* The devil did not, indeed, feek with open violence to put an end to the life of Adam, but death was what he had in view, when he invented a lie, and firft tempted man to fm : he is, therefore, faid to be an homi- cide and " murderer from the beginning," as he intended the deflru^lion of human na-^ ture. Sin and death being thus introduced, and all mankind under the guilt of the one, and doomed by a righteous fentence to under- go the other, the devil became both their leader and chief in rebellion, and the author of that unhappy ftate into which the whole is e John, chap. viiz. 37. 40. 44. now [ go4 I now brought."- ' It was neither* the 'contri-' vance nor work of the blefied God : the- Scriptures never l^eprefent him as introducing fin, nor as caufiiig death ; but they always fpeak of God as hating wickednefs, and^ feeking to delive^ mtn from its confequences^' through Jefus Chrift, who came " to deftroy " the works of the devil." We have never yet feen a better or more rational account of the entrance of fm and death into this world, and of the prefent condition of human na- ture, than what is given in the Scriptures.' God is not there charged with any evil ; the demerit and danger of fm are fet in a clear" and ftriking light •, the divine reftitude is not obfcured in the leail ; nor is the devil repre- fented in all this, " as a kind of omnifcient " and omnipotent fpirit,'*— -"fharing with God *' the empire of the world :" on the contrary, he isjufrly delcribed as a rebel, as a murderer, and the father of ail v/ickednefs, whofe devices fhall be overthrown, and whofe works Ihall be punifhed, • § 9- We are indeed told, with no fmall degree of coniidence, that '* whatever opi- " nion we form concerning the malignant " influence of fallen angels upon the morab •' ur^'J hapDlucI:; of n^aiiicicivlg -it hath no rela- *' tion t 305 ] *' tion at all to the prefent queftidh** about dcemoniacal pofleflioris, " which 'concerns "•only the agency of a different ^Ordel* of " beings, that of human Ipirits ^:" ThiJ; gentleman well knew, and hath alio confelfed, that they who believe the reality of dasmo- niacal poiTenions attribute them to fallen an- gels, and not to human fpirits ; inthe eftima- tion of fuch perfons, therefore, the fubjcft i5 intimately conneded with the maliG;nant in- fluence of fallen angels on the bappincfs of mankind -, and himfelf acknowledgeth, that the defign of Jiis EJfay on the Demomacs of th: New Tejiameiit was, to reconcile their cafe with the principles of his Dijfertation on Mh'a- cies ', where he maintains the inability of luperior created beings to produce kich eticds, within the limits of the human lyilem, and where alio, as we have feen, he unjuftly chargeth Chrillians with afcribing to the devil luch a dominion over the human race as can belong to none but the Sovereign of the univerfe. The whole of what he hath olFcred to prove, that by dasmons v/e are to underltand the fouls of departed men can only be confidered as. an attempt to recon- cile the language of the Golpcl with his own '' Farm, on Dem. p. 147. • Ibid. p. I. See alfo above, chap. vi. § i. X particular [ 3o5 ] particular opinion, advanced in a former pt?b- lication ; it doth not at all affed the ground of their fentiments, who alcribe poflcffions to the agency of fuperior beings. His peremptory decifion, therefore, on fo capital a point,, „ not only without any kind of proof, but alfo in a diredt contradidion to the profefTed de- fign of his own book, is rather too magifte- rial! We do, with chearfulnefs, pay him all refped, as a perfon of learning, but, as an inconfiftent dogmatift, we owe him none. And befides, it is not in this writer's power to feparate an influence over the morals of men from the human body v this hath been too often proved to the world, by the perni- cious effedls of vice, which hath procured the (laughter of millions. It is exprelsly faid» that " the devil put it into the heart of Judas " Ifcariotjthe fon of Simon, to betray " his maf- ter *, that " Satan entered into him," — " and" that " he" then " went and communed with the " chief priefts — how he might betray " Jefus -f- : nor is this fpoken of as a miracle, yet the event terminated in the death, both of the betrayed who was innocent and free from guile, and alio of the traitor himfelf. Wc might alledge other inftances, were it needful. But our author has been very careful never to allow ♦ John;{iii. z, f Luke xxii. 31 4. ^anj t 307 ] ahy influence from fallen angels, either upon the morals or happimfs of mankind. From that fin, of which the devil was the firll author, all forts of calamities arife, and they are very properly numbered among y??/.f ^c;or/^x. Sorrow, difeafes, and death, entered by fm, with fin, therefore, came in the devil's power, and while fin reigns over men, his influence con- tinueth ^ without fin, he could have no more to do on earth, than he hath to do in heaven, and fufl>:rings could no more be known in this world, than they are now among the blefifed ^ : neither thofe cafes, therefore, which, in the Gofpel, are called dasmoniacal pofTcffions^ nor any other calamities, can, upon the principles of revelation, ever be feparated from the malignant influence of fallen angels, upon the morals and happinefs of mankind. But if it be abfolutely impofllblc for fuperior created beings to affccl the hu- man fyfliem, we can never jufl:ly charge the devil with bringing about the ruin of our nature •, nor can we have any very exalted ideas of the " Son of God," while he is repre- fented as defl:roying the works, and abolifiiing the power, of one v;ho was never capable of *■ The whole of this matter is well difcufled by the i«arned Dr, Owen, on Heb. chap. ii. X 2 doinar [ 308 1 doing any mifchief: the fubjecb, therefore, mull afte6l the whole plan of Revelation. § lo. We have feen, if the word of God be true, that fallen angels were not only able to introduce fin into this world, with all its deftruftive coniequenccs, but that they did actually accompliili it, by inexprefiible trea- chery and wicked'neis ; the effects of their agency, therefore, within the human fyfteni, have not only been feen, but are full fell, by every individual of mankind, even by thofe who, perhaps, are unwilling to acknowledge their influence. A peremptory denial of this facl, by thofe who are acquainted with the holy Scriptures, appears to be the lame thing with rejedling the principles of Revelation, and difavov/ing the ground and reafon afligned for the Gofpel of Chrill. For, according to the word of God, fallen angels did aftually bring in fin, and thus caufe the death of the "whole human race -, on what principles then can we deny their power to produce any effe<5ls within the limits of the human fyftem, with- out rejecting the Scripture account of the fall, and vw-ithout affirming, that death was not brought in by them ? If thole perfons de- ferve the Icvcreit cenfure, who attribute death, in [ 309 3 in any cafe, to the power of the devil, what muil we think of our Lord, who calls him '''' z man Jlaycr, and murderer," and that too ** from the beginning?'* It is certainly incum- bent- on thofe gentlemen who load others with fo many reproaches for believing demoniacal poflefTions, to give us, in plain language, a ditecc account of their ideas, concerning the entrance of fm and death into this world, and to let us know, vv^hethe they afcribe it to the agency of the devil or no^ •, for nil this , is done, thofe arguments that have been advanced againft the received opinion, on this fubjeft, can never be fu])ported. If they do acknowledge that fm and death were brought in by the devil, they attri- bute to him a greater power than is claimed in the cafe of pofieflions ; the whole of that realbni'ng, therefore, which is derived from the fuppofcd incapacity of fallen angeh, to pro- duce fuch effects, mud fall to the ground, and their bufinefs v/ill be to prove, if they can, vvhnt is in fncl an abfurdiry, that though the devil had power to bring in fm and death, yet he never can have any influence in thole things which dilfrels mankind and lead to death, and that, though he was per- mitted to tempt mankind while innocent, X 3 and I" 3'o J and betray them into ruin, yet now, fince they are become guilty and worthy of punifli- ment, he is not allowed, in any cafe, either to feduce or hurt. But if they deny the devil to be the author of the prefent unhappy ftate of fin and death, or to have any in- fluence in the caufe of human miferies, then the controverfy is not with any particular fet of Chriftians, but with the Scriptures of the Old and New Teftament, and with the com- mon notions of mankind, concerning the moral perfeftions of God, who is jujlly fup- pofed, as we apprehend, neither to have in- troduced fin, nor caufed death. It does therefore appear to us, that thofe arguments, which have been urged of late, againft das- moniacal pofieiTions, equally affect the prin- ciples of natural and revealed religion ; and we cannot avoid, on fuch an occafion, taking notice of chofe very fingular compliments that have been paid, on this fubjed, to the " Sad- " ducces," " Epicureans," and other kindred minds, of ancient date, whole tenets were very unfavourable to religion and good morals*, while " Chriftians" have been loaded with un- juft reproaches. 1 Effay on Dem. p. T36. 155. Differt. on Mir. p, 531. See alfo above, chap. iii. § 3. § II. In [ 311 ] § II. In oppofition to that account, which hath been fo often juftly urged from the Holy Scriptures, concerning the entrance of fin into this world, and the rife of human calamities, the following objeftions may^ perhaps, have been aUedged, " That the origin of evil, both " natural and moral, is a fubjefb which hath " employed, and hitherto perplexed, the great- " eft philofophers and divines in every age, *' and that fome judicious perfons will pro- " bably be of opinion, that the Mofaic hif- " tory of the fail, however explained, is not '* a complete folution of it, or that, if it " hath removed fome difficulties, there are " others remaining.'* To this, or to any thing of the like import, if it fhould be pleaded, the following brief anfwer may be given, " That the Mofaic hiftory of the fall " was never intended as a folution of the ori- *' gin of evil, far lefs as a complete one^ nor '* was it ever fo urged, that we know of, by " any Chriftian divine ; none, therefore, but " either injudicious or uncandid perfons will ** reprefent the fubjedl in this light." Our bufinefs at prefent is with the following quef- tion, '* Will any Chriftian divine take upon ** him to fay, that the account which is de- *' livercd to us by the facred penmen, con- *' cerning the introduction of natural and X 4 " moral [ 312 ] " moral evil into this world, is not a jtift one f'^ According to the Holy Scriptures, neither human calamities^ nor death, nor the evil paf- fions of men, are from . the original confti- tution of nature, but were ^brought into the world b}^^that; fin to which the devil firft fe- duced man. The hiflory of the fall, the previous threatning of God in cafe of dif- obedience, and the fentence pronounced on Adam's tranfgreffion, together with the con- fequent alteration in the (late of the world, and in the condition of mankind, do all natu- rally lead us to a fource of human calamities yery different from the original conftitution of nature. That account which is given us in the Bible,', concerning the introdu^ion of na- tural and moral evil among men, hath hitherto been received by Chriftians in general, as au-, thentic j the principles and defign of the Gof- pel every where fuppofe its truth j there is no- thing in it contradiflory to human reafoji, or inconfiftent with our natural ideas of the di- vine perfedions, for nothing injurious through- out the whole affair, is attributed to the agency of God. The origin of evil. is a fubjedt not within the comprehenfion of the human mind, be- becaufe v/e are, at prefent, deftitute of thofe common principles without which a clear knowledge of that matter cannot be conveyed to [ 3'3 ] to us: if there were a proper mctlinm rhroiin|i which i'uch intormation could be given, we fhoiild undoubtedly perceive, that God was no more the contriver and agent in the firft rife of moral evil than he was, according to the Scriptures, in the entrance of fin into this world. C H A P. VIII. The Scripture Account of thofe Cafes which are ternud Demoniacal Poffeffions •, with an Exami- nation of the Ccufe that hath been lately af- figned for fuch D if orders. § i-'W/'^^ ^^^^^ "ow proceed to examine thofe V V particular cales, which in the Gofpel are anribed to the agency of evil fpirits, under the name of " d.'Emons ;" and then en- quire, whether thofe writers, who totally rejedl the idea of fuch agency, have really alTigned a more probable and rational caufe for thofe unhappy inftances, than what is exprefsly men- tioned in the New Teilamcnt ? In difciifling thefc articles, we Ihall pay no regard to un- defined [ 314 ] defined terms, and unmeaning propofitions, or to ridiculous tales, urged from the fuper- ftitious opinions of idolatrous Gentiles -, be- caufe our bufinefs is only with that account which the Holy Scriptures have given con- cerning " daemoniacs." In ftating the firft of thefe articles, we fhall, as far as poflible, fol- low the reprefentation given by our opponents themfelves. There were fome difeafes thought to be inflided by fuperior beings, which were not confidcred under the idea of " pQlTelTions j" fuch was the diforder of the woman bowed tocrether for eighteen years ', and fuch was the cafe of Job. '* All the perfons fpoken of ':' as pofTefTed, were difordered in their minds. *-' Epileptics were alfo numbered among this " clafs, becaufe they were attended with a " deprivation of the underftanding, or lofs of " fenfe, and with the figns of phrenzy. Yet it *' does not appear, that the ancients confidered **- all as polfefTed, who were difordered in " their underilandings, as in the delirium of " a fever, or in phrenzy caufed by ex- '- ceis of drinking ^" And we by no means ailcrt, that either the apoftles, or their coun- trymen, confidered every inftance of madnefs which themfelves might attribute to evil fpi- » Luke x'm. u. ■• Farm, on Dem. p. 88. 107, ritSj [ 3'5 ] rits, as pofTelnons ; nay, perhaps the contrary might be proved were it necefTary. But cur enquiry relates only to thofe particular cafes, termed '* pofleflions" in the New Teftament ; and in the dating thefe, we objed to all fuch expreflions as the following : *' That the de- mons within them were fuppofed to occupy the feat of the human foul, and to per- form all its functions in the body.— If de- mons can unite themfelves to a human body in the fame manner that the foul is united to it by God, fo as to govern all its organs.— That fpirits take pofTeflion of men's bodies, and govern their bodily or- gans, in as perfeft a manner as their own fouls can do ^" Had the author of thefe fentences beftowed a little more care in giving a fair and juft reprefentation of the doftrine concerning " dasmoniacs," as Ji at ed in the New Tefttiment, and reafoned from that language only, he might have faved himfelf much trou- ble in collefting needlefs arguments, and his readers frequent difgufl, with uncandid defcrip- tions, drawn from idolatrous and antichrirtian writers, and injurioufly applied to perfons who abhor fuch ideas. We have nothing to do, at prefcnt, with any other terms than thofe of the ^ Farm, on Dem. p. 117. 250. 406. apoflles ; f[ 316 ] apoftles ; that phrafe, every where ufed In the Gofpel on this occafion, is fufEcient for ns, which fignifies no more than to be held, affliSiedy or grieved^ by a daemon, or, as it is well exprefled in one place by our tranflators, " My daughter is grievoujly vexed with a " :devil *." ■ § 2, We beg leave to enter a caveat againft the improper ufe which may be made of the fol- lowing inference from Matthew's application of an ancient prophecy, " Himfeif tooic our " -infirmities, and bare our ficknelTesf .""This- " prophecy," fays Mr. Farmer, " concerning- " Chrift's taking our infirmities, and bearing our " JtckneJJes^ was accompliihed in part by the " cure of demoniacs -, and therefore pof- " feflions were comprehended under infirmities ^^ and Jicknejfes, and confequently imply fome *' diforder or diltemper in the human frame, *' from whatever caufe it might proceed ''.'* Our author's conclufion is exprelTed in terms fomewhat vague and indeterminate. But lie may be confidered as explaining himfeif in the next paragraph. After quoting a number of texts, in order to Ihew that the recovery of daemoniacs is fpoken of in the fame • Matth. XV. 22. t Ibid viii. 16, 17. Ifaiah liii. 4. ^ On Dem. p. 65, 66, 6j, manner, [ ?>^1 ] manner, as the recovery of ihofe who la- boured under bodily dileafes, he adds, " In defcribing the miracle wrought upon de- moniacs, the evangelifts lay indiiFerently Chrift expelled the demon, or that he healed the demoniac. From hence it appears, that a real dilbrder was cured, whenever Chrift is reprefented as ejeding a demon." A eal di [order ivas cured \ This is very true : but what kind of a diforder ? Was a bodily difeafe cured, 'whenever Chriil is reprefented as ejeding a daemon ? To prove this, is evi- dently the defign of the whole fection, and yet when we come to the very point of de- cifion, we are put off with ambiguous terms, which imply nothing more than what was never doubted on either fide of the quef- tion. This gentleman feems to have been confcious of the fallacy of the above quoted paragraph •, for in a reference to it he fays, It hath been fhewn, that on feveral occa- fions, the New Teftament includes pof- fcflions under the general terms, Jicknejfes and difeafes\ and confequently ccnfiders them as one particular fpecies of them. At other times, it diftinguiflies pofTeflions from difeafes in general, in conformity to the popular language, which it adopted on " this [ 3i8 ] *^ this fubjed — *." But afterwards he refumes again his former inference, and intimates that all pofleflions were bodily difeafes^ and accord- ingly treated as fuch •, though he carefully avoids ufing the phrafe ^ Dr. Lardner was alfo of the fame opinion, and-affirms, that all demoniacs had feme bodily indifpofition^ " Nor," fays he, " does it appear clearly from " th'eir hiftory, that there was any thing *' befide fuch indifpofition ^." If this opinion of the Do6tor's had not been agreeable to our author's own plan, he would have un- doubtedly taken notice of it •, for on the fame page, and juft before the lail of the above quoted paragraphs, he thus expreffeth himfelf, *' We have now examined all Dr. Lardner*s " objections to the account we have given " of the Gofpel demoniacs. And if he (who " was fo well acquainted with the fubjed) did " not think it liable to any other, we may " prefume no other can be raifed againft it ".