/ OF THE Theological Seminary, PRINCETON, N. I '^/C<^ Sheff.^ !!D5.]....'Zi!. .2^^^ ' ^ " /^ooA, No, 9 / (///../. \ J ^9:^1 Zr AN ESSAY ON THE DEMONIACS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. ydh A N ESSAY ON THE DEMONIACS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT- BY HUGH FAPvMER, Videndurn eil ut fobrie fapiamus ex Dei verbo, ne pro veritate aniles fabulas fubitituamus. Beza. LONDON, Printed for G» R o b i n s o n, in Pater-nofter-Row, MDCCLXXV, CONTENTS. rr^HE Introdu(flion, page i. C H A P. I. Explaining and eftablifhing the true meaning of demoniacs in the New Tef« tament, under the ten following pro- pofitions, p. 12. Sect. I. Prop. I. The fpirits that were thought to take pofleffion of men's bodies, are in the New Tef- tament called demons, not devils,, ib. An objedion anfwered, p. 14. Beelzebub,, the prince of the poflefling demons, different from the devi!, p. i6. The term, fatan, applicable to the former, ib. Sect. II. Prop. II. By demons, whenever the word occurs in reference to pofTeflTions, either in the fcrip- tures, Or other ancient writings, we are to'under- lland, not fallen angels, but the Pagan deities, fuch of them as had once been men, p. 21. Demons ufed in this fenfe, i. By the Heathens, particularly the Greeks and Romans, p. 22. 2. By the Jews, p. 29. By the Pharifees in particular, when they Qbje(Eled to Chrld, that he caft out demons by Beel- A 3 zebub, CONTENTS. zebub, (whofe name is explained at large, and who is fhewn to be one of the Heathen demons,) p. 30; and by Jofeplius, p. 40. 3. By Chrifl: and his Apoftles, p. 42. 4. And by the primitive Chrif- tians, p. 47. By Judin Martyr, ib. How it came to pafs that the fathers, after his time, and Chry- foftom in particular, referred poflefllons to celeftial demons, p. 49, note ^ Of the fpirit of Python or Apollo, with which the damfel at Philippi was thought to be poirefTed, p. 56. Sect. III. Prop. III. Thofc demons who were thought to take pofreffion of men's bodies, were, h is probable, confidered by the Jews as evil beings, p. 58. As fuch they were regarded by the Heathens, and by Jofephus, ib. and yet not confidered as . fallen angels, p. 63. Whether the epithets of m/ and imcleany clea/ ^nd dufnhy given them by the Evan- gelifts, exprefs their perfonal qualities^ or the effeSis they were fuppofed to produce, p. 61. Sect. IV. Prop. IV. The perfons who are fpoken of as having demons, fufFered real and violent difor- ders, from whatever caufe thofe diforders proceeded, p. 64. Sect. V. Prop. V. The particular diforders which the ancients, whether Heathens or Jews, afcribed to the pofleffion of demons, were fuch only as difturbed the underftanding, p. 69. A diftinftlon to be made hzisffCQnd'i^to.^iz^ flip c mat ur ally inji'iSled^ and "poJJeJfionSy •ib. Of being opprejjed by the devil, A6ls x. 38, p. 74, "Xa^ bound by f atari ^ Luke xiii. 11, 16, p. 76. Pof- feflion CONTENTS. felTion included in it the idea of madnefs, amongft the Latins, p. 78, the Greeks, p.- 79, the Jews, p. 83, and other Eaftern people, p. 86. That all the poirefTed were mad, proved from the dramatic writ- ings of the ancients, p. 87. All diforders of the underflanding were not afcribed to poireffion, p. 88. The epilepfy afcribed to this caufe, p. 89. Sect. VI. Prop. VI. The demoniacs fpokeh of in the New Teftament, were all either madmen or epi- leptics, p. 92. This proved from the Jews re- jproaching Chriil: with having a demon, p. 93, and Beelzebub, p. 96, from" the fimilar reproach they fcaft upon John the Baptift, p 97, and from the dc- fcription of the Gadarcne demoniac, p. ico. Mary Magdalene's feven demons imderftood by Celfus as exprefilve of her phrenzy, p. 165. The pythonefs at Philippi was a raving prophetefs, ib. Fpilepfy af- cribed to poflefhon, and on what accov.Tif, p. 107. The general idea which the ancients had of demo- niacs, p. 1 10. The account here given of the New Teftament demoniacs cleared from the obje£lions of Dr. Lardner, p. 112. This account juiliiies the re- prefentation before made of demoniacs, as perfons that laboured under real diforders, p 118. Shews upon what grounds pofTeuions are diftinguifhed from difeafes in general, and from lunacies in particular, ib. and for what reafon m^adnefs and epileptic nts, rather than other diforders, are afcribed to pofleffion, p. 124. Laftly, it is confirmed by the view given us of the demoniacs in the Chrifiian church, v/ho A 4 were CONTENTS. were all either m:id, melancholy, or epileptic per- fons, p. 126. Sect. VII. Prop. V^II. Demoniacal pofiefiions (whe- ther they are fuppofed to be real or imaginary,) and the difordcrs imputed to them, were not peculiar to the country of Judca, and the time of Chrift; nor doth it appear that they abounded more in that coun- try, or at that time, than any other, p. 128. ' The reafons invented to account for their abounding in the age of the Gofpel, p. 129. TbeVaci difproved by numerous teRImonies, p. 134. Sect. VIII. Prop. VIII. The demoniacs of the New Teflament are not different from thofe mentioned in other ancient authors ; and a like judgment is to be formed of both, p. 142. The bilhop of Gloucefter's attempt to make a diftinclion between them, con- fidered, p. 144. Sect. IX. Prop. IX. There is no fufficient evidence from reafon for the reality of demoniacal pofleffions •, nay reafon ftrongly remonTLrates againfl: it, p. I50. No natural evidence of the fpirits of dead men having power to enter the bodies of the living, ib. The dif- orders imputed to pofTelTion, mcjy proceed from na- tural caufes, p. 152. Who nrfl invented the doc- trine of pofTeflions, p. 153. By whom it hath been rejected, p. 155. Diforders deemed [demoniacal do proceed from natural caufes, p. 159, and are cured by natural remedies, p. 163. Are inconfiltent with the order of the natural v/orld, p. 166, and with the wifdom and goodnefs of God, p. 167. The abfur- 6 dity CONTENTS. dity and danger of allowing, that men are in the power of fuperior malevolent fpirits, p. i68. Sect. X. Prop. X. The do£lrinc of demoniacal pof- fefTions, inftead of being fupported by the Jewifli of Chriftian revelation, is utterly fubvefted by both, p. 173. I. This do£lrine was not originally founded on revelation ; neither taught, nor referred to, by the ancient prophets, ib. Saul's evil fpirit, exiphm- ed, p. 174. On what cccafions the mention o§ poirelTions might have been expe£\ed in the Old Teftament, had this doctrine been revealed under that difpenfatlon, p. 175. It was general ly enter- tained before the age of the gofpel, p. 179^ but ne- ver received the fanclion of Chrift or his Apoftles, p. 181. II. It is inconfiftent with the fundamental principle both of the JewIfli and Chriftian difpenfa- tions, p. 182, with the evidence of miracles in g-e- neral, on which they reft, p. 184, aiid wUh the nature of that miracle in particular, which was per- formed upon demoniacs, p. 185. III. The abfolute nullity of demons, to whom poftefllons were afciibed, aiTerted by all the prophets of God, when profefTedly delivering their eivine meflages to m.anklnd,p. 189, St. Paul's reafonlng on this fubje^ in bis, iftEpifder to the Corinthians, examined at largcy and thai decla- ration in particular, fFe know thai an idol h nothing in , the worldy Ch. viii. 4. p. 193. j. By an idol^ he here means a Heathen demon, or deity, p 194. 2. The^^- mons of the Heathens here fpoken of, were not devilsy p. 199, but deified human fpirits, as is fhewn from the ordinary acceptation of demons amongft the Greeks CONTENTS. Greeks, p. 202, from the conftant ufe of the word in the New Teftament, p. 206, (particularly in A£ls xvii. p. 208, I Tim. iv. i, p. 210. James ii. 19. p. 211. Rev. ix. 20, ch. xvi. 14, ch. xviii 2, p* 218, 219 :) from the occafion on which it is ufed in the place in queftion, p. 220, and from the Sep- tuagint, p. 223. 3. Thefe Heathen demons were nothing in the worlds p. 224. 4. As mere nullities they were efteemed by St. Paul himfelf, as well as by other Chriflians, p. 229. 5. This opinion a juft inference from the fundamental articles of Chriftiani- ty, p. 232. Demons being mere nullities, there never could be a real demoniac, p. 239. CHAP. II. Attempting to folve the feveral objedions againft the foregoing explication of the Gofpel demoniacs, p. 241. Sect. T. The objeftions drawn from what was faid and done by the demoniacs themfelves, confidered, p. 242. I. From their knowing and proclaiming Jefus to be the Mefliah, ib. 2. From their being forbidden by Chrifl: to dlfcover him, p. 249. 3. Fro\Ti their arguing rationally with Chrift, and fpeak- ing to better purpofc, than the bulk of thofe whg were in their fenfes, p. 259. How ill this obferva- tion applies to the Gadarene demoniac, ib. Hi» CQndu£t accounted for on the fuppofition of hi» not being CONTENTS. being really pofTefied, p. 266. 4. From their dif- covering more than human flrength, p. 275. The cafe of the demoniac at Ephefus, p. 276. Sect. II. The obje£bion drawn from the defl:ru£lion of the herd of fvvine, p. 280. The fwine were not driven into the fea by the two madmen, ib. but grew mad at the inftant the demoniacs were cured, p. 281. Their madnefs was not owing to the in- fluence of demons, but to a divine agency, p. 291. The miraculous deftrudlion of the fwine vindicated, p. 294. I. It was a juft punifhment of the owners, ib. It ferved, 2. To afcertain the reality^ and to fpread the famej of the miracle performed upon the demo- niacs, p. 296. 