**' This is a line example of the argumen- turn ad verecundiam, with a very fkilfuj referve of our author's own pre-eminence on the fubjeft. However, it appears evi- dent, according to the reafons and autho- * OnDem. p. ii8, 119. ^ Ibid. 160— 166. t Cafe of Dem. *" On Dem. p. 117, 118. rities [ 3»9 ] rities here allcdged, that t!ie tv/o followirrt? articles mufl be allowed : firfl-, that none are laid to have evil Ipirit:^, who were not difcom- pofed in their minds ; next, that whenever a dasmon is faid to be caft out, a bodily dif- eafe was cured. We Ihali not take upon us to fhew the confiftency of thofe two articles, but we beg leave to point out another re- markable paflage, the truth of which we dare not contradid. Our author, towards the dole of his book, after referring to the reafon quoted above, why pofTcflions were dillin- guifhedfrom bodily difeafes, immediately adds, " Diforders merely mental are of a different " nature from thole by which the body alone " is afFeded'.'* And, on this principle, he refts the propriety of the above-men- tioned diftindion. Here then, without con- tradifting the only authority which is more refpedable than Dr. Lardner's, we may ven- ture the following obfervation, " That the facred writers themfelves did not confider ' all demoniacal cafes as attended with bodily ' diftempcrs, though it is clear they looked upon fome pofTcIhons in this light ; and that they did not difiinguilh poiTeflions from difeafes in general, only in conformity to the • On Dcm. p. 355. 2 " popular [ 320 ] *' popular language of thofe times, fince a real " difference in nature is acknovvledged, be- " tvveen diforders merely mental, and thofe by *' which the body alone is affe(^l:ed." It does not appear, that " the Gadarene demoniacs" la- boured under any bodily difeafe whateverj there is no circumfiance mentioned in their hiftory which gives the leail intimation of this kind. The evangelifts vary their language with theut- moft caution ''. Luke diftinguiflies *' thofe who " were vexed with unclean fpirits, *' from fuch as were afilifted with corporeal difeafes, and his term, which we render vexed, denotes only tumult and hurry of mind, but is not appli- cable to bodily complaints. On other occa- fions, he fpeaks of evil fpirits and bodily in- firmities as united in the fame fubjed. But it can by no means be proved, that the facred wri- ters ever include " pofTefTions " under corpo- real difeafes ; they, indeed, often fpeak of the fame perfon as labouring under both at the fame time, yet ftill they carefully diftinguifli the one from the other. We may therefore fafely conclude, that none are called " dasmo- *' niacs " in the New Teftament, unlefs fuch as were deprived of the proper ufe of their fenfes, and afflicted with madnefs ; and that •^ Mat. viii^ 16. Luke vi. 18. 3 this [ q2i ] this is not always faid to be attended with fome bodily complaint. The moft Ikilfiil phyficians of oUr own times will freely ac- knowledge, that there are many inilances of madnefs which do not arife from any known diforder in the human frame. Cafes of this kind have been called original madnefs, in dif- tindtion from that which accompanies fome bodily difeafe, or accident. § 3. We fhall next enquire, whether thofe perfons, who deny the influence of evil fpi- rits over the human fyllem, have afllgned, for thofe diforders, called d^emoniacal polTef- fions, a caufe more probable and rational in itfelf, and more confident with the principles of revelation, than that alledged in the holy Scriptures, and now confidered as a vulgar error ? Some of the writers, indeed, againft the received doftrine on this fubjeft, at- tempted nothing more than to Hiew, that what are called dasmoniacal ^ofTefllons were mere bodily difeafes, and that there was no particular agency of fuperior created beings, in cafes of this nature ; they never ofiered to aflign the true caufe of fuch like calamities, nor to fubftitute any other in the room of that which they rejeded. This was certainly a very great defed: in their hypothefis > but y ' they [ 322 ] they knew not how to remove it, without at- tacking the Scripture account of the origin of moral and natural evil, which, as we appre- hend, they had no defire of doing. To have acknowledged, that the devil was not only the remote caufe of human fin and mifery, but the prime agent in bringing them into the world, would have embarraflcd their whole fcheme, and admitted an influence which could not fail to intangle all their future ar- guments. Silence, therefore, on fo delicate a point, might, for any thing we can tell, be the greateft prudence. But the mod cele- brated writer on this fubjedt, by afluring his readers, that befides God and Chrift, there can be no fuperior intelligences, who have any power over the human fyftem, hath freed himfelf from all thefe difficulties, and there- fore afligns, without fcruple, what he looks upon to be the true caufe both of dasmoniacal pofTeffions, and all other evils to which hu- man nature is fubjedb ; his plan, in this particular, we lliall now examine, with as much freedom as it was written. § 4.— ■" Whoever," fays Mr. Farmer, " the demons of the ancients were, it hath '' not hitherto been proved by reafon, that ,^' the diforders imputed to them cannot pro- " ceed [ 323 ] ceed from natural caufes. You fay, that by the fole operation of thefe caufes, you cannot account for the cpilepfy and mad- nefs. What then ? Will it necelTarily fol- low from hence, that thefe diforders pro- ceed from a caufe that is fupernatural ?'* By no means; neither will it hence follow, that thefe calamities have no other fource than the difordered ftate of the human frame. But he goes on : " Are you perfeftly acquaint- ed with all the fecrets of nature, or with all her wonderful operations in the human fyftem ? Do not very many of them efcape the mod diligent fearch ? Why then do men, however learned, pronounce with certainty, that epileptic and maniacal diforders do not fall within the limits of nature ?" It is readily granted, that we have wo acquaintance with " the fecrets of nature." What then? Do not many of "' her wonderful operations " — " efcape the mofl diligent fearch " even of this writer himfelf ? Why then fhould any perfon, however learned, pronounce with certainty, that maniacal diforders have no other caufc than what is common to all bodily difeafes ? " We *' are," fays he, " fubjedt to c/ber diforders *' in the common courfe of nature, or accord- " ing to thofe fixed rules by which the hu- y 2 " man I 324 ] " man fyftem is governed •, why then may *' we not be fubject to ihefe alio in the fame " manner ? If we cannot afErm with certainty, " that they da proceed from natural caiifes •, " neither can you prove, that they do not* " There is, therefore, no evidence from rea- " fon for the reahty of poflefiions ^*' Is not this fome miftake of the printer ? Our author furely could not well think of fuch an inference. Muft not the following be the true reading, " There is, therefore, no evidence from rea- " fon, either /(7r or againji the reality of pof- ** feflions i" for thus it (lands, according to the reprefentation of the cafe, here given? However, it is not ufual with gentlemen of learning, to infift upon it, either that any particular notion is falfe, becaufe certain per- ibns cannot demonftrate its truth, or that Ibme other opinion is really true, becaufe thofe of a contrary mind cannot prove it to be falfe. We never expeded arguments of this kind from one, who hath talked fo much againft infulting the reafon of mankind. We have, indeed, looked for increafmg light irv the progrefs of our fubje6t, and have, there- fore, naturally aflced. What are we to under- ftand by natural caufes in this paragraph ^ What is here meant by a caul'e that is fttper- ^ OnDera. p. 152, 153. iHitural? [ S^5 ] Statural? And what are thofc fxed rules by which the human fyftem is governed ? Doth the author intend to fay, that all difordcrs, and madnefs among the reft, naturally arifc from the original Ilrudlure of the human frame, and that no other caufe is to be align- ed ? If not, what arc thofe fixed rules, by which the human fyftem is governed ; when and where were they eftablifhed, if not at the ci-eation •, and how does it appear, that delu- fion and madnefs are according to thfe rules ? We ought to have been told alfo, what are the limits of nature, and who they are that confider maniacal cafes as not falling within thefe limits. In fliort, it is our misfortune to look upon many of thofe palTages as no- thing more than collections of unmeaning terms, which this writer is pleafed to dignify with the name of reafoning. But lie thus proceeds in a loftier Itylc. § 5. " We have feen, that the reality of *' poflefllons cannot be demonftrated by rca- " fon, bccaufc the difordcrs imputed to them " may proceed from natural caufes; and it can- " not be proved that they do not. I now add, " that reafon remonftrates againft the dodlrine *' of poffeflions, and clearly fliews us, that *' the diforders imputed to them cMually do y 3 *' proce&d [ 3^6 3 " proceed from natural caufes. The tempera- *' ment of the body, the texture of the brain, *' the motion of the blood, the excefs or " defe6t of the animal fpirits, the influences " of air and diet, intenfenefs of thought, " violent paflions, and fudden frights, will ■' difturb or deftroy the regular exercife of " the underftanding." " Reafon" mighty now with fome degree of propriety, remonJlrate.~^ But we are, immediately after this, prefented with a curious fpedacle, which, it feems, had been imprudently omitted, by the moft learned writers on d^emoniacs, before our au- thor. It is old Hippocrates, diffetting the head of a goat, " whofe hrain was found to he " overcharged with a rheum of a very had " fmell i a plain proof that the animal was dif- " eafed^ not poffeffed hy a deity.'' And then, from the whole, is drawn the following de- cifive inference, " Now, if maniacal and " epileptical diftempers owe their rife to na- " tural caufes •, and (fo far as reafon can *' j^^g^) ^^ ihd^ caufes only, it is not only " groundlefs, but abfurd, to afcribe them to *' a fupernatural influence".'* We are here favoured, not indeed with a logical definition, but rather with a catalogue, of what our author "* pn Dgm. p. i6o, i6i, means [ 327 ] means by natural caiifcs^ and which, as we conjecture, lie looks upon to be thole fixed rules, whereby the human fyftem is governed. The examples here given may be confidered more properly as effetls than as " caufes." The fliape of a tree, the thicknefs of its bark, the arrangement of its boughs, the rifing of its fap, the number of its leaves, and the kind of its fruit, may be termed fo many natural caufes, with as much propriety as " the tempe- " rament of the body, the texture of the brain, " the motion of the blood, and the excefs or " defedb of the animal fpirits." Nor is our fur- prife in the lead abated, when we find ** intenfe- *' nefs of thought, znolent pajfwns, and fudden " frights" numbered among '' natural caufes !'* We never underftood before, that the calami- ties and even moral defeds of human nature were to be confidered as natural caufes, and fo many pre-eftablifned rules for the government of mankind. The accidental circumftances here mentioned may frequently be the occafion of melancholy or madnefs, but our enquiry refpeds the immediate " caufe" of thofe delufive perceptions, both of external objedls and horrid thoughts, which often attend madnefs, and which are as much independent of the will of madmen, as the oaths and threaten- ings of a ruffian are, of the will of an honell, Y 4 affrighted [ 328 ] affrighted traveller. The fradlure of a limb, or the burfting of a blood-veflel, with many other things of the like kind, may be the occafions of inexprefiible fear and dread, while it is well known, that thefe are not the immediate caules of fuch painful and diftreff- ing tho^jghts. Caufes, effeds, and occa- fions, are entirely confounded one with ano- ther in the above paragraph. Without mak- ing any comparifon between " the brain of a *' goat^ overcharged with an offenfive rheum ^^ and thofe delufive perceptions that frequently happen to the human fpecies, we Ihall purfue the arguments further alledged on this part of our fubjed. § 6. " As the feveral diforders imputed to poflefTion, proceed from natural caufes, like other diforders allowed not to be pre- ternatural \ fo, like thefe, they yield to natural remedies, and each of them re- quires a peculiar procefs. — But what effed can medicines and evacuations have upon the devil, who is conceived to be fpiritual and incorporeal ? Why fhould it be thought, that the fame evil fpirit is expelled from the body of one perfon, by medicines that would not affed him in the body ,of an- other ? Or that he is fometimes driven away " by [ 329 ] by hellebore, at other times drawn off by " a bliller ? It phyficians are able, by fuch various means, to ejccl him from the human body, the devil is lubjed to man, not *' man to the devil "." It is never intimated in the holy Scriptures, that thofe dilbrders which the facred writers call " dremoniacal,'* either ever were, or might have been, cured by the (kilful ufe of phyfic •, nor is it once fuppofed by the evangelifts, that the devil " is " fometimes driven away by hellebore, or at " other times drawn off by a blifter." It is not at all to the honour of this writer, to be found, almoft in every page, imputing to other men, opinions which never entered into their thoughts. Thofe cafes which have been afcrib- ed to evil fpirits are not confidered, by thofe who believe this dodrine, as " yielding,"— " like other diforders " — to natural remedies.'* If our author does not as yet know, he certainly ought to be informed, that there are numbers of " maniacal peribns," and *' epileptics" too, upon whom the mofl fls he, " if reafon fhews us that there is, and mufl be a fixed order of caufes and effeds throughout the whole fyftem of nature ; and that both the gefie- ration and cure of the diieafes in queftion are the effeds of this conftitution -, then reafon doth certainly remonftrate againft afcribing them to fupeniatural caufes :"■— And v/e muft, of confequence, receive thefc two articles as authentic maxims : That the government of the world is committed to the general laws of matter and motion, without the imm,?diate influence and inter- pofition of God ' ; and, That all the error, delufion, and mifery, which attend not only demoniacs but the whole human fpecies, are to be attributed folely to " a fixed order of " caufes and effects," eftabliflied " throughout p The fame doiHrinc In p. 183. ^' the [ 334 ] " the whole fyftem of nature,"—"" the prefei- " vation of which is eflential to the happinefs " of the creation.'* Hence it clearly foUowSj that mankind are left " 7'ofland or walk, to rife or tumble^ *' As matter and as motion, jumble."^ this view of Divine Providence appears to me, not only repugnant to reafon, but whol- ly inconfiftent wjth the principles of reli- gion both natural and revealed. According to the doftrine here advanced, we can neither affirm, that man is a moral agent, nor that any evidence of God's moral reftitude can be difcovered from his government of the world, The various calamities and advantages of the human fpecies are equally afcribed to the ori- o-inal conjlitution of nature -, which, as we have feen, is direftly contrary to the account given of this matter in the Holy Scriptures. The true reafon now more fully appears, why this aentleman is fo very careful never to allow the influence of any fuperior created beings, with- in the limits of the human fyftem, and fo anxious to prove, that noeffefts of their agency either are, or ever were, feen on this earthly globe. His fcheme, to fay the leaft of it, is uniform, though irreconcileable with the do<^rines C 335 ] dodrines of revelation j for he cannot, with- out grofs abfurdities, allow any influence from the devil in the caufe of human miferies ; fince, on the principles here laid down, it was God alone who introduced fin into this world, and who, in the original conftitution of things, as much determined and fixed every inftance of delufion, wickednefs, and diftrefs, as he did the motions of the heavenly bodies, and the fiiated productions of the earth. This do6lrine, in its confequences, doth undoubtedly put an end to morality, and extinguiih our ideas of difference between vir- tue and vice. -§ 8. Thefe principles, as might be eafily fhewn, did it belong to our prefent under- taking, are the ground of our author's Dijfertation on Miracles, as well as the foun- cjation of his EJfay on Demoniacs. The fol- lowing paffage will ferve as an example of what is taught in that treatife, concerning this part of our fubjedl, " The laws of jia- *' ture were at firil ordained, and are con- " tinually preferved by God -, they are the " rules by which he exercifes his dominion " over the world, flis wifdom did nor, and " indeed could not, fee fit to leave the world *' without laws; or (which would have been 6 " much [ 336 ] ** much the fame thing) leave thofe laws to " be controuled at the will of his creatures, " to the drift and conftant obfervance of " which, we owe the regularity and uniformity " of the natural world ; the fettled order of *' caufes and effects in the moral ; and the " continued harmony of the univerfe, all the " parts of v/hich are related to each other, '* and confpire together to carry on one com- " mon defign, and thus demonftrate that all " things are under the fteady and conftant *' direction of one ruling counfel ''." All dif- ference is entirely taken away, by our Divine, between phyfical and moral caufes, and the a6lions of mankind, whether good or evil, are afcribed to the fame caufality with the pro- du6lion3 of nature. According to this plan, there can be no fuch thing as moral agency, fmce our voluntary anions are fubjefted to the fame kind of neceffity v.'ith the operations of matter j for " the feliled order of caufes and ef- " feds, in the moral world," are direftly attri* buted to the very fame laws, with " the regu- *' larity and uniformity of the natural world." Thus, not only the interpofition and miniftry of fuperior created beings, but the imme- diate and conftant agency of God hirnfelf, " On Mir. p. 90. arc r 337 1 iare ejccluded from the affairs of mankind, on thofe old Epicurean principles which equally- put an end to all fuperftition, morality, and religion. § g. Far be it from us, to impute any evil defign to this writer ; we doubt not, he really meant to ferve the caufe of virtue, which he thought could not be more effec- tually done, than by removing every thing which appeared to him in the light of fu- perftition. But we have a right to affirm, •that in fupporting his hypothefis concerjiing diEmoniacs, and in pointing out what he ap- prehends to be the true fource of human cala- mities, he urges thofe very arguments that have been fo often alledged bothagainft the truth and necejfity of a Revelation. Indeed, it appears to us, that either his fcheme or the Gofpel of Chrift muft fall to the ground ; there feems no alternative. He denies the power of all fupcrior beings, God excepted, to do either good or evil to mankind, and on this principle re- jedls the influence of evil fpirits from every caufe of human niifery. But the Holy Scrip- tures conftantly affirm, that the devil be- guiled man from his allegiance to God, and fsduced him into finj they reprefcnt this Z prince [ 338 ] prince of wicked fpirits as the immediate author of all mifchief, and therefore call him *' an homicide from the beginning." Mr. Far- mer confiders all the calamities and advantages of human nature as immediately determined and tixed in the original conftitution of things, and hence maintains, that the human fyltem is governed by the very fame invariable laws with the natural world. But the Holy Scrip- tures aiTure us, that the prefent Hate of human nature is not that in which it was originally created : they attribute all the evils of man- kind to fin : they will neither allow, that God is the author of death, nor that human mi- feries arife from the original conftitution of things : but they attribute every blefling to the immediate and conftant agency of the di- vine being and his unmerited goodnefs. This is the grand hinge on which, not only the whole controverfy between Chriftians and the oppolers of a divine Revelation, but the very being of religion and virtue turns. If the prefent (late of human nature arofe from the original conilitution of things, and man be juft fuch as he. came at firft from the hands of his maker, we muft conclude, with l^ord Bolingbroke, that neither the goodnefs nor jufticc of God ever required, that wc lliould C 339 3 ihbuld be better or happier than wc are, at leaft in the prefenc world •, and, that no iiif- ficient reafon can be afligned tor an extraor- dinary Revelation. If the fettled order of caufes and effcdts in the moral world, toge- ther with the regularity and uniformity of the natural world, are all to be afcribed to tlie operation of the very fame laws, we can by no means avoid that conclufion .which Mr. Hume feems to have intended in his " E(Tay " on Liberty and NccefTity," That it is im- pofTible for reafon to fliew how human acflions carl have any moral turpitude at all, with- out involving our Creator in the flime guilt. We have never yet fetn any objedlions raifed againft thofe principles on which the Gofpcl is refted, which do not ftrike as much at the ground of natural religion as at the foundation of the Chrifbian fcheme. The prefcnt intereft of fociety in general, as well as the future happinefs of mankind, is infepar- ablyc'ohnecled with the truth and reality of thofc doftrines which are delivered in the Scriptures, concerning the ruin of humaa nature by the malice and wickednefs of the devil, and its recovery from fin and wretchednefs by the Son of God. The principles of the Chriftian religion can never be overthrown without the lofs of morality ; and, wiiiie a real difference Z 2 11 [ 340 3 is maintained in the world between virtue and vice, and man is confidered as a moral agent, it feems clear to us, Mr. Farmer's account of the origin of human calamities mufi he re- jelled. CHAP. IX. Ithe Scripture Bo^rine concerning Demoniacal Tojfejfiom, Jhe^n to he confident with many Appearances^ hoth in the natural and moral World, IF any thing of real moment cart ht alledged againft the received doftrine Concerning dasmoniacs, it muft be on one or other of the following principles : either, firft. That the influence of evil fpirits, in this matter, is contrary to all appearances both in the na- tural and moral world, and that there is no- thing difcoverable in human nature, which hath not already been fufficiently and cer- tainly accounted for, without the agency of invifible beings ♦, or eife, That poflefTions by evil fpirits, is a dodlrine contrary both to. the principles and defign of Revelation. Now, fi we [ 341 ] we apprehend that neither of thcfe articles can be eafily fupportcd. § I. Tt doth not appear, that the influencs of evil fpirits, as alledged in the cafe of dzemo- niacs, is at all inconfiftent with what is fre- quently obferved, both in the natural and mo- ral world. Much indeed hath been writ- ten of late, to Ihew, " that the fame argu- ments which prove the exiftence of fupe- *' rior created fpirits, do ftill more ftrongly " conclude againft their acting out of their *' proper fphere ; and that, though the in- habitants of other fyftems may have larger " capacities than mankind, yet they have no " more power over us, than we have over them, " nor any influence beyond the limits of their " own globe." This, as hath been fliewn *, if it means any thing, is a piece of mere artifice, contrived to avoid a diredt denial of the exiftence arxi agency of intelligent beings fuperior to men, within the limits of the human fyftem. The queftion is not, Whether the inhabitants of other globes have ^ny influence over the inhabitants of the earth ? (We do not know, that any one ever thought of fuch an abfurdity) : but, Whether » Chap. yi. particularly § ^. Z 3 it [ 34? 3 1% is not poflible, according to the dodrines of Revelation, for certain powerful fpirits, ftyl^d the minillers of God's providence, to be em- ployed in things which relate to mankind •, and, Whether " the angels, who kept not their *' firft eftate," may not be capable of doing much injury to human nature ? We cannot rea- fon on this fubjeft, with the leaildegree of pro- priety, from a fcale of beings limited to our own planet, to the like gradation in remote fyftems ; becaufe our bufmefs is folely vyith a dodrine of divine Revelation, refpeding a certain order of beings, never once confidered by the facred penmen as limited to any par- ticular globe. And what is there, in this idea, inconfiilent, either with reafon, or the analogy of nature ? The inhabitants of out- own globe depend fo much on the juflly-temr pered motions of certain particles which come from the fun, that mod of them would foon perilh, were they removed to a greater or lefs diftance from that fountain of light and heat. Many of the difrerent parts of nature owe both their excellencies and defeats to the influence of remote bodies. Now, is it ablb- lutely neceffary for us, as rational creatures, to affert, that there is no created influence which extends from one fyilem of intelligent beings to another, except that of matter ? If we [ 343 3 we allow a mutual operation fro:-n different globes, on cne another, as well as a reciprocal influence between diflerent bodies, on the fame globe-, where is tlie abfurditv, in fup- pofing a number of fuperior created intel- ligences, whole agency reacheth, and whofe proper fphere of adion extendeth, to the in- telligent beings of different fyftems ; and who, under the diredion of God, are mini- fters of his providence to the inhabitants of different globes, as well as men on this earth, are, or the inhabitants of any of the planets may be, to one another ? If the elements around our own globe are often attended with fecret and various influences on the human fpecies, as well as on other animals, in fubferviency to the providence of God •, why may there not be intelligent agents, fuperior to men, whofe ftated influence is within the limits of the hu- man fyfl:enr), and who may frequently ad, in an unfeen manner, as minifters of the divine will ? What is there contrary to reafon ia fuppoflng, that many of thefe fuperior beings micht deviate into fm and rebellion againlb God, and thus become the wicked inftruments of delufion and difl:rcfs to others •» ? Do any of thefe ideas derogate more from the wifdorn •» See, on this fubjeft, Dr. Price on Provid. Seft. iv. p. 129—132. Z 4 and [ 344 3 and nwjefty of the divine government, than an acknowledgerr.enc, that God ufeth men and inferior animals, as inftruments of his providence, in various refpeds, towards one another ? We fpe^ii of thefe things, neither as mere fuppoiltions, nor as the refult of any philofcphical inveiiigation and experiment, but only as the diftates of Revelation. The holy angels are never fpoken of, in the word of God, as the inhabicants of any particular globe •, and thofe " who kept not their firll eftate," as we are aiTured, - left their proper *' habitation." The agency of both thefe kinds of iyirits, on earth, is often affirmed by the ScriptLre.s in the mofl exprefs language j this is enough tor cur purpofe. The influence of fuch beings, within the limits of the hurna^ fyftem, impheth no contradiction. § 2. We fee many things effc(5led, even in the natural world, by the interpofition of men, which never would have been produced by the mere operation of the laws of nature, and yet they are fo far from being contrary to the laws of matter and motion, that they are brought to pafs by the inftrumentality of thofe very laws ; though fuch efFe»5bs would never have appeared, without the immediate agency of intelligent beings. What furprifing appearances C 345 1 appearances of different fruits are often pro- duced by the art of grafting j peaches, apri- cots, and plumbs, are all ken blended to- gether in their growth upon an almond tree; the plane-tree laden with apples, and the wild afh with pears. The rough nature of the wildeft plants is frequently foftened, and forced to lay afide its offenfive qualities i which is thus well exprefTed by the poet : Tet thefe, receiving grafts of other kind. Or thence tranfplanud, change their favage miiid-^ Their wiUnefs lofe, and, quitting nature's part, Ol^ey the rules and difcipline of art. The appearance of things is here very much altered from what it would have been, if left to the common operations of the laws of matter ; yet no one looks upon fuch pro- ductions as an alteration of thofe laws them- felves, nor confiders them as miraculous. The ufual courfe of nature is as much varied, when an alh is laden with pears, or an almond-tree with plumbs, as when delufive perc:;ptions are raifed in the human fpecies. But how does it appear, that the immediate agency of intelligent beings is more neceflary in pro- ducing the former, than in effecting the latter ? Noc [ 346 ] Not only in plants, but alfo in animals, the fpecies may be varied, and fuch alterations made even' in their inclination and qualities, as never would have happened without the vo- luntary and deliberate interpofition of men. Since, then, it is in the power of mankind to alter the courfe of things with refped to certain beings below themfelves, why may not thofe fpperior beings, whofc exiftence and agency within the limits of the human fyftem are fo often alTerted in the Holy Scriptures, be capable of producing the like effefts ; though as much fuperior indeed to any thing that we can do, as their abilities are larger and morQ cxtenfive than ours? § 3. The welfare and fafety of individuals depends in a great meafure upon their fituation among the reft of mankind, and upon the voluntary a6lions of other rational agents with whom they have to do ^ How often do wicked men, by various means, lead wor- thy perfons into thoughts aqd reafonings, equally painful, delufive, and ruinous ! The mind is frequently deceived, by an ambiguous Yfordj a look, or a nod, from thofe around <= See Dr. Price on Piovid. p. 124. MS, [ Ul ] Vss, or by other devices fuked to the purpofe. Opinions are vinjuftly altered, the pafBons cruelly raifed, the heart wickedly pierced with the bitterell grief, from the contrivances and adions of others, it may be, in a remote country ; fo that lifelefs bodies, ftriking againft one another, in rapid motion, are not affefted with greater force and violence, than men are by the reafoning and adions of one another, even at a diftance. The peace and quiet of whole nations may depend, perhaps at this inftant, on the capricious refolutions of a few worthlefs perlbns. Who can tell what dreadful confequences may arife to thoufands, from a thought darting fuddenly into the mind of a tyrant, or his prime miniiter ? We can- not but fee, with how much eafe fome perfons will lodge the moft delufive and affeding ideas in the imagination of others, and delight them- felves, too, in the exercife of fuch ungodly (kill. Why, then, may not wicked and fuperior fpirits be ftill more capable of abufing the or^ gans of perception and fancy, and of territy- jng the foul with falfe ideas and hideous ap- pearances ? There are many unhappy perfons, to whofe minds dreadful images and thoughts are conveyed, without the help of words, and fcenes made to arife, as it were, full in their view, without the aid of external objedts. Like [ 348 ] Like Penikus, when, diftra^ed mth his f ear ^ Hefaw two funs, and double Thebes appear. The innumerable fa6ls of this kind, which occur in all ages, never can be denied. Now, have fuch things been as yet fufficieiitly and certainly accounted for ? We are, indeed, often told, with fome degree of confidence, that the doftrine of poflefiions is abfurd, and altogether impojjible % and that thofe cafes, which in the Gofpel are afcribed to the in- fluence of evil fpirits, were nothing more than common inftances of madnefs, epilepfy, and other diforders frequent in the human body. This is a very concife method of re- futing vulgar errors. What we confider as a difficulty is to be denied in the ftrongeft lan- guage, and fomething elfe is to be afferted in its room, perhaps equally difficult to be ac- counted for, but this circumftance not being obferved by people in general, it may pafs very well for an eafy folution of the mat- ter. However, moft of the cafes mentioned by the facred writers, under the idea of das- moniacal pofTeffions, are at leaft acknow- ledged to be inftances of madnefs ; now, what is implied under the term madnefs ? And what is the immediate caufe of thofe lingular effects attending this unhappy ftatej or, in other [ 349 1 other words, whence arife thofc del u five and agonizing perceptions which have no con- nedion at all with external objefts ? Un- lefs thefe things be accurately explained, and fully accounted for, without the imme- diate agency of any intelligent being what- ever, all that hath yet been faid, againfl the vulgar notion of pofTeffing demons, muft be confidered as mere declamation and empty found. § 4. Madnefs implies either a preternatural ftate, or diforder, of fenfation ; and they are properly mad, who are unalterably perfuaded of the exiftence of certain things, or of the appearance and adlions of certain beings, that either do not exift at all, or that do not ac- tually appear to them, and, who alfo behave according to fuch erroneous perfuafion ■*. The idea of madnefs properly belongs to thofe de- lufive perceptions which are raifed in the mind, by means of fomc internal defedl, or influence. In the moft unhappy circumfiances of this kind, we generally obferve, that the faculties of the foul are in their full and perfedt cxcr- cife. For, luppofing the perceptions them- felves to be fupportcd by real and vifible ob- * See Dr. Battle on Madnefs. jeftc. [ 350 i jefls, the reafoning of the perfon in fUck cafes would appear to be natural and juft; But the perceptions of a madman do not arife from external objeds, his dread, therefore^ and reafoning from them, will appear to us to be groundlefs and abfurd ; but the per- ceptions themfelves really exift iii his mind^ and his deductions from them are, for the moft parti as rational as thofe which fober men ufually make from what they really hear and fee. Madmen are as much paflive in delulive perceptions as We afe in thole that are true, when we fee different perfons employed in various forms, hear them fpeak what is pleafing, or threatning ; attd are alarmed by fhrieks^ lamentations and groans j all which fenfations are as frequent in madnefs as in'common and real life. It is no more in the power of mad- men to avoid fuch perceptions, although there are no correfpondent objects from with- out, than it is in the power of fober men to avoid fuch fenfations, while they adually look upon perfons fpeaking, and hear founds of that kind. Madmen, lils:ewife, as ardently wiHi to be delivered from thofe ciifirefTing per- ceptions which we juftly call delufive, as the moft calm and rational can do to be exempted from the various calamities of human nature^ Hence, [ 351 ] Hence, alfo, it is evident, that thofc ddufrt'e perceptions are by no means the extravagant work of fancy ; lor to aflTert this would be the fame thing as to deny, that th^re are any delufive perceptions, or any madnefs at all J that is, it would be a contradiction : be- caufe, in the inventions of fancy, the mind is adive, but, in the perception of objedts and founds, it is paflive. The mind cannot make things appear as it pleafeth, but muft re- ceive them as they appear. We, indeed, may fometimes avoid diilrcfiing perceptions, by turning away from thofe objects which occa- fion them, but this is not in the power of a madman ; for let him go where he will, his delufive perceptions accompany him, not hav- ing any correfpondent objefls from without : he hears diftindt founds, where there is a pro- found filence to other men, and perceives ob- jedls, where we could have no fuch per- ceptions ; yet the foul of a madman is as confcious, that what it perceives is not its own invention, as we can be in any cafe, that what we fee or hear is not our own work and con- trivance. Now, to deny this, would be to deny, that thofc perceptions are dduftvc ; which, in effect, would be a denial, that thertj are any fuch perfons in being as madmen. § 5. " Madnefs, [ 352 3 I 5. " Madnefs," (fays a late eminent phy- Hcian, who was much converfant with all its various appearances) " with refped to its caufe, *' is diftinguifliable into two fpecies. The '' lirft is folely owing td art internal diforder *' of the; nervotis fubftance : the fecond is *' likewife owing to the fame nervous fub- " ftaiice being indeed in like manner dif- *' ordered, but difordered ah extra ; and " therefore chieSy to be attributed to fome " remote and accidental caufe.' The firft " fpecies, until a better name cart be found, " may be called original^ the fecond may " be called confequential madnefs.