3. To corre£l: the falfe notions of the world concerning the power of demons, p. 299; , 4. To prevent feveral great inconveniencies that would otherwifc have attended the perfonal miniftry ofChrift, p 303. 5. To warn all, who, overlook- ing the juftice of God, are in danger of abufing the Gofpel, confidered as a difpenfation of mercy, P- 305- Sect. III. The objection taken from the language ufed by Chrifi: and his apoftles, in performing and recording the cure of demoniacs, or in defcribing the cafe of thefe unhappy men, p. 307. This language was not firft introduced by Chrifi or his ap0ille5, but was the common popular language of the age in which the Gofpel was firft publifhed, p. 314. The firfl teachers of Chriuianity could not, without great inconfiftency, give their fan£lion to the opinion on which that language was originally founded, ib. Nor CONTENTS. Nor. can they by impartial perfons be unclerftood to do fo, merely by ufing that language. For I. It is cuftomary with all (brts of pcribns, with the facred writers in particular, and our Saviour himfclf, to rpcak on many fubjeds in the language of the vulgar, tliough known and admitted to have been originally grounded on a falfe philofophy, p. 315. II They all do this, the facred writers, and our Saviour him- felf not excepted, when fpeaking on the very fubje£l inquefliion, p. 323. III. The common phrafeology was adopted by Chrift and his apoftles with good ' reafon; for, though originally built upon a falfe philo- fophy, it was commonly employed to defcribe the real cafe of the demoniacs, both the fymptoms of their diforder and their cure, p. 339. The fymp- toms of their diforder better defcribed by this lan- guage, than iDy calling them madmen, p. 345. What was meaned by the difpoiTelTion of demons, p. 350. .Why demoniacs are diftinguillied from the difeafed, and their cure from the healing of difeafes, p. 354* Why demons were commanded to come out, p. 355. IV. It doth not appear, tha*- either Chrift or his apoftles were commiflioned by God to inftru£l man- kind in the fecret caufes of thofe difeafes which were imputed to pofTelTion, any more than of other dif- eafes ; or to change the vulgar language in defcribing the cafe of the demoniacs, p. 358. V. As the fuii publifliers of the Gofpel were nr.t, fo they could not, with any propriety, be commiflioned by God to in- firuct mankind in the phyucal caufes of thofe dif- eafes CONTENTS. cafes, which they healed, p. 363. VI. They hate, however, in the moft proper nianriCr, re6:ified the 'dangerous errors mankind were under with regard to demons, and thereby fufficieiitly fecured the in- terefts of true piecy, p. 370. Recapitulation, p. CHAP. III. Pointing out the inconveniences attending the common explication of the Gofpel demoniacs, and the advantages which refult from the account given of them in the two preceding chapters, p. 379- A view of the advantages fuppofed to be derived from the demoniac fyftem, and particularly of the argu- ments urged to fhew the expediency and neceffity of the devil's enjoying an unufua) liberty in the firft age of the Gofpel, and of Chrift's gaining a public triumph over him, ib. in anfwer to this reafoning it is obferved, j. That it is not fupported by the tefti- mony of fcripture, p. 382. 2. It is built upon this falfe hypothefis, viz. that pofleffing demons were devils or fallen angels, p. 385. 3. It farther fuppofes, that pofleflions were m.ore frequent in the age of the Gofpel than at any other time j which is alfo a falfe fuppofition, p. 386. 4. The cafes of reputed de- moniacs defcribed in the Gofpel, do not furnifli any proof or evidence oi the agency of the devil or any evil CONTENTS, evil fpirit, ib. 5. The expulfion of demons, literally unuerftood, no public fpecimcn of Chrifl's power over the devil ; both becaufe pofTefBons were not re- ferred to the devil, and becaufe there is no evidence of difpoflefllons, arifing from the hO:s themfelves, even fuppofing them to be real, p. 390. Revela- tion improperly appealed to in proof of their reality, p. 392. 6. The bare eje6):ion of demons cannot be pronounced a greater miracle than the cure of na- tural diforders, nor any miracle at all with regard to mankind, p. 396. 7. The dodlrine of demoniacal poflelTion, a great prejudice to Chriftianity, p. 399 ; a fource of much fuperftition, ib. fets reafon and revelation at variance, p. 402, difcredits the miracu- lous infliction and cure of difeafes, p. 403, and de- ftroys the evidence of miracles in general, p. 406. 8. The true explication of the Gofpel demoniacs ef- tablifhes the certainty, and difplays the full glory, of the miracles performed upon them, which are fpoken of in the New Teftament with fingular emphafis, made a very powerful impreflion upon the fpe£lators, and deferve to be ranked amongfl; the mofl illuftrious atteftations to Chrifl's divine commiflion, p. 408 t& the end. A D- ADDENDA. P. 46, at the end of the note, add, For a full account of all theoccafions on which demon occurs in the New Teftaraent, fee below, p. 208. P. 61, at the end of note l^, add, p. 115. P. 67, note?, 1. 6, after child, add. See below, p, 35a, P. 119, J. 13, add. See below, p. 358. P. 478, in the note, 1. \\, after for, add\{\%. D E L E N D A. P. 1 01, 1. 5, dele of P. 154, 1. z», dele even CORRIGENDA. p. 38, 1. 7, for men, readx\\tvC%» P. 186, note a J. 3, for nutmine read U n\\xvL\nt* P. ao4, in the note, 1, 10, for chat, r^«fl!s -^ fJ*s '^^ '^ "^ /^ r^ -^ "^^ T FI E INTRODUCTION. ?^^^'^"^> N a late DifJertaticn on Mir a- ^ J ^1 cles, the author attempted to f^ ,^^^^, fnew, that all effeds produced in the lylteai or nature, con- trary to the general laws by which it is governed, are proper miracles j and that all miracles are works appropriate to God. But the cafe of the gofpel demoniacs> is by many confidered as an objection againfi: the general principle of that Diflertation, as well as againft what is there advanced with refpe(5l to demons in particular. Su- pernatural pofiefflons, it may be truly faid, fuppofe the power of evil fpirits to infiia difeafcs, and to deprive men of B their 2 ^he Introdiidlion. their reafon ; and, being eftcfls produced iii the fyftem of nature contrary to the genera] laws by which it is governed, are therefore proper miracles ; provided the account of thefe works here referred to, be juft. In order to folve this objection, it is neceffary to iLew, that the diforders im- puted to fupernatural poffefllons, proceed from natural caufes, not from the agency of any evil fpirits. This, indeed, hath been already attempted by feveral very eminent writers ^5 and, to my apprehen- fion, not without confiderable fuccefs. But, great as their merit may be, they do not fecm to have placed every part of the argument in its proper light, or to have cleared it from every difficulty. Many think it neceffary, that fome far- ther attempts lliould be made to do it juf- * Particularly,. Mr. Jofeph Mede, Difc. vi. p. 28 ; Dr., Sykcs, in his Irujuiry, and Farther In- quiry ; Dr. Lardner, in his Cafe of the Demo- Diacs J and Dr. Mead, in his Medica Sacra, c»ix, tice % The IniroJuBwn, 3 tice; efpecially as feveral things have lately been urged ia defence of demo- niacal poffefiicns, by a perfon juftly cele- brated both for his genius and erudition'', ^ Dr. Warburton, bifhop of Gloucefler, Serm. vol. iii. p. 213. His lordfhip's zeal for the common explication of the New Teftament de- moniacs, is the more remarkable, as in the fir(l volume of his Sermons, p. 204, he pafTes a very fevere cenfure on the dodlrine of pofTefTions, call- ing it, " THE SUPERSTITIOUS IMPIETT of demoniacal poffejjlons.^' It muft certainly then be worth our while to inquire, upon what grounds this able writer fliould now aiTert the real poffef- fion of the gofpel demoniacs, v/hen he had before branded the general doctrine of demoniacal poflef- fion as fuperjiltious and impious. His defence is mafterly ; but it is defective, if not in argument, at leaft in candour towards thofe who difrer from him in opinion, though his own, as it fiiould feem, was once the fame with theirs. He fets out with the following mifreprefentation of them : Of this fuperjiiiious fancy-t viz. pofielTion by the de- vil (they tell us) Jefus and his difciples took advan^ tagey 171 order to imprefs religious horror on their foU kivers. Such grofs abufe, intended to create un- juft prejudice in his readers againft thofe who.op- pofe his dodrine, doth as little honour to his lord- B z which 4 ^iie hitrodii^im* which could not be taken notice of hj thofe learned writers. If I {hould happen to contribute any thing, be it ever fo little, towards fupplying their defedls, or cor- rcdling their miftakes, or giving a fatif- factory folution of the difficulties they have not removed, I fliall not regret my labour, or think that it requires any apo^ logy. Indeed, the difcuffion of this fub- ject was neceffary to complete the defigii of a former publication. Of all the objections againft the mira- cles of Scripture, there are none that unbelievers urge with greater triumph, than that drawn from the common ex- plication of the gofpel-demoniacs \ Now, flirp, as fervice to the caufc he undertook to de- fend. *^ Thus Mr. RoufTcau (in his Troificme Le£- tre ecritc de la Montagne) exclaims upon the fub- jecl : 11 y en a dans I'Evangile qu'il n'eft pas meme polTible de prendre au pied dc la lettre fans re- iioncer au bon fens. Tels font, par exemple, ceux dcs pofl'edes, — Jefus dcniande a un grouppe de demons comment il b'appelle, Qt.ioi ! Les de- thougb The InfroduBion- 5 thaugh we are not to give up any of the genuine doctrines of revelation, merely on account of groundlefs prejudices con- ceived againft them; yet certainly we. fhould be very cautious not to create mons ont des noms ? Les anges ont cles noms ? Les purs efprits ont des noms \ Sans doute pour s'entre-appeller entre eux, ou pour entendre quand Dieu les appelle ? Mais qui leur a donne ces Eoms ? En quelle langue en font les mots ? Quelles font les bouches qui prononcent ces mots, les oreilles que leurs fons frappent ? Ce nom c'eil Legion \ car ils font plufieurs, ce qu'apparament Jefus ne favoit pas. Ces anges, ces intelligences fublimes dr.ns le mal comme dans le bien, ces etres celeftes qui ont pu fe revolter contre Dieu, qui ofent combattre fes decrets eternels fe logent en tas dans le corps d'un homme, forces d'abandonner ce malheureux, ils demandent de fe jetter dans une troupeau de cochons, ils I'obtiennent ; ces cochons fe precipitent dans la mer : '& ce font la les au- guftes preuves de la mi^on du Redempteurdu genre kumain, les preuves qui dsivent I'attefter a tous les peuples de tous les ages, & dont nul ne fau- roit douter, fous peine de damnation ! Juftc Dieu ! I^a tete tourne ; on ne fait ou Ton efb. See alfo Lucian's Philopfend. p. 337. Oper, torn, ii» ed.. Amftel. B 3 juft 6 '77/^ LitroduBioft* jnfl prejudices agdinft revelation, by our mifrcprefentations of if^. With refpect to Chriflians, I fee no reafon why they fliould be alarmed at an attempt to (hew, that the New Tefta- mcnt doth not countenance the doctrine of real poffeffions. Can it overturn any article of their faith, that they themfelves could "iviffj to be true ? May it not free them from many groundlefs terrors, and give them more honourable ideas of the divine government ? May it not fliew the evidence of Chriflianity to great advan- tage, as well as refcue it from the fcora of unbelievers ? Let us therefore endeavour to lay afide our prejudices, and judge according to the evidence that is fet before us. The power of prejudice to blind the under- ftanding, every one hath obferved in others y and it muft be owing to great in- *• Videndum eft ut in iftis fobric faplamus ex Dei vcrbo, ne pro veritate amies fahulas fubftitua- ixius, Beza on Luke viii. 31, attention. l^he Introdiiciicn. 7 att-ention, if we have not felt it in otir-^ felves. Have we never, upon cool re- colledion, feen the force of thofe very arguments, which, when firfl propofed, appeared to be weak or inconclufive ? It may, perhaps, foften the prejudices of fome perfons againft the opinion main- tained in the following fheets, to confi- d.er that feveral very, ancient and eminent writers have occafionally delivered fenti- ments conformable to it ; or, at leaft, fuch as are equally diftant from the lite- ral fenfe of fcripture^ At the fame * In proof of this aiTertion, I will tranfcribe a few, paiTages from the learned Semlerus, in hisCommen- tatiodeDaemoniacis, (Halae Magdeburg, p. 26. 1769.) which was put into my hands, after thefe papers were prepared for the prefs» by an ingenious friend who had perufed them. Auguftinus de Genefi ad Litter, xii. 17. forte rev^ra pbrenetlcus erat, kd. propter ifta dsemonium pati puiabatur, Nempe fine pia- culo & fcelere hoc Auguflinus fcribere potuit, quum in ifto opere non populum refpiciat, fed in- telligentibus operam dare velit. Rem eandem c-Ioquitur alicubi Theodoretus, in Pfal. xci. 6, B 4 time, 8 TZv lnt7'oduBlon. time, it muft be allowed, that the oppo- fite cpinion can boaft of many learned C'axc ^o^jcv, Scimus oi zrcXXoi funt impeiita mul- titude ^ loquendi confuctudincm fecutus eft Grae-^ cus intcrpres, non dafmonium incurfitans ipfe coiifirmavit. Ai^obardus epiftola ad Barthol. lu ut caderent quidam more epilepticorum, vel corum, quos vuJgus dasmoniacos putat vel no?ninat, Casfa- rius qureftione CXII. SEAni/ia^o^ocfi/yj (!^%iq^ not de- vils) I Tim. iii. 11. In the lajl times ^ men will he (<^*ct?oAo{, devils) falfe accufersy 2 Tim. iii. 3. In like manner, in Tit. ii. 3. aged women are forbidden to be (J'ta^oAi^?, devils) falfe accufn, ^ That Ads x, 38. is no exception will be fhewn below, fe6t, V. ^ In defcribing perfons pofleHed, the word dVt/jicucy occurs in the Gofpels fifty- two times ; h.\{/.b^v • "^ pels, 14 On the Demoniacs pels, they are not, on any occafion what- ever, faid to havcy or to be pojfejfed by the devil. They are uniformly and invari- ably defcribed as having, or being ppf- fefled by, a de??2on or demons, Beelzebub is called the prince of defnons "", not of devils. It would therefore be foreign from our prefent fubjeft to enquire who the devil is. It is indeed commonly apprehended, that demons and their prince are the very fame fpirits as the devil and his an- gels. In fupport of this opinion, the abettors of it argue in the following manner " : *^ Satan and Beelzebub arc " names for the fame perfon : for when three ; and $:yA[j,ovl^QiAxi^ thirteen ; though ^idQoKo; doth not occur fo much as once in referen.ce to poirefiiojis, either in the Gofpcls, or in any other part of the New Teftament. "^ Mat. xii. 24. Mark iii. %2. " See Pcggc's Anfvvcr to Sykes, and the learn- ed Dr. Doddridge on Mat. xii, 25. Fam. Expof. vol. I. p. 37/3 note g, and alfo vol. II. p. 82, note c, 2d edit. «' Chrift of the New T^ejlajnent. i^ ** Chrift was reproached with cafting out *^ demons by the affiftance of the prmce ** of demons, he replied, How can Satan '' cajl out Satan ° ? Now, if Satan, ** who is confidered as the fame perfon *^ with the devil p, was the prince of thofe *' demons who were-caft out by Chrift.^ ** then demons are the fame fpirits as the ■** devil's angels. And on this fuppoli- ** tion, there can be no other difference *^ between demons and the devil, than *^ that which fubfifts between a prince *' and his fubjedls, who both partake of '^ one common nature, though the prince, *' as prefiding over the reft, hath a pe- *^ culiar name of his own." It is obferv- able, that Dr. Sykes, who maintained that demons and their prince were a dif- ferent order of fpirits from the devil and his angels, never replied to this objec- tion, though frequently urged againft him "* Mat. xli. 26. Mark lii, 26. Luke xi. 18. ^ Rev^^^a;. compare Mau. iv, i, with Mark i. I2> bv 1 6 Of the Demoniacs, by feveral eminent writers. And Di^o Lardner^^feems to admit its force. For he fays, ** the devil is often called Sal- tan and Beelzebub." It doth not, however, feem to me to follow from the paflage under confidera- tion, that the devil is ever called Beel- zebub. For the term, Jatan^ is not ap- propriated to one particular perfon or fpirit, but fignifies an adverfary^ or oppo- ncnty in general. The Jews called every demon by this name, and ufed it in the plural number. Samael is flyled by them, the prince of fat an s\ Nay, the very words of our Saviour, How can Satan caji out Satan, if taken in their ftrictefl fenfe, imply that there were feveral fatans. And ^ Cafe of the Demoniacs, p. 42. See alfo p. 36. In what manner the author of a Review of the Controverfy concerning Demoniacs^ attempted to folve this difficulty, the reader may fee by confulting p. 79, Compare Remarks on that Tra6t, p. 17. ' And the prince of all the fatans. Sec Dr. Dod- dridge on Matt. xii. 25. v. I. p. 372, and Ode's Commentar, de Angel is, p, 6u, our of the New Tejiamenf. 1 7 our Lord might only mean, that it was unreafonable to fuppofe, that one demon would cajl out another. Or if you under- ftand him to the following purpofe : « Were Beelzebub, whom you regard as *' thechief of the/>^^/5';2^ demons, to ex- " pel himfelf, which would in efFecfl be ** the cafe were he to expel his agents *' and inftruments, he would ad: againft ** his own intereft, and defeat his own *' fchemes :" it will not follow from hence, that Beelzebub was confidered as the fame perfon with the devil. It doth not appear, that there is any reference here to the latter. He and Beelzebub might be regarded as two diftindl per- fons, and yet each be called fatan : a word that the Scripture itfelf very com- monly applies to every one who is aii adverfary^ or ads in oppofition to an- other ^ Indeed, if Beelzebub and his ' The angel of the Lord is called y^/^?;?. Numb, xxli. 22. God's anger was kindled againjl Balaam^ hecaiife he went : and the &ngel of the Lord flood in the way T^^? /^^ a fatan or adversary againfl him, C demons 1 8 On the Demoniacs demons were in our Saviour's time con-' ceived to be the very fame perfons as In the 33d verfe of the fame chapter, the angel fays, / ii'cnt out to ivithfland thee^ which In the ori- ginal is, to he a fatan (]LDJi'*7) or adverfary to thee. The word is alfo very freqacntly applied to men. Let not David go down lu'ith us to hatthj (faid the princes of the Philiftincs) Icfl in the battle he be \^^( a fatan^ or adverfary to :/r, I Sam. xxix. 4. JVhat have I to do with you ^ yc Jon: ofZeruiah, that ye Jl}Guid this day be ]ip^7 a fat an ^ or advcrfary to me? 2 Sam. xix. 22. T^he Lord my God hath given 7ne rejl on every fide ^ fo that there is neither adverfary (^Ot^) 7ior evil occtirrcnty I Kings v. 4, See alfo i Kings xi. 14, 23, 25. Pfal. xxxviii. 