- We may *' with the greateft degree of probability " affirm, that madnefs is mginal^ when it *' both ceafes and appears afrefh, without " any affignable caufe. Original madnefs^ " whether it be hereditary or intermitting, is " not removeable by any method which the *' fcience of phyfic, in its preferit imperfedt *' ftate, is able to fugged.— But although " original madnefs is never radically cured *' by human art, its ill-conditioned fate is, '^^ however, a little recompenfcd fometimes " by a perfeft recovery, fometimes by long *' intervals of fanity, without oitr afliftance, *' and beyond expedation. Befides, original *' madnefs is in itfclf very little prejudicial [ 35S 1 to animal life -, for it is notorious that men really mad live as long as thole who are perfedly in their fenfes, and whenever they " ficken or die, they, like other mortals, are mod frequently attacked by illnefles, which have no neceffary connexion with, or dependence upon, their old complaint " of falfe perception '." Here, then, it feems, that all madnefs is occafioncd by fome diforder or irregularity in the nervous fub- flance; that there are inftances in which no phyfical caufe can be alTigned for that difor- der ; that madnefs of this kind is not re- moveable by the fcience of phyfic •, that mad- nefs fometimes arifeth from caufes very little prejudicial to animal life; that fuch inftances are often attended with intervals of fanity, and, in fome cafes, with a perfedt recovery, without human afliftance ; and that, what- ever be the caufe of fuch delufive percep- tions, it operates in connection with the ner- vous fubftance, without any real injury to the health of the body. § 6. The accidental and remote caufes of natural fenfation are readily underftood ; they are bodies that lie within the compals of our own obfervatlon •, the particles emitted from them, together with their motion and impulfc <^ Battle on MadnefB, feA. 9. A a "P9n I 354 ] upon the organs of fenfe, have been fre- quently and well defined. It leems, likewife, to be a point now almoft univerfally ac- knowledged, that the medullary or nervous fubftance communicating with the brain is the feat or inftrument of fenfation, and that prefTure upon this fubftance is the laft of thofe caufes of fenfation which come within the reach of our knowledge. Thus the forementioned fl^ilful author, whofe words we prefer to any other on this part of our fubjeft, becaufe it is within the line of his own profelTion. " PrelTure, of the medul- *' lary fubftance contained in the nervous " filaments cannot indeed be imagined, ** without fome alteration in the former *^ arrangement of thofe material particles " which conftitute that fubftance. But we " have no idea whatever, either intellectual " or vifible, how, and in what manner, thofe " particles are, by fuch prefTure, juxta pofiUii^ " previoufty to fenfation thereby excited : " Whence it undoubtedly foUov/s, that, pref- *' fure upon the medullary fubftance con- *' tained in the nervous filaments, is the laft *' in order of all thofe caufes of fenfation " which we have any idea of. Thus far, " and no further, our knowledge in thefe " matters reaches, limited by the outfide of " the feat of fenfation j what pafies within " being [ 3S5 ] being mere conjeftnre." Again, fays he, A very little refle(5lion would convince us, that, the remote and accidental caufcs of any efFed may be many, but the fufficient and neceflary, as well as the immediate, caufe, can be but one ; fince either of two " caufes fuppofed fufficient will render the other unnecefTary, and either caufe fup- " pofed neceflary, will render the other in- " fufficient ^" Hence, then, we may ob- ferve, that the laft of thofe remote and acci- dental caufes of fenfation which come within the reach of our knowledge is, prefilire upon the medullary fubftance, occafioned by the influence of external bodies •, that, this is yet neither the fufficient nor the immediate caufe of all fenfation, fince the very fame per- ceptions which ufually accompany the mo- tion and impulfe of external bodies do con- ftantly arife in the minds of madmen, without any influence from external objefts, and there- fore, without any external caufe at all ; that, the fufficient and immediate caufe of delulive perceptions is internal in its operation, and wholly independent of all external objecls ; that it is capable, by fome means or other, of effeding new arrangements in thofe ma- ^ Battle on Madnefs, ici^. 4. A a 2 terial [ 356 ] terial particles which conftitute the medul- lary llibftance, or the fenfory, otherwife there could be no delufive perceptions, and of con- iequence no madnefs -, that this internal caufe brings on the fame kind of alterations and new arrangements, in the matter of the fenfory, which accompany the appearance of external objefbs, living agents, or fignificant adlion, and which immediately follow articulate founds or words in all languages ; and there- fore, laftly, that this internal and immediate caufe of delufive perceptions> which thus a6ts on the fenfory, hath all the powers and qua- lities of an intelligent and defigning agent, for, if many of thofe effects which are pro- duced in madnefs be not proper and peculiar to fuch agents, it will be hard to point out any thing peculiar to an intelligent being. § 7. Now, what can we affign, as the fuf- ficient and immediate caufe of fuch delufive perceptions as are an cxacSl copy of thofe genuine ones which attend the real prefence and language of known intelligent beings, and with the fame variety too, as in the occur- rences of life ? Muft we afcribe them to the cafual impulfe of material particles upon one another •, or can the difordered matter in the human frame not only furpafs the operations of of the body in a better Rate, but even pro- duce thofe e'ffeds by which intelligent and defigning agents are diftinguifhed ? We can no more underftand, how any fortuitous and irregular motion of the parts, within the body, fhould be able to affc6t the fenfory, in fuch a manner as is rcquifite to excite thofe delufive perceptions which conftitute mad- nefs, than we can conceive, how it is pofTible for the tide to throw the fand on the fea fhore, every day, into fuch forms as will prefent the fpedliator, with poems or difier- ration§, without the interpofition of any in- telligent being. Our prefent enquiry is, not whether the foul is a material or an im- material fubftance, or any fubftance, but whether thofe delufive perceptions of arti- culate founds difcourfes and even writing in various forms, are to be attributed merely to cafual operations of matter, or to the influence of fome intelligent caufe i* In this queftion all are Intercfted, whatever be their particular notions concerning the human foul, or their opinions with refpeft to the nature or reality of matter. Dean Berkeley maintains, that, we might be affe(51:ed with all the ideas which we now have, even though there were no bo- dies exifting without, becaufe the very fame ideas which are occafioned by the intervention A a 3 of t 358 ] of fuppofed real bodies are perceived in ma- niacal caies, without the prefence or operation of luch bodies. What then excites thofe ideas ? Who, in thofe inftances, robs the foul of its peace and happinefs •, what being or beings thus torment it with falfe and horrid reprefentations ? On the other hand, can the matter of the body fpeak threatning words to its own foul, and perform certain fponta- neous geftures correfponding to the language perceived ? Muft we fuppofe, that, the fenfory, by making impreffions on itfelf, or by re- ceiving the cafual impulfe of other material particles, can imitate life, fpeech, and rea- foning i or, are we to believe, that, the fenfory itfelf is an a6tive rational thing, independent of that conkioufnefs which conftitutes the perfon ? It will be no eafy talk for any one to avoid the abfurdities here intimated, who iliall impute the delufive perceptions of mad- men to the cafual impulfe of material parti- cles in a difordered body, as their fuflicient and immediate caufe. § 8. Mr. Farmer affures us, that '* Thofe *' who firil invented this doitrine" [of dcemo- niacal polTefiions] " were men unacquainted " with nature, and yet ambitious of account- *' ing for its moft myfterious phgsnomena •," that [ 359 ] that the things which they advanced " ferve only to fhew their ignorance, their pre- " fumption, and their fuperftition i" and then he agrees with Lucian, that, the mod renowned of thofe philolbphers who embraced this opinion, " differed from children only in their grey hairs and long beards ^ and were even more eafy to be deceived than " they i" but that, *' on the other hand, thofe pcrfons whofe minds were not difturbed by fuperftitious terrors, and who gained an infight into nature, which was the cafe with " the Sadducees and Epicureans, pronounced " what commonly pafled for demoniacal poffef- " fions, to be mere natural diforders^j" We cannot tell whence he derived his intimate knowledge of *' thofe " perfons, " who firjl " invented this dodlrine " however, fuppofing all that is here faid to be true, it would not follow, that, the notion of daimoniacal poffef- fions is groundlefs and abfurd, becaufe it is not impojfible for men as wife as even *' the Saddu- " cees and Epicureans" to be miftakcn, nor for perfons as ignorant as thofe who are here treated with fo much contempt to believe things that are true. But, if more folid argu- ments had been at hand, it is not probable, * Eflay on Dcm. p. 153 — 155. A a 4 that. [ 36o ] that, fuch unbecoming language as this would have been ufed. We confefs ourfelves to be unacquainted with nature, and therefore ad- vance no hypothefis : we candidly enquire, whether the fufficient and immediate caule of thofe effedls which conftitute madnefs hath as yet been, in all cafes, fully afcertained, without fuppofing the agency of any invifible beings whatever? The doflrine in difpute we received, on the fole authority of the Holy Scriptures, and were fatistied with the ac- count which they have given. But, this gen- tleman infills upon it, that, the fafls were not as reprefenred by the facred penmen, and is really ambitious of accounting for the moft myjierious phanomsna that attended them, on other principles than thofe mentioned by the apoftles. We hope, therefore, that, he will not be found more forward to ridi- cule thofe unhappy perfons whofe misfor- tune it was to be ignorant and deceived, than he is to Ihew the v/orld the fufficient and im- mediate caufe of thole delufive perceptions, which himfelf acknowledgeth to have attended what are called dasmoniacal cafes, and which are the unconteiled effedls of madnefs. We expected fomething more on this fubjed" than an equivocal and evafive reprefentation of facts, fupported with two or three bold aflcrtions ; [ 3^1 ] afiertions •, which is all that he hath, as yet, thought fit to offer. " I now add," fays he, that reafon remonftrates againR the do<5lrine *' of pofTeflions, and clearly Ihevvs us, that " the difordcrs imputed to them aBually do *' proceed from natural caufes. The tempe- " rament of the body, the texture of the " brain, the motion of the blood, the excefs or defedlof the animal fpirits, the influence of air and diet, intenfenefs of thought, violent paffions, and fudden frights, will *' difturb or deftroy the regular exercife of the " underftanding \" To this very nervous remonftrance we return the following Ihort anfwer-j that ^'' the regular exercife of the under- " {landing" is *' difturbed or deflroyed" every- day, in perfons who yet have the proper ufe of their fenfes^ by many other things as well as thofe here mentioned, fuch as the (tone, the gout, or even the tooth-ach, but that, our author's bufinefs was, to have fhewn the fiifficienl and immediate caufe of thofe delufive perceptions of fpontaneous beings, long difcourfcs, and clear reafoning, which excite the pafTions of dread and horror in the fouls of mad men, even while there are no founds, nor difcourfe, nor objccls from without, to aficd the fenfc of * On Dem. p. 160. hearing. [ 362 3 hearing, or the organs of fight. It will never fatisfy an enquiring mind to be told, that, fuch efFcds may arife, or that, they aElually do arife^ from the internal ftrudure, or difor- dcr of the body; this is the very thing to be proved, confidently with the nature of matter, the laws of motion, and the diftind: perfonality of individuals. Will this gentle- man alter his opinion concerning any one point, becaufe he is peremptorily told, that, the contrary may be true, or that, it a^iially is true ? Nay, he doth not look upon himfelf as obliged to believe, that, it is poffible for any fuperior created fpirits to affedt the human fyilem, even though, not only very learned men have ailed ged ftrong reafons in fupport of fuch a notion, but though the apoftles themfelves have aflerted the fafb. Why then fliould it be thought necelTary for us to give up our faith in the language of Scripture concerning this fubjed, merely becaufe, we are pofitively afifured that thofe delufive per- ceptions which attend madnefs a5fuaUy do arife from bodily diforders alone, without one argument offered in fupport of the affertion ? § 9. It hath been already fhewn, that, the internal and immediare caufe of delufive per- ceptions, whatever it be, is capable of pro- ducingj t 363 ] duc?hg the very fame kind of new arrange- ments in the medullary fubftance, or impref- fions on the fenfory, which attend the appear- ance of external objeds and fpontaneoiis beings, and which follow thofe articulate founds that convey diftinft thoughts and de- terminate ideas. Now, if bodily diftempers are to be confidered as the fufficient and im- mediate caufe of fuch perceptions, let it be fhewn, how the cafual alteration or mere difarrangement of material particles may obtrude fcenes of vifion, and excite very diftinft perceptions of a<5tivity and language, conveying thoughts in a regular connetftion, without the aid of any intelligent being. Did madnefs imply nothing more than either an erroneous perception of external objedls and founds, or a kind of infenfibility and ftupor, then indeed we might account for it from the difordered (late of the bodily or- gans, but, we have too many affeding proofs, that, it is not only connected with the percep- tion of objedls which have no exiflence from without, but alfo of thought and arguments, not the patient's own, and which were never communicated by any one of mankind. Let any prefTure of the medullary fubftance be fuppoi'ed, can this accidental alteration in the juxta pfition of particles of matter alone 2 produce t 364 ] produce clear perceptions of articulate founds which fill the foul with pleafure or dread, while, at the fame time, the mind itfelf is con- fclous that it no more invented thefe things than it did the aphorifms of Hippocrates ? Suppofe any obftruftion in the meatus audi- iorius, and in confequence of this, what ac- cidental and unufual impreflions on the audi- tory nerve you pleafe, yet, how fhould thefe alone give clear perceptions of a long dif- courfe in which are contained a variety of flriking thoughts and reflecftions, nay, per- haps, a diftindl perception of words coming from different perfons ? If