20. Pf. Ixxi. 13. Pf. cix. 4, 20, 29. In the New Teftament Chrift fays to Peter, Matt. xvi. 23. Get thee behind rne^ fatan^ ^^ You a61: rather as an enemy^ than as a *' friend, in difTuadino- me from fubmittintr to fuf- *' ferings and death." St. Paul, in 2 Cor. xli. 7. fays, Lejl I JJjotdd be exalted above meofure through the abundance of the revelations^ there zvas given to me a thorn in the fejhy the mejfenger of fit an to buffet me. In the original it is not ot^yyiXo^ tS o-a1<^v, '^ the angel '* of Satan,'' but c/.yyi\Q^ cxrxv^ an angel fat an ^ or adverfary. The beft commentators fuppofe, that the bodily afHidiion, or tho7-n in the flejh^ here re- ferred to, was fome paralytic rymptom, called elfe- vvherc xhe i?fr?r.ity of the fejh. Gal. \v. 13. Jii confirmation of this opinion it mav be obiervcd, the of the New ^ejlament. 19 the devil and his angels. Is It not very furprlfing, that the New Teftament in its original language, ihould always fpeak of the difeafed perfons under confider- ation as polFefTed by a demony or demons'^ and never by the deviU or devils ? a word, as all muft allow, that is never there ap- plied to evil fpirits in' the plural number, whatever its ufe may be in the fingular. I add, that inafmuch as Chrifl is here re- that the word ao-G^vfta, ufedhere in the original, is that by which both the New Teftament writers and the Greek phyficlans defcribe the pally. This dif- order feems to have been occafioned by the fplen- dor of his vifions afFe6ling the nervous fyftem ; and was purpofely defigned by God, not merely to prevent a too great elation in the apoftle, but, by taking off from the gracefulnefs and energy of his delivery, to render the divine power more confpi- cuous in the fuccefs of his miniftry. It is im- pofTible that St. Paul fhould refer this diforder to the devil ; he fpeaks of it as proceeding from God, or (which is the fame) his avgel ^.oXmg a. part adve?-- fary to the apoftle ; to whom this difpenfation of divine Providence was exceedingly humiliating and painful, however wifely defigned by God. C 2 plying 20 On the Demoniacs plying to the Pharifees, and reafoning with them on their own principles % he cannot be fuppofed to fpeak of a differ-' ent order of beings from what they did. Satan therefore muft be equivalent to demon, in the fenfe in which demon was ufed by them, which will be ex- plained hereafter. And fhould it then appear, that by demons and their prince they underflood human fpirits, it will from hence follow, that Chrift can- not be fpeaking of fpirits of a celeftial origin. ^ pifTert. on Mir. p. 388. SECT. tf the New Tejiainent^ 2 1 SECT. IL ]?rop. II. By demons^ ^whenever the "word occurs in reference to pojfejjionsy ei^ ther in the Scriptures^ or other ancient *writingSy we are to iinderjland^ not falleii angels y but the Pagan deities^ fiich of them as had once been men. l^^TE have elfewhere " examined the meaning of demons^ when applied to the objects of popular worfliip in the Heathen world; and ihewn from the united teftimony of Pagans arid Jews ; from the authors of the Septuaglnt verfion of the Old Teftament, and from the writers of the New, that we are hereby to underftand fuch human fpirits as fu- perftition deified. We are now to in- quire, whether the word be not ufed in the fame fenfe by all the ancients, when they fpeak upon the fubjcft of pos- sessions. " Difiert. on Mir. ch. iii. fe£l. 2. C 3 I. With 22 On the Demoniacs. I. With regard to the Heathens, It is well known, that they advanced human fpirlts to the rank of gods and demons ; and that they judged them capable of en- tering the bodies of mankind, and of producing /j/zr^^ and di/lradiion, which, as will be (hewn below, was regarded as the moft ufual efFed: of demoniacal pof- feffion, Prophefying amongft the Hea- thens was attended with rage and mad- nefs \ Almofl: all their oracles belonged to that fpecies of divination which was hyfiiryy fuch as was imputed to the pov^er and prefence of their gods. And that thefe gods were deified men, appears from the oracles of Jupiter, the chief of all the prophetic divinities; of Apollo, ^ Not only the Pythia at Delphi, but the Sibyh alfo fwelled with rage, and were bcfide them- selves. See Virgil. Mn. vi. 77. Qiiid vero habet au£toritati3 furor ifte quem divinum vocatis, ut, qu2e fapiens non videat, ea videat infanus ; & is, qui humanos fenfus amiferit, divines aflecutus fit ? Cicer. dc Divinat. lib. ii, cap.. 54, who. bf the New Tejiameht. ij iviio, next to Jupiter, excelled moft in the faculty of infpiring predidions, and who had a celebrated temple at Deles, the reputed place of his birth ; of Tro- phonius, Amphiaraus, and other men, who after death were tranflated to the gcds. The terms employed by the Greeks ^ to defer ibe perfons infpiredy pojfejfed^ and y They are called ^lo^po^r^ci^ ^fchyl. Agamem- iion, V. 1 149. Strabo, lib. xii. p. 535. D. ed. Paris. 1620. p. 809, ed. Amftelodami, 1707.—™-* 3-ioX7i7rloi, Plutarch, de Herodot. malignltate, p. 855. — — ^ixifj.ovi^oiJ.ii/01^ (which fhews that the gods by whom thefe perfons were polTeiled were demons) Plutarch. Sympof. lib. vii. qu^efl. 5. prop. fin. Vide Plutarch, de Fluviis, p. 1159, ■croja S\ zs^og r^; $oci- (xovi^oiMiva;, Lucian defcribes them by a fimilar word, TB? ^cciixovuvloic, Philopfeudes, p. 337, v. 2. ed. Amftelodami. Concernins: an exorcift it is there laid, I'^O.ccvvsi rev ^xijj.cvx^ abigit daemonem, p. 338 *. Ev^v>iXs7TXi^ from Euricles, fee Hc- • It may be worth while to inquire in what fenfe demon is ufed in this Dialogue of Lucian. Ion, after he had given an account of tl-e perfon who call out demons, adds, that he himfelf had feen one (that is, a demon) /o ejctied. Many fithirs as ivell as jou, faid Eucrates, have nut 'vjith demons C 4 difor* 24 On the Demoniacs difordered in their underjl an dings ^ ferve to fhew, that the fpirits by whom thefe per- Ibns were thought to be aduated, were not. fallen angels^ but the gods the Hea- thens worfhipped ; particularly fuch as fychlus, Suidas, or Vandale deldolat. p. 648, 649, — — •aruOa,'V£f, Schol. in Ariftophan. Vefp. 10 14. p. 314. ed. Kuftcr. Plutarch de Orac. defe£l:. p. 4.14. E. DIflert. on Miracles, p. 275.' ■ ■ (poiQo- >,Y,7rloi or (poiCoKoifXTrJ'oi, Plutarch, in Pompeio, & Herodot. lib. iv. p. 229. c. 13.— and vu^(poA>i7rJotj. Plato in Phaed. p. 1216. E. k p. 1218. F. (^cti'uos-jv.) I Jia've a thoufand limes feen fuch things. In proof of this aiFcirtion, he allures the company, that he and his family had often feen the itatueof Pelichus defcending from his pedeilal, and walking round the houfe, p. 338, 339. In the fequel of the dialogue, Eiicrates, who had been defend- ing the dofViine of apparitions, fays, JVe hanje bee?: etidea- vQuring to pcrfimde Tychiadt's, (who fuftains the charafter of of an unbeliever in thefe points,) that there are demons, (^aifjtonii Tivac eTvai,) a7idthat the phantafms andjbuls of the dead ix'ander upon the earthy and appear to ^cmoniacs hiflory of this people furniflies a melan- choly proof of their great pronenefs to adopt the principles and pradices of their fupcrftitious and idolatrous neighbours. In the time of our Saviour, the Greek learning (originally built on the pbilo- fophy of the Eafl) was greatly ftudied and admired by the Jews, and had in- fedled even the loweft ranks of men. It is natural therefore to fuppofe, that thofc amongft them, who, like their Hea- then neighbours, believed in real pof- fefiions, would afcribe thefe effeds to the fame fpirits as they did. What is fo highly probable in theory, will, per- haps, upon inquiry, appear to be true in fad. In proof of this point, I would firfl of all produce a paflage from the evan- gelical hiftory, which is generally urged to eftabliih the contrary dodrine. I re- fer to the language of the Pharifees, when they made the following objedion to of the New Tejlament. 31 to Chrlfl's cure of demoniacs 5 He cafieth out demons by Beelzebub (or as it is in the Greek, Beelzebul) the prince of demons. In the late controverfy concern- ing demoniacs, it was confidently af- ferted by one party, and either allowed or not difputed by the other, ** that ^f Beelzebub is the name which the Jews ** gave to the prince of fallen angels ; <^ and that it was given him by way of '« derifion ; Beelzebub being the fame ** with Baalzebub, and fignifying as that *5 doth, the lord of a fly,'' Now were it true, that Beelzebub is a fallen angel, demons, without doubt, are fpirits of the fame order. But what hath been aflerted by fome with regard to this matter, and too readily granted by others, hath never yet been proved. The point deferves to be carefully confidered. We learn from the Old Teftament, that Ahaziah fent meffcngers^ and faid ^ Matt. X. 25. ch. xil. 24, 27. Mark iii, 22. ^uke xi. 15, 18, 19. unto 32 On the Demoniacs unto the my Go^ inquire of Baalzehuhy the god of RkroUy ^whether I fjall recover oj this dfeafe^. From this paffage it clearly appears, that Beelzebub was a god of the Philiflines, and had a temple and oracle at Ekron. It likewife appears, that this name was not given him by way of contempt ; becaufe it was ufed by Ahaziah at the very time he was acknow- ledging his divinity, and defirous of con- fulting him concerning his recovery. This is farther evident from the true meaning of this name, and the reafon of its being given. Hiftory informs us, what we may eafily credit, that thofe who lived in hot climates, and where the foil is moift, (which was the cafe of the Ekronites, who bordered upon the fea,) were exceedingly, infefted with jflies. Thefe infedts were fometimes thought to caufe contagious diftem- pers. Pliny makes mention of a people h 2 Kinn;s I. 2 £3 who of the New Tef.ament. 3 3 who flopped a peftilence which they oc- cafioned, by facrihcing to ihc Jly- hunting god\ It feems not improbable, that fome imagined cure of this kind, or a general perfaafion of his power of driving away flies from the places they frequented, might be the reafon why the god of Ekrcn was called Beelzebub ^. For it was cuilomary with the Heathens, to call their gods by the name of thofe in- fedls, from which they were believed to ^ Invocant Elei myiagron deum, mufcarum mul- titudlne peftilentiam afFerente ; quae protinus in- tereunt, poftquam litatum elt ei deo. Plin, Nat. Hlft. lib. X. c. 28. § 40. k Some of the Greek Fathers thought, that this Jly god was worfhipped under the form of a fly. And Mr. Young (on Idolatry, vol. ii, p. 91, 92) obferves, that it was cuftomary with the Heathens to reprefent their gods by fome crea- tures that were facred to them. But the fuppofed power of this god over that noxious infedl, the fly, feems to me the moft probable reafon of the name of Beelzebub, D deliver 34 On the Demoniac f deliver their worfliippers^ ^he god of fies"^, and the fy -hunter'', were titles af- cribed by the Greeks to Jupiter, as well as to Hercuies \ Now, in as much as Beelzebub is a title of honour, and fuch as might be, and certainly was,- applied to the god of Ekron by his worftiippers,. it can hardly be doubted, but that it was in ufe amongft the Philiftines, as well as amongfl; the Jews^ Whatever opi- ^ Sic Hercules ditSlus Irroicloi/o^^ intereraptor ver- mlculorum vites infeftantlum-, qui Graecis nrsg, Itena^ xccvcoTrfuf, cuHcum depulfor Oetceis cultus. Lo- mierus de vet. Gent. Luftrationibus, p. 23. Vide etiaih Bochart. Hierozoic. par. li. lib. iv. c. 9. Oper. vol. iii. p. 500, k par. I. lib. i. c. 5. Oper. vol. ii. p. 36 Sc Selden, de Dis Syr. Syntag. ii,». €. 6. p. 228, ed Amftel. 1680. "^ Mm'A;^ mufcarum deus, " 'Mv'iocypc, mufcarum venator. 'H^oinXiTy Clem. Alexandrinus in Protreptico. P Bochart fays, Itaque nomen Beelzebub tarn apud Philiftaeos, quam apud Ifraelitas in ufu fuifTe reor. And Selden (ubi fupra, p. 227.) 8 nion of the New Tejiatnent, 3,5 nlon the latter had formed of the moral (charadler of the prince of demons, yet, even they did not callhim Beelzebub by way of derifion- notwithftanding the feeming meannefs of this term, the lord of .flies. For the Jews had learned of the Heathens, to regard a power of driving away thefe noxious infeds as a divine prerogative *, endeavouring to perfuade men % that the temple of Jcrufalem^ though fo many facriiices were offered there daily, never had a fly upon it; thus copying') rather than deriding, what the Heathens fabled concerning fome of their temples, into which, (according to Pliny, Solinus, and others) no fly could enter'. tifes ftronger language, Mihi perfuafiffimum effj Accarotiitis ipfis eurri Baalzebub dictum. *i In Pirke Avoth, c, 5. § 6j 7. Non con- fpecla eft mufca in domo madlationis. ' Should it be faid, *^ that the Greek word ** ufed in the New Teftament, is not Beelze- D 2 Upon •:6 On the Demontacs Upon what grounds then is it con- cluded, that by Beelzebub, we are to " bub, but Beelzebul, which fignifies the lord of *' a dwK^hill \ and therefore that this name could " not have been ufed by the Heathens, but muft " have been given by the Jews in derifion :" I anfwer, i. That many learned men fuppofe, that the final b was fometimes changed into I in the ancient languages. Bochart (Hieroz. par. II. lib. iv. c. 9. p. 501.) and Grotius (on Mat. x. 25.) have given inftances of fuch changes. On this fuppofition, the Greek word will agree with the Hebrew, 2 Kings i, 2. 2. If Beelzebul be ufed as a different nam.e from Beelzebub, there will neverthelefs be no reafon to fuppofe that it was given by the Jews, or that it was expreffive of contempt. When the Jews reproached the Hea- then oods as dung^ they ufe a different word, tD^^T^i^, 2 Kings xxi. 21. Ezek. vi, 4. If Zebul be derived from /^l 2^^^^^ Stercus, it corref- ponds to -KOTT^o^ in the Orphic verfes, Zfu KucJ'trf, ixlyig^i 0£"v, fjAuM.jvg HOTT^w, Jupiter I mvjl illujlri- oiis, the greatejl of the gods, zvrapt in dung. What Clemens Alexandrinus fays of the Stoics, is agree- able to the do6hine of Orpheus, and to that of the Pagans in general, J*ia W(r>if oAr,?, xai cTta rrV *iXTiy.olocTr}c^ to Si'i'ov oimnv Xtyoi^oi?, Cohort, p. 58. ed. Oxon, The Hebrew word Vl^t zebul, pro- under- of the New Tejiament. 37 underftand the devil, if by the devil be meaned a fallen angel ? Can this be proved from the import of the name ? There is no kind of affinity between Beelzebub and devil either in found or meaning. Were the jews accuftomed to call the devil by the name of Beelzebub ? The very contrary appears from their ancient writings, in which he is called Afmo- AxMS \ This is a great objection againft the common hypothefis. The difficulty was felt and confelTed by Bochart, Sel- den, and others \ But thefe learned perly fignllies an habitation^ and (as Stockius ob- lerves) is applied to the heavens, the manfion of the deity. This agrees v/ith the title of Beelfamen or Baalfemin, the lord of heaven^ which the Ekro- nitcs, and other Phenicians gave to their fupreme numen. Whether therefore Beelzebub and Beel- zebul be different names, or the fame name v^^ith diiTerent terminations, they defcribe the perfon whom the Heathens regarded as their chief deity, ^ See Selden and Bochart in the places referred to in the next note. ' Bochart, vol. iii. p. 501, fays, Difficilior eft quaeftio, cur Pharifsei five Beelzebub, five Beel- D 3 men qS 0/2 the Demaniacs ^rot« '' It is no Inconfiuerable coriurmatlon of the exnllcation given above of the prince of demons, that the Keathens (vvhofe language the Pharifecs adopt) apply the fame or a fimilar term to a hu- man fpirit. In the Alcefiis of Euripides, Kercules is introduced as laying, v. 1 140, Map/viv o-ui/aij/a? ^oi.iiJ.lv'j:'j Tco xci^dv'jo* Cornmiffa pugna cum rege da- monitin^ which the fcholiaft explains by tw im v£h- a^M xvpioo^ adding, (pacri ycx^ T»f viy.^^g aoay.ovoct;. Ey demons we are here necefiarily to underftand, the do'ai 't and by the prince of demons^ is probably meaned Pluto, the fon of Saturn, brother of Jupiter and Neptune. He was called Su?mnanus^ q. fummus manium, Auguft". de Civ. Dei, lib. iv. c. 23. In of the New Tejlament. 41 in the fame language as they did. He was well acquainted with the fentiments of his countrymen with refpedl to poffef- fions. The expulfion of demons was indeed a favourite fubjedt with him. He hath entertained his readers with a long account of the method of effeding it, and defcribed what appeared to him to be an inftance of its fuccefs, when tried by a Jew in the prefence of Vef- pafian^. In order to raife the charader of Solomon, who makes fo diftinguifli- ed a figure in the Jewifli hiftory, he fcruples not to affirm, that he was in- flrudled by God in the anti-demojiiac art^. From a writer of this turn of mind, we are not to expedl any thing to be faid unnecelfarily in diminution of the power of demons. For the greater their power is, the greater glory would thofe acquire, who could give proper evidence ^ Antiq. 1. viii. c. 2. § 5. of 42 On the 'Demoniacs of their being able tocontroul and expel them. Neverthekfs, Jofephus fays, that demons are the fpirits of wicked meny who fntcr the Ihingy and kill thofe who receive 710 help ^ : language too clear and exprefs to be perverted by the power of criti- cifm. III. Let us now inquire in what fenfe it is moft reafonable to underftand de- mons, when ufed in reference to pof- feflions by Chrift and his apoftles. It hath been faid, that *-^ this word *^ carries a different meaning ia the facred ** writings, from what it did in the pro- '•'' fane; or, that our Saviour and the *' evangelifts ufed it in a fenfe peculiar to *' themfelves." How does this appear? It ought not to be prefumed, or taken for granted, that any perfon whatever, who iciiivovloi T«j pcYihiug f^n 7\)yxjxyQ]no(,^, De Bello Jud. lib. vii. c. 6. § 3. The demoniacs of Jofephus aRfwer to the larvati of the Romans. hath of the New ^ejlamenf. 