difeafes, or the fortuitous impulfe of material particles within the body, be ferioufly confidered as the fuf- ficient and immediate caufe of fuch per- ceptions, let it be likewife fhewn, on this hypothefis, how a fober man, in the proper exercife of his fenfes, may prove, that, there are other fpontaneous and intelligent beings in the world befides himfelf, or, that it is impoflible for more diftinft principles of thought and reafoning than one, to be united with the human body. '"^^ -'^^ ^'^ ^'^"^^^ 3'-' ■^i ^ nifiid -30 ♦ to § 10. If It be faid, that genuine perception Itfelf, as well as thofe other powers which ^re termed mental, is only the refult of the organical [ i65 ] organical flrudure of tlie brain, and that delufive perceptions are the natural confe- quence of irregular impreflions on the brain, or of unufiial alterations in the arrangement of thofe particles which conftitute that fub- ftance : let it be laid, what is the imme- diate caufe of thofe extraordinary impref- •fions on the brain which excite lively per- ceptions of adive beings and articulate founds, while there are no correfpondent objeds or founds from without -, and let it be alfo lliewn, how the fame organical ftruc- ture may both produce a continued confciouf- nefs of the power of perception and thought, and alfo excite, as it were over and above, clear perceptions of other intelligent beings communicating thoughts and determinate re- Iblutions, without the aid of any external objedl. We do not afk, whether it can be proved, on this hypothefis concerning delu- five perceptions, that, one organized fyltem of matter can only conllitute ofie conlcious think- ing felf ; but whether it is pofllble to Ihew, ho-w many different thinking fclves may all be the refult of one fuch organical ilruflure as that of the brain ? For madmen are as confcious, that, thofe words and thoughts which they perceive as coming from different perlbns nre not their own, as any individual foberman >carj t 366 ] can be, that, he never either faid or thought, that, God was nothing but matter under a cer- tain modification. Delufive perceptions are attended with as infuperable difficulties on this hypothefis, as on any other fcheme what- ever ; becaufe it divides the madman into different thinking felves, all which, upon re- covering the proper ufe of his fenfes, coalefce again into one, which, for any thing we can tell, on this principle, is a felf different from all the others concerned in madnefs, and thus perfonal identity becomes an incomprehen- fible thing. Mr. Locke was perplexed when- ever he touched upon this point : " How far," fays he, " the confcioufnefs of pall aftions *' is annexed to any individual agent, fo that *' another cannot pofTibly have it, will be *' hard for us to determine, till we know " what kind of adlion it is, that cannot be " done, without a reflex adt of perception ac- *' companying it, and how performed by " thinking fubftances, who cannot think " without being confcious of it. But that " which we call the fame confcioufnefs^ not " being the fame individual adt, why one " intelledual fubflance may not have repre- '* fented to it, as done by itfelf, what it " never did, and was, perhaps, done by " fome other agent ; why, I fay, fuch a re- " prefencation [ 1^1 ] " prefentation may not poITibly be without reality of matter of fa6l, as well as feveral *' reprefentations in dreams arc, which yet, whilft dreaming, we take for true, will be difficult to conclude from the nature of things." This article he refolves into the goodnefs of God ; " who," fays he, " as far " as the happinefs or mifery of any of his " fenfible creatures is concerned in it, will " not by a fatal error of theirs, transfer " from one to another that confcioufncfs ** which draws reward or punilhment with *' it." Thus, fuppofing fuch a transfer to be poflible, he leaves the matter, with one fmgle remark : " How far this may be an argu- " ment againft thofe who would place think- " ing in a fyftem of fleeting animal fpirits, I " leave to be confidered\" And afterwards, in confidering the objedt of rewards and pu- niiliments, he thus exprefleth himfelf, " But " if it be poflible for the fame man to have " diftindt incommunicable confcioufncfs at " different times, it is pafl: doubt the fame " man would at different times make diffe- " rent perfons ; which, we fee, is the fenfe " of mankind in the folemncff declaration of " their opinions j human laws not punifliing « Effav, &c. B. II. chap, xxvii.^ 13. " the t 368 ] the mad man for the fiber inan*s adions, nor the fikr man for what the mad man did, thereby making them two perrons ; which is fomewhac explained by our way of fpeak- ing in Englijh^ when we fay, fuch an one is not himfelf^ or is beftdes himfelf\ in which phrafes it is infinuaced, as if thofe who now, or at leaft, firfl ufed them, thought that filf was changed, the felf fame per- fon was no longer in that man ^" That Mr. Locke himfelf fufpeded it to be really thus, is more than probable •, but that, thofe who firfl ufed fuch phrafes had very different ideas of the matter, is evident, both from the condud of legiflators and the com- mon language of mankind. Human laws neither punifh the fober man for the adlions of the mad man, nor yet the mad man himfelf for the mifchief which may be done by him ; thereby intimating, that the fource of the mad man's condud is very different from that of the fober man's, and that the adlions of the former are more properly attributed to fomething which is not himfelf than thofe of the latter j for if this were not the cafe, they ought to be equally punifhed. This, as we apprehend, was the real judgment of thofe ^ Ibid. B. n. chap, xxvii. § 20. 9 who [ 3^9 ] who firfc inftituted fiich laws, and introduced fuch terms, and not that they confidered the fame man to be different perfons at different times ; which would have been an idea truly abfurd. The very phrafes alfo here alledged evidently imply, that fome thing is concerned in the adions of the mad man befides himfelf^ or, which is not himfelf \ for the terms do not intimate, that he is become another fdf, nor that the former perfon is no longer in that man. The fame idea is likewife contained in the comjnon expreffions of other languages concerning madnefs, fuch as jwn compos mentis^ to denote one that is not in his own power, or not under his own diredlion, but never to fignify one who is become a difi'erent felf from what he was before ; alfo the ancient Greek, term, i^onfjiovav^ to be mad, fignifies one that is under the power of a daemon, or fuperior be- ing. Thefe expreffions ferve to fliew what Jiath always been the general fenfe of man- kind ; and that this opinion is an erroneous pne, or that fuch phrafes have no foundation in nature, will, perhaps, be no eafy taflc tQ prove. § II. If it be fuppofed, that thofe delufive perceptions of intelligent beings and articu- B b Jat9 [ 370 ] hte founds importing connected thought.?, may arife from the foul's own aftivity, lee it be fliewn on tliis hypothefis, either how the foul may be unconfcious of its own ope- rations at the very time in which it operates, or, how it is pofllble, that the foul lliould be confcious of fome of its operations and un- confcious of others which happen, as it were, in the fame inftant •, and let this be done alfo without deftroying that moft im- portant of all evidences which arifeth from felf-confcioufnefs. Mad men, when alone, fre- quently return anfwers to a variety of quef- tions of which they have the cleared per- eeptions, as if different perfbns were talking with them, while, at the fame time, they are as confcious that not one thought in thofe queftions was theirs as they are that every thought in their anfwers was their own. Mr. Locke fays, " that they make the foul and the ** man two perfons who make the foul think *' apart what the man is not confcious o f " and that it is as intelligible to fay, that a *' body is extended without parts as that any " thing thinks without being confcious of it." Thus far we are of the fame opinion ; they 'iTiuft have a penetrating eye who can dif- cover thoughts arifing in the foul of another perfon. C 37^ ] perfon, and know them to be his own too, while himfelf is as confciuus as of his own exiftence that they were never there till in- vented and conveyed to his mind by Ibmething ?wi himfelf. On this principle, we could never know, that our prefent thoughts and adions are our own, nor that what we perceive to be the prefent thoughts and actions of other per- fons are not really ours. This would put an end to felf-confcioufnefs, and deftroy our in- ward fenfe of right and wrong, concerning many of our moral adlions. § 12. We can fcarcely imagine any one can alledge, that the immediate caufe both of delufive and true perceptions is the fame, be- caufe fuch an idea involves fo many dircdt and obvious contradictions. However, if this opinion fhould be aflerted either as proba- ble or pofTible, let it be Hiewn, in plain terms, what that is which may be the imme- diate caufe both of delufive and true per- ceptions, and let it be faid, whether it is confidered as a defigning, or as an undefign- ing caufe ; if the former, whether it is mo- rally good or evil, if the latter, how that which is deftitute of thought and reafon may yet be in any individual perfon the fufficient B b 2 and C 372 1 and immediate caufe of clear perceptions both of thoughts and reafonings which he knows not to be his own, with all the certainty that confcioufnefs can give, and it is not pof- fible that any greater fhculd be given. §. 13. We do not mean, by any thing here advanced, even to fiiggeft, that any perfon living can determine what particular inftances of madnefs are to be confidered as poffeflions by evil fpirits ; becaufe we are fully perfuaded, that fuch a determination belongeth only to him who hath power to caft out daemons, and that any decifion of this kind, in our days, would be highly prefumptuous, and worthy of fevere cenfure ; of confequence, none of our arguments reft on particular cafes which happened either two or fifteen centuries ago; nor are we anfwerable for imprudent appeals to injudicious and rafh narrations. Our bufi- nefs is only with thofe fafts which are re- corded by the apoftles, who were competent judges of what they relate, being themfelves enabled to caft out evil fpirits, and alfo while they wrote under the direflion of Almighty God. The immediate defign of what hath now been offered is only to fhew, that there are fome very ftrong reafons for confidering 3 niany [ 373 1 tmny of the uncontefted effcds of madncls as coinciding with the Scripture dodtrine con- cerning dienioniacal pofldffions i that the fads of this kind mentioned by the facred penmen are in theinfelves not impolTible, nor perhaps improbable -, and that the plain narrations of the apoltles concerning this matter are not to be haftily rejeded. Mr. Locke ' fays, *' That there are minds and thinking beings in other men as well as in himfelf, every man has a reafon from their words and adlions to be fatisfied." How far the conftant per- ceptions of words and rational aiflions in maniacal cafes, not the patient's own, may be confidered as an evidence equally ftrong, that there are between us and the great God in- telligent beings who operate within the li- mits of the human fyftem, is left for others to determine. There muft: be more folid ar- guments than contemptuous ridicule and bold affertions, before fober Chrillians will be pre- vailed on to give up the language of the Gof- pel concerning this fubjecl, as improper and indefenfible. It is an eaiy matter to fay a thou- fand fuch things as thefe, " The dodlrine of * Book IV. chap. iii. § 27. B b 3 " poflclTuns t 374 ] *' pofTeffions by evil fpirits is grofsly abfurd, " but to afcribe any of the efl^^ds of madnefs *' to fuch invifible beings is ftill more ridicu- *' lous, for we do not know, that there are " any fuperibr fpirits capable of affcding the " human fyfliem ; and befides, reafon rernon- *' ftrates againft fuch fuperftitious notions -, '"^ it is much more natural to account for de- *' lufive perceptions from bodily diicafcs than " to have recourfe to invifible agtnts." To every thing of this kind that may be uttered by any one, the following fhort anfwer will be fufEcient, " Nothing can happen without a ^' caufe ;" the frequent effeds that attend mad- nefs as much require an adequate caufe as the moft extraordinary events in ancient times ; many of the appearances in maniacal cafes are fuch as intimate an intelligent caufe j but if this notion be thought fo very abfurd, let thefe appearances be fairly accounted for without the immediate agency of any fuch caufe, and let the error of the facred writers, in attributing fomany different events to the influence of fu- perior created fpirits, be clearly afcertained. Till thefe things are done, it is neither can- did nor philofophical to reproach others for believing dsemoniacal pofTelTions. The moft icrnorant may foon contradid and ridicule what the [ ?,75 ] the wifefl: know not how to refute. But if oiw error be fo very grofs, it will be more eafily fhewn, and there will be Icfs occafion for niil- reprefentation and abufe. The do(5lrine in difpiite is connected with fome important ar- ticles both of natural philofophy and religion, and well deferves a minute enquiry -, it is not to be treated on the fame footing with fuper- flitious tales, nor to be decided with bold and unfupported ailertions. Mr. Farmer fays, Reafon and experience, , our only guides in the ftudy of nature, loudly reclaim againft this do6lrine." Nothing is fooner made than fuch an afiertion ; if he really knows it to be true, we fuppofe, that he can without much difficulty prove the fad: -, this is what we have a rigiit to expect from him who affirmeth fuch things in oppofition to the lan- guage of Scripture. In the ftudy of nature, ac<;ording to fome very great authorities, it is our bufmcfs to reafon from pliasnomena, and deduce caufes from their efFefts, without feign- ing hypothefes -, and he muft be fuppofed to have a6ted thus who alledgeth experience againft the do6trine in queftion. If therefore our author have decifive experience concern- ing this matter, it would be very ungenerous in him to withhold it from the world j if he B b 4 have t 376 3 have not fuch experience, it would be uricandid in him to plead any thing of this nature in a difpute of fo much importance, nay, we flat- ter ourfelves that he would not. Let an ade- quate caufe then be afligned for thofe effedls which are peculiar to madnefs, before he con- demns the notion of dscmoniacal pofTefTions as fo very irrational and abfurd ; for we do fmcere- ly wifh him to determine in this article, not like thcfe " grey bearded philofophers " whom he defpifeth, but with folid arguments, and well authmiicated experience^ rather than with that ridiculous vanity for which he hath cenfured Others* C H A F, t zn ] CHAP. X. ^hat the f acred Penmen not only ajfert hut dJfo produce different Ta^s^ in order to prove the Reality of Da;moniacal Pojfejjions. §. I. XT cannot be alledged, that the doc- A trine of pofTefTions by evil fpirits is contrary either to the principles or language of revelation. It hath been already fhewn', that according to the Scriptures, fin, mifery, and death, Were introduced by the chief of the fallen angels, and that '* the Son of God '* took upon him our nature, for this very rca- Ibn, that he might " deftroy the works of the *' devil." Agreeably therefore with thcfc principles, the calling out demons is always reprefented in the New Teftament as an in- dication of Satan's final overthrow, and as a proof that " the kingdom of God " and Chrift: " is come unto us ^" The exprcfTions of the facred penmen concerning this article are fo very clear and ftrong that Dr. Lardner freely owns ', " That the evangelifts themfelvcs be- « See above, chap. vii. § 8, •> Above, chap. v. § 22. f On Dem. p. xzi, V. lievcd [ 378 ] " lieved the reality of poHelTions, and thought " that the perfons whofe cures they relate " had evil fpirits i" and this he thinks " is " fo obvious that it cannot be denied, and *' that it needs not to be contelled." But the Doftor himfelf was of a contrary opinion, and endeavours to interpret the various cafes which are related in the Gofpel fo as to exclude the agency of evil fpirits. We fhall here give his folution of the cure of " the Gadarene dasmo- " niacs" as a fpecimen : " The unhappy cafe *' before us was a lunacy or diftradlion. — — " They who fuppofe, that there was here only *' a diftemper, and are unwilling to admit the " agency of any bad fpirits in this cafe, fay, *' thefe men, crone of them, might, with the " permiffion of Jefus, go and drive the fwine *' off the precipice into the fea, where they " V. :re drowned ; or elfe, our Lord was pleaf- *' ed to transfer the lunacy or diftradion ** from this man, or thefe men, to the fwine.— *' But I readily own, that I do not approve " of that folution which fuppofeth that the *' lunacy was transferred from the men to the *' fwine. For this implies, that the drowning *' of the fwine was owing to our Lord's agency, ** or interpofition, whereas I do nbt per- " ceive, that our Lord wrought any miracles !* that were hv.rtful.-r!:^As there is no clear *' evidence [ 379 ] *^ evidence of our Lord's interpofing in this *' nxatter, I prcfume, ic ought not to be ad- ** mitted : to me it appears mofl: proba- " ble, that this was done by the man him- ** felf, called Legion, either alone, or with ** the joint afTiftance of the other, his com- ** panion in afflidion ^" Were it needful to lliew the weaknefs of this interpretation, we might obferve, that it fuppofes " the fwine pe* '*" riflied before the men were cured," which is a fiat contradiction to the facred writers, for they exprefsly fay. And when they ivere come out, they went into the herd of fivin c ■ Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the fwine. Next, it aflcrts what none of the evan- gelifts have once intimated, nor indeed could intimate, without a grofs abfurdity, " that the *' fwine were driven into the fea by the mad " men," for thus the matter is related. And the unclean fpirits went out, and entered into the fwine -, and behold, the whole herd ran vio- lently down a jleep place into the fea, and were choked, but it is never fuggefhed, that they were driven by any man, far lefs by the men who had been jull that inftant rcilored to their right mind *. However, we pafs by the many objedions which might be raifed againll '' On Dem. viii. 17, 18. loi. * Matth. viii. 28— end. Luk« viii. 26 — 40. this [ 3«o ] this ejiplanation of the matter, becaufe it hatJt been already oppofed by the higheft authority. And befides, the Do6lor freely owns it as what cannot well be difputed, that the evangelifts themfelves believed the reality of pofielTions, and he acknowledgeth alfo the influence of the devil, there was, therefoi-e, the lefs OG- cafion for him to embarrafs himfelf with fuch unnatural conjeftures. A RoufTeau would as foon ridicule the Scripture account of the entrance of fin and death, or the devil's put- tino- any thoughts into the heart of Judas Ifcariot, as the facred hiflory of the Gadarene dffi^moniacs •, and indeed, on whatever prin- ciples the two firfl: are either allowed or re- jected, the laft will follow as pofTible or im- poiTible. But Mr. Farmer, whofe general plan is very different from the Dodor's, after rcmovino- this interpretation of his learned friend, introduces his own as more fuitable to his purpofe, which, for obvious reafons, mud be expreffed in no other words than thofe of its author. ^ 2. " " ■ " All that can be inferred from *' their faying that the demons came out of the " men^ and entered the herd of f wine ^ is, that the " madnefs of the former was transferred to !' the latter, in the fame fenfe as the leprofy of " Naaman [ 38i ] ** Naaman was to cleave to Gebazi\ and to lis *' feed for ever. We allow what a learned writer contends for *, that in the cafe be- fore us, the poiL-er of imagination could have ** noplace. It was never faid that the fwine " fancied themfelves poficfled ; their diforder, " I admit, was real, but not therefore demo- *' niacal. So great a miracle as that wrought ** upon them, can be afcribed to no other agency than that of God. Accordingly, *' we are told, that it was performed at the '* word or command of Chrift : Forthwith '* Jefus gave them (the demons, the reputed " caufes of madnefs) leave, and faid unto them, *' Go'.'* The whole of this paragraph is to us incomprehenfible, but whether it be the author's fault, or our own misfortune, we prefume not to determine. However, we can- not help adding. What are we to underftand by this language, '* that the madnefs of the two " men was transferred to the fwine, in the " fame fenfe as the leprofy of Naaman was to *' cleave to Gehazi, and to his feed for ever ?** Gehazi acted a treacherous part towards the Syrian, and mifreprefented both the prophets charader and the blefllng of God, for his mercies are never fold, the leprofy of Naa- • Warbyrton. ^ On Dem. p. 292 — 294. man^ [ 382 ] man, therefore, juftly reftcd on Gehazl as a punifhment of his crime, but were the fwine moral agents j had they injured the daemo- niacs ; did the madnefs pafs to them as a pu- niftiment for their fins j and why is the feed of thefe animals to be included ? So long as t-he pofterity of Gehazi enjoyed the wealth unlawfully obtained from the Syrian, there •was fome propriety in a conilant memo- rial of the treachery by which it was ac- quired, but we can find no reafon why the off- fpring of this herd (fuppofmg them to have any) Ihould be feized likewife with madnefs for ever I If it be faid, that no reference was here intended either to the reafon or extent of the punifhment on Gehazi but only to the reality of the faft, that as the leprofy of Naa- man pifTed to Gehazi fo the madnefs of the men was transferred to the fwine, yet flill the pafTage remains unintelligible. The difeafe of Naaman and that of Gehazi were the fame, and the fubjedls of it equally of the fame kind, but we are allured, thac the madnefs of the fwine differed very much from the madnefs of the men, *' fmce it was never faid that the " fwine fancied themfelves pofTellcd," and it is added, " that the power of imagination " could have no place with them •," if fo, how w^s it {)ofriblc, that the madnefs of the 5 n^en. men, which connfted in delufive perception*;, ftiould be transferred to animals, which, as is confeflfed, are not capable of fuch madnefs ? And what then becomes of the reference? If it be alledged, that our author only- meant to fliew, that the iminediate caiife of madnefs in the men oj:>erated upon the herd, and produced in the fwine tlie very fame ef- feds, as far as they were capable of them, yet ftill we are furroundcd with infuperable difficulties. It is here faid, that the madnefs of the Twine was a miracle ; if fo, was not that of the men alfo a miracle ? Will this author, againft himfelf, reprefent the cafe of dcemo- niacs as miraculous, but if it was not, on what principle could that of the fwine be miraculous -, for we are told, that the mad- nefs of the men pafled to the fwine, and the madnefs of the fwine, which is here affirmed to be the madnefs of the men, is afcribed to no other agency than that of God ? Was God the immediate agent in producing thofe de- lufive perceptions with which the unhappy men were afflided ■, was God's power here exerted in calling our his own power ? If it be faid, that the caufe, in each cafe, was not the fame, then it ir evident, that the madnefs of the fwine and the madnefs of the men could [ bH 1 could not be the fame, and the facred wrltCFS mufl be contradifted, who affign the fame caufe to each. Indeed, we know not what to make of our author in this unrivalled para- graph. In the beginning of it we are told, that by " tbe demons which came out of the meriy* nothing more can be meant than the madnefs which pafTed from them to the fwine, in the clofe of it we are informed, that the phrenzy of the herd " can be afpribed to no other " agency than that of God — and was per- *' formed at the command of Chrift," who '' gave the demons, the reputed caufes of madr " nefs, leave^ and faid unto them. Go." Here, the phrafe demons is firfl put for madnefs itfelf, next, for the reputed caufes of madnefs j and lafl: of all it comes to fignify the imme- diate agency of God himfelf, to which alon^ the madnefs of the herd is to be afcribed. After ajl the pains that h.ave been taken, to wreft thp Holy Scriptures to the taftp of infidels, perhaps, fome unbeliever may yet exclaim in the following manner, even up- on our author's own amendment of this re- markable inftance of facred hiftory j " the " evangelifts fpeak of the operations of " Deity under the terms devils ; The ejection ** of devils was nothing more than the rer " moval of a divine influence from particular *' cafes i hence the immediate agency of God !' ^afle^ r 3^5 1 " pafTcd out of the men into the fwine, at ** the command of Chrifl, who forthwith "gave the agency of his Heayenly Father ^^ leave, and faid unto it, Go ! then it im- " mediately drove the whole herd into the ' fea ! Thus, the mighty power of God *' was exerted in the deftruaiqn, of an herd " of fwine, in order to fhew, that the un- " happy men had been driven into madncfs, by his own immediate agency, and not "that of other beings! Thcfe are. the au- " guft proofs by which the Saviour of man- " kind is now faid to have attefted the " truth of his miflion to the world, and fhewn God to be the fovereign of nature ! ^11 which things are to be received without the leaft fcruple or doubt upon the pain of damnation ! Jujie Dieu! La the tourne ; en m *' ./?/'/. ail Von ejl ^" § 3. The chief point which our author la- bours to eftablilh, throughout the wliole of his remarks on thclc two dcemoniacs, hath in it. fomething fliocking as well as ablurd, while he fpeaks with a confidence that cannot but furprife other men. *' Now," fays he, ^ See Farm, on Dcm. p. 4, Note. C c " the [ 386 ] "^ the hiftory will no more allow you to doubt *' of God's being the author of the diforder " of the fwine, than of the cure of the dae- " moniacs ; for, by the fame fovereign word, " GO, both thefe miracles were accomplilli- '* ed *." How different was the opinion, and how much, more cautious the language, of Dr. Lardner, concerning this matter! How- ever, after boldly afferting, that, the deftrudion of the fwine was another proof, that " their " madnefs was not owing to a dasmoniacal *' agency,'* he makes the following inference, " Now, fmce it clearly appears that the madnefs " of the fwine was not owing to the agency of *' demons, is it not a natural inference from *' hence, that the madnefs of the demoniacs *' was not owing to that caufe ?" — Which in- ference, if fairly exprefled, ought to run thus, " fmce the madnefs of the fwine was *' owing to the immediate agency of God, *^ that of the demoniacs muft be afcribed to *' the fame caufe" — for this is the very point on which the whole argument turns ; and our author accordingly concludes it with fome- what lefs referve, " If the foregoing obfer- •* vations are juft, the hiftory before us does 8 On Dem. p. 300—503. t .187 3 .* not exhibit a finglc inflance of the powef and interpofition of demons ; though here, where we have famples of the higheft de- grees of infanity, proofs of their agency- were moft to be expefted. At the fame time, it reprefents God as the only being in the univerfe who inflids and removes difeafes at his pleafure, not excepting thofc which fuperftition afcribed to evil fpirits/* That ' God is the only being in the univerfe *' who inflideth and removeth difeafes at his ■ ** pleafure," was believed and maintained long before this gentleman was born, even by thofe who acknowledged the reality of demoniacal pofleflions ; nor was this truth thought at all inconfiftent with a wicked man*s conveying a peftilential diforder to his neighbour, or fmit- ing him with a fore and lading wound. But the prefent defign of our author's reafoning, if it means any thing, is to Hiew, that the higheft degrees of delufion and infanity mu'ft be afcribed to the immediate agency of the bleflcd God •, and that, what the Holy Scrip- tures call the overthrow of Satan's king- dom, or the cafting out devils, was only the exertion of God's power in counter- acting the cffeds of his own immediate agency, at the command of Chrift. Theie C c 1 things C 3S8 1 things indeed are very confillent with thofe ideas which he hath advanced in other parts of his " EiTay," as well as in his " Diflertation " on Miracles," wherein he attributes every kind of events to one and the fame caufation •, but they undoubtedly are, if any thing can be, inconfiftent with the principles of Revelation, and all diftindlions between virtue and vice. The real defign of what happened to the herd on this occafion, we have already Ihewn^j which may not improperly be reviewed af- ter this feflion. § 4. We pafs by our author's application of thofe permifiive terms which are ufed by the facred writers concerning the daemons, becaufe, he hath elfewhere, agreeably with his own principles, fufficiently intimated, that he looks upon God's permifiion or fufferanc* and his dired command to be the lame thing, which exadtly coincides with his doc- trine concerning Divine Providence •, neither do we think it worth while to point out the abfur- dity of reprefenting our Lord as deilroying the fwine, that he might punilli the owners for violating the laws of Hyrcanus, who had •' Chap. V. § 19. forbidden [ 3S9 1 forbidden the keeping of thofe animal?. There articles want no other refutation than a bare recital. It muft appear evident from the foregoing examples of interpretation, which is enough for our prefent purpofe, that the language of the facred penmen con- cerning dsemoniacal pofTeflions, is fo very clear and expreflive, that the meaning and force of their words cannot be evaded, with- out running either into grofs abfurdities, or elfe into fomething which is ftill worfe than abfurdities. Nay, we might quote, even the teftimony of this writer himfelf, if it could be of any ufe, in fupport of the plain fenfe of the apoftles, " We have," fays he, " Ihewn elfewhere, that to be in the fpirity is an exprelTion that implies fome fufpcnfion *' of our own faculties, and our thinking and " afting under a foreign impulfe and im- " preflion '.'* The evangelift Mark fays, " There was — a man in an unclean fpirit, " and he cried out, faying, — What have we to *' do with thee, thou Jcfus of Nazareth ? " Art thou come to deftroy us ? I know " thee, who thou art, the holy One of God* !'* Now, according to the above rule, this man's * On Dem. p. loo. • Chap. L 23, 24. C c 3 *' own [ 3$P ] *' own faculties were fufpended, and he aded " under a foreign impreflion," when he faid to Chrift, " I know thee, who thou art, the ". holy One of God," or in other words, " he did really fpeak under the influence of a " fpirit." The defign of the facred penman was undoubtedly to convey this very idea, nor can any other terms be found better adapted to fuch a purpofe. It will not be eafy, on any other principle, to account for this circumilance, that mad men fhould not only have a clearer view of our Lord's real charader than the moft attentive of his followers, but fliould alfo underftand, that it was a part of his errand into the world, to deftroy the power of evil fpirits, and adjudge them in due time to their deflined punifh- ment ; even while none of the difciples feem to have been acquainted with thefe arti- cles, nay, the contrary is almoft evident to a common reader, fmce this part of the work of Chrift is not once mentioned by the evangelifts, till, with expreflions of furprife, they relate thole fadls themfelves that firft difcovered and proved the doctrine. Now, fiippofifig '* that mad men, long before they " were feized with their diforder, might learn f. in pommon with others^ the high charader. [ 391 ] V of the MefTiah then iiniverfally expecfled* j" yet is it probable, that they flioukl be ac- quainted with thofe capital parts of hh office which do not appear, from any one circum- ftance in the facred hiftory, to have been known at that time by his own difciplcs, far lefs by the people at large ; or that they fhould at fight diftinguifh Jefus of Nazareth from all other men, and know him as foon as he appeared in public to be the true Meffiah and " the holy One of God," while the greateft part of Judea apprehended no fuch thing, nor were yet apprized of the nature of his pretenfions ? It is never once intimated, that Chrift, at the beginning of his miniftry, was confidered by the public as " the Son of " God," who was come to deftroy the power of evil fpirits, nor can any thing be more im- probable in itfelf. If this had been the cafe, would the facred writers have fpoken of the knowledge and declarations of demoniacs as fomething uncommon and furprifing ; would they have informed us fo often, that our Lord " fuffered not the daemons to fpeak becaufe " they knew him -f-," if they had not intended that kind of knowledge which belonged not to • On Dem- p. 245. •f Mark i. 34. Luke iv. 41. C C 4 the [ 392 ] the people In general ? Indeed, what fenfe can be made of their language, if they did not defign to exprefs and prove, from certain facls, the reality of dasmoniacal poffefilons ? § 5. The following folution of this cir- cumilance concerning the dasmoniacs, which hath been lately given, and which perhaps fome ferious Chriftians may look upon as not over friendly to their religion, is too curious in itfelf to be omitted 5 we Ihall give it in the author's own words, and then point out thofe parts of it which feem to be unguarded, if not offenfive, '' If," fiys, Mr. Farmer " I might be allowed to propoie a conjedlure, I would obferve, that perhaps the demoniacs would run into the common opinion concerning Jefus as the promifed Meffiah, more eager- ly than perfons of a cooler judgment •, the latter beihg ilruck with fome contrary ap- pearances in his character (fuch as the po- verty of his condition^ and the fpiritual nature of his doftrine) which efcaped the attention of the former, who, for this rea- fcn, with greater confidence faluted him under his high character, agreeably to the firft imprefiion which his miracles made on the minds of all men ^^.^ Our reverence * On Dem. p. 247. for [ .^93 ] for the charadler of Chrift will not fuffcr us to acknowledge any of the following arti- cles : that it was likely for '' mad men to run into the common opinion concerning Jefus as the promifed Mefliah, more eagerly than perfons of ^ cooler judgment ;" that *' the poverty of his condition, and the fpiritual nature of his dodlrine were contrary appear- ances" far lefs, that thefe were impediments to the faith of confiderate men ; and that inatten- tion to his low condition and the nature of his doftrine, is to be confidered as one reafon-yfhj any perfon ** faluted" Chrift as the Mefllah " with greater confidences^ nor can it be allowed, that " the opinion concerning Jefus as the pro- *' mifed Mefliah, was at all commotC^ when the mad men at Capernaum addreffed him as " the " holy One of God," for the cafting out this- evil fpirit is always mentioned among the firft' of his miracles, and as the very firft of that kind. We leave others to determine, whe- ther the folution here given by our authors- be either juft in itfelf or honourable to " the " Son of God." § 6. The evangelfft Mark aflTures us, that the Gadarene d.Tmoniac addrefied Jefus as *' the Son of the moft high God j" adjured hint ".that he might not be tormented" for this very [ 394 J rery feafon, becaufe Chrift bad faid, " Come *' out of the man, thou unclean fpirit -,'* upon being *' afked his name, anfwered, " Legion, for we are many ;*' and " befought *' him that he would not fend ihem away out " of the country." The facred penman then changes the number, very improperly indeed,' if he had not looked upon himfelf as relating fa6ls juft as they really were^ and fays, *' all the daemons befought him—and forthwith *' Jefus gave them leave, and the unclean fpirits *' went out *.'