43 hath no intention to deceive, ufes words in a fenfs difFerenc from the reft of the world, unlefs he gives exprefs notice of his fo doing. Whoever affumes a liberty of giving a new meaning to words, with-- out explaining it, cannot intend to en- lighten, but to confound or infult the underftandings of men. A condudt of this kind would be peculiarly heinous in an inftruftor of the people, who never look farther than to the obvious and or- dinary fenfe of words, of fuch efpecially as occur continually in common conver- fation. Shall we then caft fo foul a re- proach as this on Chrift and his apoftles, charge them with guilt of the deepefl: dye ? Shall we take it for granted, that they were thus guilty, without the leaft fhadow of proof? The facred writers have not particu- larly explained the fenfe in which they ufe the word, demon. Now, is it not a natural inference from hence, that they pfe this word, as they do all others, in its 44 O^ ^^^ Demoniacs its commcn and ordinary fignificatlon ? If they had atligncd it a new and peculiar meaning, would not they have given us notice of their doing it ? Was not fuch notice neceffary to prevent miftakes ? The Greek language, in the age of the Gofpel, was very generally fpoken in all the cultivated parts of the world, not only by the Gentiles, but by the Jews alfo who were difperfed amongfl them, and even by the inhabitants of Judea. It is the language in which the New Tefla- ment was written, which was defigned for the ufe of the bulk of mankind. De- mon in this language w^as not a new word % invented by the facrcd writers to exprefs their ov.'n peculiar opinions, but v/as in daily ufe with all men in their 2ge, as it had been for ages before. Now, can it be reafonably fuppofed, that thefe writers, when they adopted this *^ Dificrt. on Mir. p. 174. compare Mat. xv. 22. John viii. 48, 52. word. of the New Tejlammt. 45 word, were ignorant of its ufual fignifi- cation, which was that of a Pagan deity, or deified man ? We are certain they were not ignorant of this fignification of it : for they have recorded an inftance amongft the Heathens, in which it could not be applied to any other than deified human fpirits ^. To fuch fpirits, they likewife knew, the word was applied in the Jewiih Scriptures, I mean, in the Septuagint verfion *" of them, with which they were intimately acquainted. Nay, it is allowed, that they do themfelves employ this term to defcribe the Hea- then gods \ and other deified or beati- fied human fpirits^. From thefe pre- A£rs xvli. 18. He feemeth to he a fetter forth cf Jirange demons or gods. See DiiTert. on Mir. p. 203, 204. Id. p. 198. See alfo below, feci lo. ^ I Cor. X. 20, 21. See below fe6l. io« and Differ, on Mir. p. 201. ^ I Tim. iv. I. Giv'im heed to doSlrincs co7icern-' ing demom. See DilTert on Mir. p. 167. In mifes 46 On the Demoniacs mifes we may conclude, that by demons, when ufed in reference to pofleffions by the writers of the New Teftament, 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 Septuagint, and they themfelves affiga it on other occafions. But they could not affign the word a different meaning on this fubjed:, with- out running counter to the fenfe of all mankind in their age. For whatever was then taught concerning other evil fpirits ; yet, both Jews and Gentiles were agreed in referring poffeffions to Rev. xvl, 14. mention is made of the fpirits of detnons working miracles ; by which Mr. Pyle un- derftands pretences to infpiration and miracles, in confirmatiou of the do6lrines of ghojis^ demons^ and faints* C^/?/ a /.^ /c- /^f c /y^t-iny^ ^:^^T^ of the Ne^aX Tejiament. 47 the fpirits of departed men. Not a fingle exception from any cotemporary or ear- lier writer hath hitherto been produced. The evangelifts could not be ignorant, who poffeffing demons were univerfally thought to be ; and confequently muft know, that they would be mifunder- ftood ; nay, they muft defign to be mif- underftood by the world, if v/ithout any explanation, they ufed the word in a fcnfe peculiar to themfelves on the fub- jed: before us -^ efpecially as they were known to ufe it on other occafions in its common fignification. IV. It h no inconfiderable confirma- tion of all that hath been offered con- cerning pojfieffing demons, that the pri- mitive Chriftians underftood hereby hu- man fpirits, and reprefent this as the general opinion of the world. None could be better qualified to inform us of the general fcnfe of thofe ages, concern- ing the fubjed: under our confideration, than J lift in Martyr. He was born in Pa- 48 On the Demoniacs Paleftine, bred a Heathen, and inftrudl-* ed in the principles of the Stoic, Peri- patetic, Pythagorean, and Platonic phi- lofophy. He afterwards became a Chrif- tian, and flouriflied near the times of the apoftles. Now this learned writer (with- out the leaft apprehenfion of contradift- ing Chrift or his apoftles) fays exprefly, that tliofe perfons who are feized and thrown down by the fouls of the deceafedy are fuck as ALL MEN agree in calling demoniacs and mad^. And he himfelf agreed with the reft of the world, in referring pofTeffions to the fouls of dead men : for from the cafe of the pofTefTed, he infers the permanency of the human foul after death. It is more remarkable, that he fhould efteem the pojjejjhig demons to be human fouls, and affirm, that all men did xSo-i zjai/7f?. Apol. i. al, il. p. 65, Parif. 1620. p. 54. ed. Beiied, p. 27. ed. Thirlb, fo of the New Tejiament. 49 fo too 5 inafmuch as he feerns to have believed in demons of a different order, from thofe who were of the human fpecies^ ^ In his Cohort, ad Graecos, p. 87, ed. Oxon. he calls the devil a demon, and (p. ig.) fpeaks of the devil's deceiving our firft parents. To fome it may appear ftrange, that polTef- fions fhould be afcribed by many of the Fathers, after the time of Juftin Martyr, to fallen angels. The following confiderations, perhaps, may in fome meafare account for their conduct. I. Several philofophers taught, that the Heathen demons virere evil fpirits of a rank fuperior to mankind 3 and that thefe demons perfonated the fouls of the dead, gods, and genii, and procured themfelves to be u^orfhipped under their names. See Plutarch de If. & Ofir. p. 360, 361. Por- phyry de Abftin. § 36, 37, 39, 40, 42. Philo de Gigantibus, p. 286. C. ed. Paris. Jamblicus de Myfteriis, fegm. iii. c. 31, 32. DilTert. on Mir. p. 220, note ^ Now, in this opinion many of the Fathers had been educated ; others were in- clined to adopt it, from an attachment to the principles of fome of the learned Gentiles, Ac- cordingly we find them, in fupport of this opinion, appealing to the magi, and to the philofofophers, Ifti igitur impuri fpiritus, dsemones, ut oflenfum a magis, a philofophis, & a Platone, fays Minu- E Other 5© On the Dtmoniacs Other teflimonies might be produced^, but, 1 hope, they are not wanted j ef- cius Felix In the pcrfon of 0(5lavius, c. 27. vid. C..26. He defcrlbes them as, a ccelefti vigarc tcrrenis labibus h cupiditatibus degravati. The Fathers afcribed to thefe celeftial demons, what- ever the Heathens in- general attributed to their deified ghoHs ; and confcquently accounted for pofleffions, without referring them to human fpi- rits. This was natural and unavoidable, if you fuppofe them to be fcrioufly psrfuaded of the truth, of v/hat has been taught them on this fubje<5i by. their Pagan inftru£iors. II. Motives of policy, as well as the princi> ples of their education, and their attachment to the Gentile philofophy, led them to reprefent pof- feiTing demons as fpirits of a higher order than mankind. In order to underfland this matter, it will be neceflary to tranfcribe a few pafTages from St. Chryfoftom;. and I fliall the rather do it, as they will ferve to illuftrate. the general argument, as well as to eftablifh the point for which they are more diredly produced. 'Ei/TauOa zjcn^ov v6~ "woXXoi rcov a(^£Aff/^wv vo[ji.i^ii(n rS^^ -^v^ocg tuv (^ioctca 3'avxTu TiXiVTovTccv ^oiiiAOvocg ^/i/fffGai. OJit '/fi SI toutoj f/.ovig yii/ovTXi^ oc},?* ocl xjyup^ai Tojy Iv a//.«pT)ijM,ac4. ^(^nuv. Hie malum morbum veftras animae exi- pecially. of the New Tejlament. £ 1 peclally as the evidence is all on on? fide. No fingle inftance of a perfon's mere cupio : etenim multi fimpliciores exlftimant, snimas eorum, qui violenta morte decefTerunt, fieri daemonas. Hoc vero non ell, non eft. Non enim animae eorum, qui violenta morte decedunt, fiunt d^mones, fed animae eorum, qui in peccatis vivunt. De Lazaro, Cone. II. torn. i. p. 727, ed. Montfaucon. St. Chryfoftom admits, thatthe demons in the pofTefled perfons pretended, that they were the fouls of fuch or fuch a monk ; {ol Sxi^.oviq Kiy>i(n, ra jicovap^a tS ^i'iyoi; ri ^]/up^»} fi/^t", p. 728.) which was one of the arguments, ufed to prove the truth of the commonly received doctrine, that the polTelling demons were human fpirits. But Chryfoftom him- felf aflerts, that it was the devil that perfonated the ghofts of thofe who fufFered a violent deaths and hereby caufed men to think, they became demons, that he might deilroy the honour of the martyrs, TYiv ruiv fAx^Tv^oov iTri'^Ei^YitTi iioov^on $o^oiV. ib. In the fame place, he affigns a farther reafon of the devil's conduct in this refpe^t, viz, its prompting magicians to kill a great number of youths, in hopes of their becoming demons, and affording them affiftance in their enterprizes. 'EAtt/J** t«? $0^1- In another part of his works, (in Matth. Hom, xxviii. al. xxix. torn. vii. p. 336.) St. Chryfoftom argues at large, againft the opinion of the fouls of E 2 being 52 On the Demoniacs being fald to be pofleffed by apoftate angels, or by any other than human fpirits, liath hitherto been pointed out in the deccr.fcd becoming demons. Tlljy did the Ga- darene demons lodge in the tombs? he anfwers, cAiOpiov ScyfJioc To7g uroXXo'i'i; h^u\)0(,i (3«Ao|u,fvor olov otl ul r|up/5cl Tctu OLirOK^OMT^y ^jciy.oveg ylvovroci, Ut pcr- niciofam docuinam maltorum mentibus inferant, nempe animas mortuorum daenonas fieri. He fup- pofcs, fome would objc6l, '"^ If the fouls of the " dead arc not converted into demons, why do " magicir.ns kill boys, with a view to their affif- " tance ? and why do demoniacs cry out, / am " the fold of fuch a pcrfon .