* Would any careful and con- fcientious writer, fpeaking only of one dasmo- niac, have expreffed himfelf in fuch a manner as this, if he had not believed the reality of pofTefllons, and been perfuaded, that in this cafe more evil fpirits than one were concerned ? Would he, after informing us that the daemon or dsemoniac " befought *' Jefus not to fend them away out of the " country," have added, that '* all the dcemons'*' Ifkewife " intreated him" (a circumftance that entirely depended both on the informa- tion and credit of the hiftorian), had he not been perfuaded, nay, we might fay, had he not certainly known, that, though only one voice fpake, yet there were many petitioners ? Sup- pofing the dasmoniac to have fancied himfelf * Chap, V. I — 20. Luke viii. 26—39. poflefled. t 395 ] poflefled, and to have confidered Jefus as " the Son of the moft high God," would he have been afraid of " torments" upon Chrift's " fay- ing " Come out of the man, thou unclean fpirit ?" Can any thing be more improba- ble ; nay, is not the contrary obvious ? The very requeft " not to be tormented" was an ac- knowledgement of Chrift's power to caft out the daemon, the command therefore to " come " out" muft: have given the man himfelf plea- fure, whether we fuppofe his poflcflion to have been imaginary or real, accordingly the fear of *' torm.ent" never could have been men- tioned as a confequence of our Lord's com- mand, if it had not been, to fliew the reality of dasmoniacal influence in this cafe, and that the dread which was exprefTed could not be the man's own. Would the facred penmen have been fo improperly defcriptive and par- ticular in their narrations, that " thedsemons " went out of the men and entered into the *' fwine, and," that " the whole herd, about *' two thoufand, ran violently down a ftecp " place, and were ftrangled in the fea," had they not intended, by the moft dire(5l language and expreflive fa6ls, to convince future ages, that this man was really afflifted by fuch evil fpirits, as were capable of doing much mif- chief, when departed from him, but who could r 39^ V cotilc} not injure the meaneft' animal, with- out the fulferance of God and Chrift ? Could they, have fet forth this truth to the world, by any circumftance at once more gentle in^ itfelf and at the fame time more efFefbual for the purpofe ? None of thofe who have ^en mod zealous, in fupporting the notion of dsemoniacal pofTeflions, could ever exprefs the dodtrine in a ftronger or more decifive manner than the Evangeiifts have done. If any one disapproves the judgm.ent of the apof- tles in this matter, would it not be much more honourable, to own it freely than to infift upon it, with fuch a violence as rarely indi- qate^ a confcioufnefs of truth, that the in- fpired writers never either faid or thought thofe things, which every fober perfon that can read muft know they do both affert and maintain, in the ftrongeft language that man- kind are capable of ufing ? We muft either admit the agency of evil fpirits in this cafe, or entirely rejedl the accounts that are given ;©f the Gadarene dsemoniacs, as unworthy of Chrift ; which would be to overthrow the credit of three Evangeiifts relating what they heard and faw, and with theirs, that of the whole Gofpel, while, at the fame time, it would have the appearance of an unrea- fonable attack upon the faith of all hiftory. 7 § 7. Mr. 't ?97 ] <^ 7. Mr. Farmer, in the -beginning of ius " Effay on Demoniacs,'* %9,'** With rdpeft "to Chrillians, I fee no rcafon why they f* fhould be alarmed at an attempt to fhcw, -'*'■ that the New T to be triic? *** May it not free them frommany groimdials ■*' terrors, and give them more honon tabic •" ideasof the divine government ' ?'• Supptsfc any one fhould undertake to prove, that th6re ^is no fuch thing as vice or wickedncfs, and, ^fter aflerting, that '' there is no reafcn why *' Chriftians fhould be alarmed at the attempt," 'Ihould then afk, " Can it overturn any ar- *' tide of their faith, that they themfelvei. *' could ivijb to be true ?"' In what light would fuch a queftion be confidered i and wJaat anfwer ought to be returned in fuch a cafe ? They who contend for the reality of a de- lufive influence from fuperior evil beings, have no more pleafure, in contemplating the thing itfelf, than a good man has, in thinking of fome bafe adlion the truth of which he can- not deny. If the facred penmen, in their » P. 6. hiilorr [ sgs ] hrftory of demoniacs and the various in- fluence of wicked fpirits, either have recorded things that are falfe, or, which is much thfe fame, muft be underftood as meaning direftly contrary to what they affirm, the credit of all the illuftrious fafls delivered in the Gofpel con- cerning the " Son of God," which Ghriftians wijh to be true, is overturned^ while the doc- trines taught by this writer, neither delivet us from groundlefs terrors, nor give us any honourable ideas of the divine government. He afcribes the moft affeding circumftan- ces of wretchednefs to the operation of that Hand from which alon6 we expeft deliverance and protection, and reprefents Almighty God as the fole Author of thofe falfe perceptions of dreadful thoughts and horrid fuggeftions, which not only rob the foul of the fweeteft com- forts and moft endearing connexions of hu- man life, but alfo, for the time, render it in- capable of thofe higher and nobler pleafures that arife, from the purfuit of knowledge, religion, communion with God and Chrift, and the well-grounded expedlation of fu- ture happinefs. Do not the Holy Evange- Ufts, therefore, to fay the lea-ft of it, write more confiftently with our ideas of the per- fections of God, and the defign of true re- ligion. [ 399 ] ligion, when they attribute fuch deceitful and ruinous cfFefts to the influence of wicked fpi- rits ? And, befides, this dodrine, as ftattrd in the Scriptures, exaftly coincides with the grcac end exprefsly afligned for " the manifeftation " of the Son of God, which is, that he might ** deftroy the works of the devil/' T H F, I 400 ] THE C O N C L U Si ON. It hath been frequently intimated in the foregoing - Chapters^ that the general Principles of the Rea- fining^ as well as the particular Arguments, lately urged againjl Demoniacal Pojfejftons^ are un- friendly to the Chrijlian Religion ; while ^ at the fame time, they very much affe5l the nature and foundation of Morality it f elf . We fhall there- fore clofe the Whole, with a fummary View of thofe injurious Confequences which have been fo often alluded to in the preceding Work, § I'T F no fuperior created beings ever had ■*• any power over mankind, or in- jfluence within the limits of the human fyftem ; if no effedls of the agency of fuch beings, either are, or ever were, fcen on this earthly globe '; it clearly follows, that, the account given in the Holy Scriptures, concerning the fall of man and the entrance of death by the malice and treachery of the devil, is al- together erroneous and delufive. If it be no more in the power of fuperior created fpirits * Farm, on Mir* chap. 11. fe£i. \% z* to [401 ] to do either good or hurt to mankind, than it is in our power to injure or afTill the inhabi- tants of diftant globes, it will be an unavoid- able confequence, that all thole paflages in the Bible which connedl the wickednefs of men with the influence of any fuperior evil beings, or which attribute particular events to the miniftry of angels, are unworthy of credit, and ought to be rcjedted by. all intel- ligent lovers of truth •, fince, on this hypo- thefis, we might as well afcribe any inftance of wickednefs or calamity to the fuggeltions •and influence of the limited inhabitants of Saturn or Jupiter, as to the devil and his af- fociates. And, according to thefe principles, whenever the apofl;lcs fpeak of the " Son of " God" as coming " to deftroy the works of " the devil," and to deliver men from his power and mifchievous devices, they do but feed the imaginations of their difciples with vain fuggefl:ions and extravagant fancies ; becaufe there are no fuch works, no fuch power, no fuch devices, to be dellroyed, and we, by following thofe guides, are betrayed into fuperftitious opinions, and filled with many groundlefs apprehenflons. If human calamities and death, with thofe various de- lufions of mind to which we are fubjedl, are all to be attributed to the original conflitution D d of [ 402 ] of nature as their proper and immediate fource'*, the facred writers were egregioudy miftaken, when they afcribed the labour, for- row, difeafes, and death, of mankind, with the curfe upon the ground, to fin as their proper and immediate fource, and it can no longer be received as a truth, that. By one man fin entered into the worlds and death byfin^ and fo death faffed on all men, for that all have fmned^. Such declarations alio as the follow- ing ceafe to be worthy of any further credit. Since by man came deaths by man came alfo the refurre5fion of the deadly becaufe " death,'* in this paffage, is no more allowed to be from the original conftitution of things than " the " refurredtion of the dead i'* and the whole of what is faid in the Gofpel, concerning the de- fig:n of our Lord's incarnation and the na- ture of his miniftry and work, muft be rejedled, fo that it will become abfurd for any one to fay, Chrif took on him our nature, that through death, he might deflroy him that had the -power of death, that is, the devil*, fmce, on this fcheme,, it was God alone w!io introduced fin and death. * Farm, on Dem. p. 163 — 172. * Rom. V. 12. ' I Cor. xv. 21. ^ Heb. ii. 14.. § 2. If [ 403 ] § 2. If the fettled order of caufes and ef- fefts in the moral world, with the operations and influence of the elements, and tlie va- rious produ(ftions of the earth, are all to be afcribed to the very fame laws and conftitution of nature \ there muft be an end of all that the Scriptures have delivered, concerning the fpecial providence of God towards his church* The guilt of fin and the moral depravity of mankind, fo often afl^erted and illuftrated by the facred writers, muft be given up as groundlefs and erroneous opinions. All thofe doflrinea which the apoftles have taught concerning Chrift's " taking away the fin of the world *,'* bearing fin §," and " delivering us from ** the wrath to come -f," with the necefilty of " repentance towards God, and faith in our " Lord Jefus Chrift J ," for the remifiion of fins and everlafting life, mull be cenfured and denied, as ideas that have arifen from a very impcrfeft and fallacious view of things. We muft alfo renounce the whole of the ac- count given in the Gofpel, concerning our recovery to God, the renewal of our nature, and our meetnefs for the heavenly world ; which things are by the apoftles every where afcribed to an immediate divine agency. ' Farm, on Mir. p. go. • John i. 29. §Pet. ii. 24. t iThefT. i. 10. J Adls.31x.21. D d 2 True [ 404 ] True holinefs, as it includes an u.nfcigned love of God, a real delight in his perfeftions, and a conformity of heart to his word, doth not, in the judgment of the facred penmen, arife from the common endowments of our fallen nature received at our birth, but from the power and energy of the Holy Ghoft renew- ing our fouls, which operate on us through Chrift, in whom we become the children of God, and are made partakers of that divine image which was loft by the firtt tranfgreflion ; but this doftrine, the fupport and perfcftion of the Chriftian fcheme, muft, among the fore- mentioned important truths, be entirely dif- owned, if we attribute the fettled order of caufes and efFe6ls in the moral world, with the regularity and uniformity of the natural world, to the operation of the very fame lav/s. The apoftle Paul can no longer be con- fidered as affording divine inftru6lions, and a folid ground of hope, when he ufes the fol- lowing exprelTive language, We ourfehes alfo werefometimesfoolip^ difohedient^ deceived^ ferv' ing divers lujis and pleafures^ living in malice and env}\ hateful and hating one another* But after that the kindncfs and love of God our Sa- viour tozvards man appeared^ not by works of righteoufnefs which we have doue^ but according to his mercy he faved us, by the wafjjing ■ of re- generation [ 405 ] gen€7'ation and the rene'-jual of the Holy Ghoji, which he fied en us abundantly through J ejus Chrijl cur Saviour \ that being juftified by his grace^ 'we Jhould be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life *. To which may be added, chat the innumerable indances of advice and encouragement like that which follows, as well as the principles on which they are grounded, will lofe all their force and pro- priety : If ye live after the fleffj, ye fhall die \ hut if ye^ through the fpirit do mortify the deeds of the body^ ye fhall live. For as many as are led by the fpirit of Gcd., they are the fons of God ** ; fmce if all moral effecfts are as much to be attributed to the dated operations of the laws of matter and motion as the fruits of the ground, fuch ideas as thefe exprefled by the apoftle are ridiculous \ the uniform language of the Bible with refpcd to religion becomes grofsly ablurd •, and the difference between virtue and vice, with all fcntiments of felf- approbation and lelf- reproach, will be for ever extinguifhed. Thus, not only the defign and contents of Revelation, but alfo the na- ture and foundation of morality, muft all be given up, before we can admit the general principles on which the late reafoning againft 8 Tit. iil. 3—7. •" Rom. viii. 13, 14. D d 3 dx-moniacal [ 4o6 ] dasmoniacal pofTefTions is founded. Have not fober Chriitians then juft caufe to be alarmed at any attempt which draws after it fuch dread- ful confequences, and the rather, when it is undertaken as an inftance of profeffed zeal for the Chriftian faith ? § 3, It may perhaps be faid, in defence of the foregoing hypothefis, that, although the influence of fuperior created fpirits within the limits of the human fyftem, with the vulgar account of the fall and the erroneous no- tions concerning the defign of Chrifl:'s ap- pearance in the world, be wholly rejedled, as doftrines equally groundlefs and abfurd, it doth not follow, that, all difi^erence between virtue and vice is taken away, or that, we muft of confequence deny the exiftence of evil and wickednefs. This is very true ; fuch things therefore are not inferred from a hare denial of the influence of fuperior created be- ings within the limits of the humian fyfl:em, but, from the arguments made life of in fupport of that denial. Let it be taken for granted, that there is much wickednefs in the World_, the following quefliion naturally occurs. Whence doth all this fin and tranfgreffion arife, which is fo obvious that it cannot be de- nied, [ 407 ] nied, and fo extenfive as to afre<5t every in- dividual ? Is man the fole contriver of it ? Doth it all fpring from that original bias which human nature had when it came out of the hand of our Maker ? We are told from re- fpeclable authority, that, *' There is an un- " accountable difpofition in myftical preachers to depreciate and vilify human nature ! They exhibit it," as we are informed, " in " the moft odious and deteftable views, and " then they pretend to adore the Author " of it>" — Now, which is molt difhonoiirable to human nature: to maintain, witli tiie Scrip- tures, that mankind have been deceived by fuperior wicked fpirits, througii whofe in- fluence fin and death were firft introduced, and who ftill continue to betray men on a variety of occafions into vice •, or to affirm, that all the wickednefs committed in the world has no other fource, no other provo- cation, than the original bias and malignity of the human heart? Who is it that degrades our nature; the " myftical preacher," who urgeth the confequences of the firft fin, and the fall of man, which he fays was brought to pafs by the treachery of the devil, and there- fore warns his hearers againft the influence of that wicked being in opppofition to the D d 4 word [ 4^8 ] word of God, or the " refined and rational " preacher," as he is pleafed to flyle himfelf, who denies, that, mankind was ever affedted by the influence of any fuperior wicked beings, and attributes all our evils and calamities to the original conftitution of nature ? Which of thefe is the reviler of mankind ; which is it that loads the human fpecies with reproaches and difgrace, while yet, " he pretends to adore- * ■ the Author of it ? -' § 4. Have we not alfo been repeatedly af- fured, that, there is, and mujt be, a fixed order of caufes and eff^ecls throughout the whole iyftem of nature ; that, the generation and cure of human difeafes are the refult of this conftitution ; and that, the fettled order of caufes and efi^eds both in the natural and mo- ral world, are to be attributed to the ftrid; and conftant obfervance of the very fame laws ? Doth it not then clearly follow, that, men are no otherwife the fubje6ls of praife and blame than plants and trees •, and that it would be equally abfurd to charge it as a fault upon a bramble that it is not a vine, or on a rulh that it is not an oak, as on bafe and treache- rous perfons that they are not virtuous and good ? Thus wicked men can no more, in ftridnefs [ 409 ] ftri ] laws of nature. Whether then we confider the agency of the devil in bringing