^" ol ^xt.y.oi/ZvTi; |3oa;c7iV, cri •yuX'''' '^'^ ^i'i^og lyu. Ke folves thcfe objec- tions here, as in the before-cited place, by fup- pofing the devil fpoke in the demoniacs, in order to perfuade men, that human fouls only become demons. From the foregoing paiTages, it appears, that even fo late as the time of Chryfoftom, who lived to the beginning of the fifrh ceniury, it was ftill a prevailing opinion, as well amongft Chriflians as Heathens, that the demons who were thought to poiTefs mankind, were confidered as the fouls of the deceafed, particularly fuch as fufFered a violent death, (fee Dillert. on Miracles, p. 209.) Nay, St. Chryfoftom himfelf, at the very time, that he is oppofing the notion cf the fouls of thofe who fuffcred a violent death becoming demons, afleits, that tlie fouls of wicked men became any of the New Teji amenta ^^ any writer, who lived either before or near the time of Chrift. Now, whe- fuch. And, I question whether the do6^rine he rejedls, did not maintain its ground as lono- as the general belief of poffeflions did. In the year 1564, Hieronymous Magius fays, Ego quoque da^moniaccs non paucos vidi, in quibus immundi fpiritus, dum a faccrdote adjurentur, fe interfec- torum quorundum animas ^\\^ mentlrentur, Va- riar. Ledionum, lib. iv. c. 12. The primitive Fathers boafted, that no devil dared to lie to a Chriftian, (DifTert. on Mir. p. 2175) but in the age of Magius, it feems, devils grew more auda- cious, and would lie even when adjured by a priefl-. It alfo appears from the foregoing parages of Chryfof}om, how little flrefs is to^ be laid upon the oppofition, which he and other Fathers made to the common doctrine concerning pof- fefiing demons : an oppofition that may be ac- counted for, not only by their undue reverence of the Pagan philofophers, but by thofe motives of policy, which had too great an influence upon their general conducSt. Indeed, the Fathers do fo often fpeak from thefe motives alone, (as all muft allow) that it is fometimes difficult to de- termine, when they fpeak agreeably to their own inward perfuafion. St, Jerome (ep. 50. ad Pam- mach.) gives the following very juft account of them : Quia interdum coguntur loqui, non quod fentiunt, fed quod necefie eft, dicunt adverfus ea E 3 ther 54 On the Demoniacs ther when the meaning of an ancient word is in queftion, we fliould be detcr- qua) dicunt Gentiles. Whenever they have an end to fcrve, no caution can be too great in fol- lowing them. In the cafe before us, they had many ends to ferve. If every one v/ho fuffercd a violent death, became a demon in their fenfe of the word, that is, a mifchlevous fpirit; how was it pofliblc to fave the credit of the Chriftian mar- tyrs ? Befides, what could contribute more to bring Paganifm into difgrace, than to reprelent its gods as devils, who perfonatcd thefe gods, and pafled under their names ? This view of the Pa- gan gods ferved alfo to difparage the prophecies and miracles afcribed to them by their worfhip- pers, and the reality of which was too haftily allowed by the Fathers, i^fculapius, the god of the Cicilians, for example, was believed by his worfhippers, to appear to thofe who flept in his temple, and to perform many cures. Now Eu- fcbius (Vit. Conftantini, lib. iii. c. 56.) admits the fads, and afcrlbes them, not to him whom whom the Cicilians worfhipped as a demon or deity, but to a fraudulent fpirit' See belov/, ftiSt. 10. He ought to have demanded proof of the facts ; but he well knew, there was danger in doing this ; bccaufe they ftood upon the very fame foundation, as the miracles afcribed to dei- fied faints. mined of the New Tejlament, 55 mined by thofe vzxy ancients, with whom it was in common ufe ; or by the mere It is of no importance to determine, whether the Fathers were fincere or not, in oppofing the general fenfe of mankind, by afcribing poire/Tions to fallen angels, rather than to human fpirits.. If you fuppofe this to be their real opinion, you are to remember, that it was built, not upon "the authority of Mofes and the Prophets, or of Chrift and his apoftles, but upon that of the Gentile philofophers. If you allow, that they did not really entertain this opinion, your defe^ rence to them, however great, cannot engage you to accede to it. The Fathers well knew, that the Heathen gods were deified human ghofls ; as is fhewn in Diflertation on Miracles, p. 212. They likewife knew, that thefe ghofts were by the Heathens ftyled demons ; (which confirms what was advanced on this fubjetSl above.) Aa/- /xoi/a? ju.£v roi^ T^rcau 4'^%^ J k«A«^t£;, daemonas qui- dem eorum animas vocantes. Clem. Alexan. Strom, lib. vi. p. 775. ed. Potteri. Minucius Felix (in his 0(3:avius, c. 29.) fpeaking of their deify- ing kings, fays, Sic eorum numen vocant, ad imagines fu.pplicant, genium, id eft, dasmonem ejus implorant. See alfo Athenagoras in Legat. pro Chriftianis, p. 29. And though fometimes, in order to account for poffefTions and other Pa- gan miracles, they introduce demons of a higher E 4 afler- 56 Oji the Demoniacs aflertions of the moderns, who have no other way to fupport a favourite hypo- thefis, than by running counter to all antiquity; let the reader judge. The foregoing obfervations concern- ing demons, may enable us to under^ fland what is meaned by a fpirit of divi^ nationy^ (or, as it is in the original, a fpirit of Python or Apollo^,) with which the damfel at Philippi was thought to be polTeffed. Amongft many other forts of diviners in the Pagan world, there was one which were thought to be pofleffed clafs ; yet they often intimate, that Paganlfm had no other fupport than human fraud and impofture. See DifTert. on Mir. p. 241, 242. From the palTages cited above, in the intro- i]u(5tion, p. 7. note ^, it appears, that they themfelves doubted or difbelieved the reality of pofTeffions, though they afierted it in their p-.-pular difcourfes, I have no dcfire of detracting from the juft merit of thefe writers \ and mean only to fhew thofe, who lay too great flrefs on their authority, how little deference is due to it in the cafe before us. * Aa. xvi. 16, i8. with of the New lejlament. 57 with prophef) ing demons "". Bcfides other " names that were given them, they were often called Pythons % from Apollo Pythius ^ one of the chief of all the pro- phefying demons, whofe prieftefs at the famous temple at Delphi was from him called Pythia, He himfelf was the fori of Jupiter and Latona, and born in the ifle of Delos. It was with the fpirit of this dead man, that the damfel at Phi- lippi was thought to be infpired. St. Luke, without allowing her pretenfions, (as we have (hewn elfewhere q,) defcribes ^ Potter's Greek Antlq. vol. i. ch. 12. p. 268, See alfo ch. 9. p. 241, 246. " Such as ^oufxovoXYiTrlotf ly^xr^iiJ^dvTEi^^ Sic, ° Uu^oousg, Plutarch de Orac. defedl. p. 414, E. ^ Or from Python, a famous Byzantine vent- riloquift. See Hefych. Lexicon,- and Vandale de Divinat. Idol, fub Vet. Tell p. 650. This laft writer has well refuted that ftrange, but too com- mon opinion, that by a fpirit of Python, St. Luke meaned the devil. Compare Le Clerc's Sup- plement to Hammond, on Acl. xvi. 16. ^ Diflert, on Mir. p. 275. them fS On the Demoniacs them In the language of the Pagans j which, without doubt, he ufes in the fame fame fenfe as they did, efpecially as he gives no notice to the contrary ; and, confequently, he cannot here refer to any other than a human fpirit. SECT, Ill- Prop. III. Thcfe Demons who were thought to take pojfeffion of mens bodies ^ were, it is probable, conjidered by the yews as evil beings. 'Tn H E word, indeed, is in Itfelf in- different, and was, in the age of the Gofpel, very commonly applied both to good and bad demons '. In the New Teftament it doth not occur always in a bad fenfe ^ : but it fometimes ' Philo de Gigantibus, p, 286, cited in DifTert. on Mir. p. 207, 208. ^ In A£l. xvii. 18. i Tim. iv. I. Rev. ix. 20. it is applied to the fouls of fuch men as were dei- fied or canonized after death. DifTert. on Mir. p. 167, 203, 204. See above, p, 45, 46. doth of the New Tejlament. 