about the fall of man as miraculous or not, yet, on this principle, we muft allow that God's per- mitting him would be in reality empowering and commijjioning him to introduce fm; be- caufe it would be a refledlion upon the wifdom of God to reftrain him from the ufe of thofe natural poviCrs wh:ch himfclf had communi- Gated. Hence it follows, as an unavoidable confequence, that, it God, in order to qua- lify his creatures for an extenfive fphere of beneficent aftion, communicates fuch powers as may enable them alfo to commit great evil, they have therefore an equal right to accom- plifh both, if they can ; fmce the Divine Per- miflion amounts to a dired appointment and command. For the fame reafon, if wicked men fucceed in their attempts, that fuccefs will be a proof, that, what they have done is in it- felf lawful and agreeable to^the mind and will of God. Such dodrine is well calculated to infpire depraved and ambitious perfons with the moft abandoned and ruinous defigns ! And, on this hypothecs, all aftions and events whatever are attributed, either to the direti agency^ or to the immediate appointment^ of the Deity. If Judas was under any influence iTiore than human, when he betrayed his Mafter, 2 It [ 411 ] it mufl: be afcribed to God and not to any cvii being, for properly fpeaking, it fcems, there are none fuch, at leaft within the limits of the human fyftem; In this article likewife the above quoted author has been confident with himfelf ; for he defines all miracles to be * Farm, on Mir. p. 519, 52O4 • "Matth, ix.n. and r 419 ] and mifcondudl of the prophets, but from their own account, and themlclves always fpeak of them as errors^ with every mark of difapprobation. They have no where left ic for us to determine, what fubjei5ls were or were not " foreign from their commiflion •,'* for, in every part of their writings, they have flated with the greateft care what things are to be confidered as coming from God, and what aftions, whether of their own or of other men, are approved or difapproved by -the righteous Judge of the world. Nor can this gentleman point out any one inftance wherein the private opinions of the infpired writers concerning things not included in their commilTions, are ever delivered as divine trutlis, or propofcd to the faith of mankind. All infmuations of this nature are equally un- candid and injurious, and may be the means of doing much hurt, when put into the hands of youth, under the ftrongeft recommenda- tions. We beg leave therefore to affirm, that this author hath fuppofed fafts which never exifted, and that of confcquence there can be neither any foundation nor reafon for the plan here laid down, in order to avoid the incon- veniences fuppofed to have arifcn from the errors and mifconduct -of the prophets. The E e 2 whole t 420 3 whole of what he here advances is grounded on a mifreprefentation of the Holy Scriptures, and would lead us to conclude, that many parts of thofe writings which have hitherto been confidered by Proteftants as of divine authority, were not really infpired of God, and therefore not to be received under the fandion of his name. § 8. But our author thus goes on towards fhe clofe of the lame paragraph, " Miracles " are the teftimony of God himfelf, to a per- *' fon profeiTing to deliver a meflage from *' him; a proof of the divine original of his *' miflionand dodrine* . But we are to receive " as divine upon this, evidence, no other *' dodrines than thofe it was defigned to con- " firm '.'* Now, on this principle we afk, have the apoftles any were pointed out the different parts of their writings, as what they meant to be confirmed by certain miracles which fhould follow their publication or de- livery to the churches ? What were the imme- diate teftimonies from God to thofe truly di- vine epiftles, one of which was written to -the Romans, whom the facred penman had » On Mir. p. 521. never [ 421 ] never fcen, two to the Corinthians, among whom his authority had been difputcJ, and by whom " a proof of Chrift's fpeaking in him*'* had been demanded, and one to the Hebrews, which bears not even the name of the writer ? Muft we, as a compliment to this gentleman's arbitrary rules, give up the divine authority of the largeft and moft interefting part of the Holy Scriptures ? To prevent all miftakes on fo important a fubjeift, he (hould at leaft have informed his readers in plain language, what parts both of the Old and New Te (lament he would have them rejeft, and the rather, fince he confiders the nature of the doftrines wliicli the facred books contain as not at all entering into the reafon on account of which they ought to be received. § 9. " No man," fays he, '' was ever fo abfurd as to maintain, that atteftations properly divine can deceive us, or that God v/ould immediately interpofe in fup- port of falfe claims. And this proof of a divine commifTion from the credentials wc are now fpeaking of, is full and fufficient, without taking into confideration thedo(5lrine •* 2 Corinth, .xiji. 3. E e 3 '- they [ 422 ] " they atteft. The proof arifes out of the " nature of the miracles, independent of ^' every thing elfe. This fully vindicates the " conduft of the prophets of God, who, as " was fhevcn above, demanded the immediate " afient and regard of mankind to their di- *' vine commiffion, upon the fole evidence " of their miracles, and prior to all reaibn- *' ings concerning the natural propriety and ^' fitnefs of their dodtrine ^" Here we beg leave to affirm, in our turn, that, as was Jhewn ahove^ many of the prophets of God never aflced the attention of mankind in confidera- tion of their miracles, becaufe they wrought none, and therefore could not demand their immediate affent and regard upon this fole evi- dence '' prior to all reafonings concerning " the natural propriety and fitnefs of their ** doftiine i" fuch too was the cafe with John the Baptift. Chrift himfelf argued with men from their own apprehenfions of what is right, and commanded his hearers to " fearch *' the Scriptures *." The apoftle Paul at " Theflalonica" — *' r^^/tf^;^^^ with the Jews out !* of the Scriptures, opening and alledging, that • On Mir. p. 522, 523. • John V. 39. Chrift [ 423 ] *^ Chrifl: mud needs have fuffL^red and rilen,"— « and that " Jefiis whom he preacheci — was the Chrilli" with " the Athenians," alio, he reafoned from the works and perfeftions of God, and the concefllons of their own wri- ters, while he preached repentance and a fu- ture judgment, grounded on the refurrcdion of Chrill J and yet, on neither of thefe occa- fions did he work any miracles *. We have many inftances, both in the. Old and New Teilament, in which the prophets of God were believed, and their meflliges embraced with the fincerelt affedlion, although no mira- cles were performed. Both the prophets and apoltles realbn with men, appeal to acknow- ledged principles and truths, exhort by all arguments, and urge them to fearch, enquire, compare, examine, and " prove all things,** that they may " hold faft that which is " good f." Notwithftanding the miltaken conceptions of our author, and the diredl afperfions thrown on the lacred writers by Mr. Dodwell J, as if neither Chrift nor his apoftles would allow men to enquire into the propriety of the things which they deli- • A£ls xvii. 1 — 5. 16 — end, f 1 Thef. V. 21. I Chriflianity not founded on Argument, iffc. E c 4 vcred, [ 4U ] vered, previous to their profeiTion of faith, the prophets of God no where demanded the immediate afTcnt and regard of mankind to their divine commifiion, 'uoithout taking into confideraiion the natural propriety and fitncfs of their dodrines and commandments. We cannot tell what fhould induce a Chriftian and Protejlant minifter to advance tenets fo con- trary to the fads recorded every where in the word of God, fo injurious to the characters of the facred penmen, and fo detrimental to the authority of the Holy Scriptures. It hath the appearance of (lander to affirm, that the infpired writers, in any cafe, demand our aflent or enjoin faitli upon us, " prior to all " reafoning concerning the propriety of their '^ dodtrine.'* Such things can never bejuftly faid of thofe who laboured by all means *' to commend themfelves to every man's con- " fcience, in the fight of God *." This gen- tleman Ihouid not, above all men, take upon him to reprefent the prophets of God as de- manding the alfent of mankind to their mef- fages, without any regard to their natural pro- priety, unlefs he really means, like Mr. Dod^ well, £0 rejed all the facred writings, fince * 2 Corinth, iv, 2, [ 4^5 ] he himfelf refufcs to admit the moft cxprcfs alTertions of the apoftles, merely bccaule in his opinion they are contrary to reafon, and affirms with great warmth, that, *' As the firll publiiliers of the Gofpcl 'u;ere )iot^ fo they ' could not, be commiflioned by God to inl\:ru(ft ' mankind in the phyfical caufcs of thofe difeafes which they healed. At Icaft, the ' queftion concerning the reality of poflef- ' fions could not be diredtly and immediately ' determined by the authority of Chrift and his apoftles, without great impropriety ' ;" although he looks upon it to be I'cry proper for himfelf to decide the matter, and to pro- nounce thole to be under the influence of an uncurable prejudice, who fliall differ from him " ! It is left with the candid reader to make what reflexions he plcafes upon our guthor's conduifl. § lo. Thus much, however we may ven- ture to affirm, that the whole of his reafoning concerning the nature and ufe of miracles evi- dently terminates in I'cepticifm, and leaves it very doubtful, whether any perfon can be ^ On Dcm. p. 363, 364; y Ibid. p. 373, and Note. juflly [ 426 ] iuftly vindicated in believing the truth of the Holy Scriptures. He will not allow any thing to be received as a revelation from God which had not the immediate atteftation of miracles, and infills upon it, that the prophets, en this (ok evidence, demand the afient and regard of mankind to their commiffion, without taking into confideration the natural propriety of their meflafye. Hence he rejefts rational enquiries as altogether ufelefs in religion, and cenfures the works of learned men as leading to great uncertainty. He propofes " miracles," both as the only authentic proof of a divine reve- lation, and as that which above all others " lies level to the capacities of all mankind, " even of thofe who have little leifure or " ability for deep refearches after truth; — *' fo that it is not necefiary that men fliould " be made philofophers before they become " Chripans ' i" and yet he maintains, that, " Even a real miracle cannot be admitted as '* fuch, or carry any convidlion to thofe who " are not afiTured that the event is contradic- *' tory to the courfe of nature," and that, *' Miracles therefore are nor, what fome re- " prefent them, appeals to our ignorance j ▼ On Mir. p. 533, 534. '\ they [ 427 ] " they fuppofe fome antecedent knowledge of *' nature j ijoithout wiiich, it is owned, no pro- per judgment can be formed concerning ** them — '^.'* Miracles therefore are a proof of divine revelation which does not lie level to the capacities of all mankind, and it is ab- folutely neceflary that m&n Jhottld he made phi- lofophers before they can become Chrijlians I Thus, on his principles, the greateit part of thofe who have believed Chriftianity never could have any folid ground for their faith, and moft of thofe who fealed it with their blood never could be poflefTed of evidence fufficient to vindicate their conduct as jufl in itfelf and acceptable to God, while at the fame time many objeftions are raifed from what he advances againft the future reception of the Gofpel. And befides, even now, the bulk of mankind have no more either leifure or abilities for thofe deep refearches which are ne- ceflary to afcertain what is or is not contrary to thofe laws by which the material world is governed, than they have for inveftigating thofe ab(lra6t reafonings that are above the capacity of the vulgar. Nay, it is not in the power even of this gentleman himfelf, to '^ Ibid. p. 20. prove [ 42S 3 prove any one miracle recorded in the Scrips tures, according to his own definition, a. real iranfgrejfion of the laivs of matter and motion. § II. We Ihall take notice of only one thing more in this author. Speaking of the necef- fity of miracles, and having Rated in his own manner, the fubied of the apoftles' preaching, he adds, " But who ought or could give credit *' to their do6lrine and tefiimony, if it had not " been confirmed by God himfelf, on whofe ** good pleafure alone the conftitution of the *' Gofpel was founded ? It was impoflible by ** reafon, to prove the antecedent propriety and *' necefiity of fuch a contlitution. If any ** thing can render tKe , neceffity of miracles " to confirm and propagate the Gofpel ftill *'., more apparent, it is the confideratipn of " the great corruption of the world at .the *' time of Chrift's appearance in it, creat- " ing in. men a diiaffedion to the piirity *' of this new re-velatipn — ^^' The argument of this palTage D&cefiarily Implies^ the folk,w« iRo- ^fuppofitions.: firfl, that the doflrines pe- quUaj; to ^he ;Gofpel ^at^e not aGCommodated lo the [ +^9 ] the reafon and confcience of mankind, fo that lihere is no medium by which their propriety and truth could be perceived, no one there- fore either ought or could give credit to the npoflles' teftimony without miracles •, next, that the ivant of fur.h a redemption as that preached by the apoftles through Chrill could never be JJyewn on the principles of realon-, and therefore, laftly, that, although " the great " corruption of the world at the time oFChnlt*s " appearance in it," rendered miracles neccflary to confirm and propagate the Goi'pel, yet the corruption it f elf is not to be confidered as an evidence of " the antecedent propriety and necef- '? fity of fuch a conftitution," for " it was im- ** pofTible to prove that by reafon.*' Hence it clearly follows, that mankind at the time of Chrift*s appearance in the world were, for any thing reafon can fliew to the contrary, as good and holy as ever they were defigned to be ac their creation. § 12. However, with all deference to this learned writer, we give it as our humble opi- nion, that, as it hath a very doubtful ap- pearance in any one, fo it will never be of any real fervicc to the Chriftian religion, to re- \t€i all thofc moral evidences of tlic truth of the Gofpel which arile, from the natural light of [ 430 ] of our own minds, from the acknowledged didates of reafon, and that inward fcnfe of right and wrong which is infeparable from the human fpecies as intelligent beings, and then to alledge as the only authentic proof of a re- velation from God, works of fuch a kind as are unintelligible to the far greatell part of the world, if not to the whole ; for we do not know, that there is any medium by which the reality of certain effel:ts in the material world contrary to the laws of matter and mo- tion can be proved. And we venture alfo to add, that true Chriftianity will never receive any advantage from affirming, that not even the corruption and wickednefs itfelf which the conititution of the Gofpel is defigned to remove, can ever fliew to our reafon the an- tecedent propriety and neceffity oi fuch a con- Jiitution \ becaufe this would be juft the fame .as maintaining, that no one can ever prove, by reafon, that the love of God and perfedb hoii- nefs is more defirable and becoming than wickednefs and oppofition to the divine willj or that purity of heart is necelTary to true jiappinefs. Such tenets as thefe may afford new ftrength to evil paflions, and be the means of confirming the prejudices of unbelievers, but they will never convert the abandoned, Jior eradicate vice from the fouls of ungodly men, . .5 Wc We could therefore fincexciy wiib, that the clofe of our author's Dijfertaticn on Mimcltn did not ]fo evXuucly agree with the principles laid down in the beginning of it. For if the order of caufes and tffccls in the morai WorlJ are to be afcribed, as he will have it, to tho4<( very laws which produce regularity in the na- tural world, in order .to fliew that there i$ but cne cDrumon defign carried on, and .tliat all things are under the diredlioa of enc ruling coimfel, it will undoubtedly follow, that no one could ever prove by reafon the ante- cedent propriety and necelTity of fuch a con- ftitution as that of the Gofpel ; nor, on thcfe principles, will it be pcflBbie for us to flicw, that the entrance of fin, and the continuanoc of wickednefs, are more contrary to the coun- fel and will of God than the growth of trees and corn, " The great corruption of the *' world" therefore " at the time of Chrill's ap- " pearance in it,'* could not even be proved to be wrongs nor we be bound to allow any fuch fuppofed corruption of mankind as that afferted by the apoftles, without miracles ; becaufe, according to this plan, the Gofpel refpeds an alteration in God for the better, fince the original conftitution of things, and not an alteration in man for the worfe. Not- withftanding all our boafted improvements in theology. [ 432 ] theology, and that happy exemption from the enthufiaftic opinions, as they are called, of our forefathers, which is faid to be the glory of the prefent times, upon mature delibera- tion, it may perhaps be found, that the doc- trines of the firft reformers, now treated with the utmoft contempt, are more agreeable to the principles of reafon, and to the exprefs diftates of the Holy Scriptures, and -more friendly to the interefts of mankind in gene- ral, than the modern and improved fyftems of Chriftianity, which are propofed to us as our beft defence againft fuperfiitious errors, and as the moft efFedual means of promoting the caufe of virtue and benevolence among our fellow creatures. .. i THE END. vH^' i \t^-