59 doth. St. James faith, The devils [demons) believe and tremble \ To fuppofe with Dr. Sykes, that good fpirits are here fpokcn of, doth not agree with the apoftle's reafoning in this place. St. Paul's argument likewife in his firft epiftle to the Corinthians", is generally thought to proceed on the fuppo- fition, that the demons worfhipped by the Heathens were wicked fpirits ; a fuppofi- tion very agreeable to the c/zjr^^^rj-afcrib- ed to them, and the immorality oi the worfhip paid them by their own votaries. Jofephus declares, that demoniacs were pofleffed by the fpirits of wicked men '^. By fuch fpirits, demoniacs amongft the t Ch. ii. 19. The word ufed by St. James is ^tfit/Aovia ; but ^xi(ji.ovix and ^oit^jiovi^ occur in Scrip- ture as fynonimous terms. Compare Mat, viiit 31. Luke viii. 27, 29. Aai/><,onJJ''/?f cannot be taken in a good fenfe. Jam. iii. 15. " I Cor. X. 20, 2 1 . compare 2 Cor. vi. 1 4, 1 5, 1 6. * Bell. Jud. lib. vii. c. 6. § 3, cited above, p. 42. In his hiflory of Saul (Antiq. lib. vi. c 8. § 2. and c. II. § 2.) and Solomon, (Antiq. lib. viii. c. 2. §5,) ^xtiAOvix muft be taken in a bad fenfe. He Hea- 6o On the Demoniacs Heathens (after whom the Jews copied) were thought to be poffeffed''. And it was plainly with a view of difcrediting the miffion, and blading the charader ofChrift, that the Pharifees reproached him as a confederate with the prince of demons. cxprefly reprefents Saul, as felzcd upon by an evil fpirit and demons^ nt iirovnpii Tzrvfu^aro?, xai twv dxi- fAovtooVy Antiq. lib. vi. c. ii. § 2. Neverthelefs, the adjedtive SaniJ-oviog muft be underftood diffe- rently in this author, and as equivalent to divine. It is joined with providence-, Antiq. lib. xiii. c. 1 1. § 3. Bell. Jud. lib. vii. c. 8. § 5. Ode, in his Commentar. de Angelis, p. 202, has obferved, that itafAoviov rs^cU is a divine prodigy, Bell. Jud. lib. i. c. 1 7. PoYi^cix So(.iy.oviog, divine ajfijiancey lib, iv. c. 3. § 14. ^octixoviog (p^o^x, a dejlrudtion from GodyYih, yi. c. 9. § 4. and on account of the pain and mifery he was thought to create. And it is poffible, that demons might be called unclean, becaufe perfons under that me- lancholy and maniacal diforder, of which they were the reputed authors, avoided the fociety of men, and were continually defiling themfelves with objefts efteemed by the Jews unclean. This was the cafe of the man who lived amongfl: the tombs '^ ; by which he contracted the ' See Beaufobrerand Lenfant on Mat. x, i. In Zechariah xiii, 2. God i^xom\{ts^tocaufe the prophets^ and the unclean fpirit to pafs out of the land. Here, as thefe learned writers obferve, the fpirit of the falfe prophets is called unclean, becaufe thefe pro- phets or necromancers were fuppofed to receive their infpiration at fepulchres, I add, that it ap- pears from the Talmud, that the Jews, when they were corrupted by the fuperftition of the Heathens, reforted to fepulchres, where the foult of the departed were thought to remain, that an unclean fpirit might defcend upon them The de- mons themfelves, it was imagined, delighted in defolate places, Rev, xviii. 2. Compare Light- foot's Hor. Hebraic, on Luke xiii, 11, Works, V, ii. p, 442, greateft of the New Tejlament, 63 greateft pollution. Demons are called dumb ^ fpir its ^ and deaf^ and dumb fpirits. Were thefc demons thought to be them- felves deaf and dumb ? Or only to make men fo ? Would not the latter opinion be a fufficient reafon for giving them thefe titles ? In the controverfy concerning the Gof- pel demoniacs, between Dr. Sykes and his opponents, it feemed to be taken for granted by both parties, that if demons were eml fpirits, they muft of neceffity ht fallen angels. But if we allow, that demons were confidered as evil fpirits, it will by no means follow, that they were regarded as beings originally of a higher order than mankind ^ as we have elfewhere fhewn ^ The Fathers of the church generally underftood demon in. ^ Mark ix, 17, / have brought unto thee my fon^ which hath a dumb fplrit. * Thou dumb and deaf fpirit, I tharge ths$ csme out of himy v. 25. I DifTert, on Mir. p. 204, an 64 On the Demo?iiacs an ill fenfe, and thought it was to be fo taken in the fcriptures^ SECT. IV. Prop. IV. T^hofe perfons who are fpoken of as haloing demons, fuffered real, and very violent difordersy from whatever caife ihefe diforders proceeded. "XITH ETHER reputed demoniacs were poflelTed by demons or not, they are ranked in the New Teftament amongft thofe who fuffered the moft grievous diftempers. St. Mathew ^ hav- ing faid in general terms, they brought to Jeftis all fick people, that were taken with DIVERS difeajes and torments \ then s St. Auftin de Ci;^. Dei, lib. ix. c. 19. Tertullian as cited there, p. 548. Origen, contar Celf. p. 234. Eufeb. Praep, Evang, lib. iv, ^ Ch. iv. 24. riavras t^^ xaxw? e;^ovt«?, ■wTOiJct- fj-m^y xal Q-eMvioc^ofAm^j Kits TTic^aPvUTtxa?. fpecifies of the New l^ejlament, 65 then fpecifies the following particular cafes ; eveji tliofe who were pojfejfed with demons, and thofe who were lunatic, and thofe who had the paljy. Here poj^efled perfons, lunatics, and paralytics, though contra-diftinguifhed from each other, are all equally comprehended under the Jick people^ that were taken with divers difeajes and torments. On another occa- fion, the fame evangelitl fays, They brought unto him many that were pojfejfed with demons : and he cajl out the Jpirits. with his wordy and healed all that were Jick y that it ?night be Julfilkd which was Jpoken by EJaias the prophet, HimJelf took our injirmities, and bare our JickneJ/es '. This prophecy concerning Chrift's taking our infirmities, and bearing our Jicknejfes, was accompliflied in part by the cure of demoniacs -, and therefore poiTeffions, are comprehended under injirmities and * Mat. viii» 16, 17. If. liii. 4, F Jck- 66 On the Demomacs ficknejfis S and confequently imply fomc diforder or diftemper in the human frame, from whatever caufe it might proceed. The miracle wrought upon the de- moniacs, is often defcribed in the fame terms as that wrought upon the difeafed j terms that neceffarily imply their hav- ing previoufly laboured under a real dif- temper. St. Matthew fays equally con- cerning demoniacs, lunatics, and para- lytics, he HEALED them\ The fame hifto- rian defcribes the cure of the daughter of a woman of Canaan, who was grievoujly vexed with a demojiy by faying, that fie was MADE WHOLE ". A great multitude of people y fays St. Luke, came to be healed of their difeafes 5 and they that were Taj «(r9fvfi'a?5 xat ret? voV»?. Had not poflef- fions been included under difeafes,, the mentioa of them would not have been omitted. Mat. xi, 5. See below, fe<£l. lo. ' *£9fpa7rfUfl-fv oiVT^gy Mat. iv. 24. Z *U'e>i. Mat. XV. 28. vexed of the New Tejlament. 67 ^exed with unclean fpiritSy and they were healed". At another time, he tells us, that Chriji cured many of their injirmi^ tiesy and plagues y and evil fpir its °. la defcribing the miracle wrought upon demoniacs, the evangelifts fay indiffe- rently, Chrift expelled the demon, or, that he healed the demoniac ^ From hence it appears, that a real diforder was cured, whenever Chrifl is reprefented as ejedling a demon. Amongft the Greeks and Romans alfo, as well as amongft the Jews, thofe perfons who w^ere ^ 'EGipaTTSoovTo, Luke vi. 18. z^vwfAocTUv ■urovri^oov. Luke vii. 21. Inch, viil, 2. we read of certain woinen which had been healed of evil fpirits. See alfo Acl. v. 16. ^ Concerning the epileptic youth, it Is faid, thy difiples could not {^t^QcniZtrxi) cure him. Mat, xvii. 16. The demon departed out of him \ and the child was cured (tOf^aTrfuQr)) from that very hour^ V. 1 8. In Luke ix. 42, it is fald, 'Jefm healed the child. ;^ See alfo Mat. vlii. 16, 17. juft now cited, where Ch rift's hearing away our Jicknejfes, includes the cure of pofTeffions, as well as of other difeafes, X fe^ 4-^^ F 2 thought 68 On the Demoniacs thought to be pojfrefled, fuftered grievous diftempers. This will appear with the fuUell evidence in the two following fedions, where we are particularly to explain the nature of thofe diftempers, which were imputed to poffeffions. All that we mean here to affirm, is, that demoniacs were afflidled with certain diftempers, whether the pofleflion of demons was the real, or only the reputed caufe of them. It was indeed from the well-known appearances and fymp- toms of certain difeafes, that the an- cients inferred, that the patients were poflefled. SECT. of the New Tejlament. 69 SECT. V. Prop. V. 7 he particular diforders 'which the ancientSy whether Heathens or Jews^ afcrihed to the pojjejfion of demons^ were fuch only as dijiurbed the under- (landing. nn O prepare the way for the proof of this propofition, it is neceiTary to to obferve, that we are carefully to diftingulfli, though the diftindion hath not been attended to, between dif- eafes fupernaturally inflicted and pof fejjions. The ancient Heathens attri- buted difeafes, not only thofe attended with extraordinary fymptoms, (as Dr. Sykes ** apprehended,) but difeafes in ge- neral, to the anger of the immortal gods' ; and accordingly from them fought ^ Inquiry, p. 6. Morbos turn ad iram deorum immortalium relates efle, & ab iifdem opem pofci folitam, Celfus, lib. i. praefat, F 3 for ^o On the Demoniacs for relief ^ Sick perfons advifed with their priefts and prophets, as we now do with our phyficians; and expeded to be reftored to health by luftrations and charms, without the ufe of natural remedies, except fuch as were fuggefted by the gods. They did not, however, rcprefent all perfons whom the gods or demons vifited with difeafes, as having thofe gods or demons within them^ which was fuppofed to be the cafe with all demoniacs. When they became fuch, the demon was thought to enter them 5 and at his leaving them, or being expelled from them, they no longer came under this denomination ^ While he remained ^ See Young en Idolatry, vol. ii. p. 85. t In the evangelical hiftory vvc read, that *' the demons ('E^fX^o^Tf? «7r*iA0oi/ aV rr);/ a.yiKm) " came out of the men, and went into the herd of '* Twine." Mat. viii. 32. Compare Mark i. 26. Indeed, the cxpreiiion of cajiing.put demons, which fo often occurs in the New Teflament, fhews, that the popular opinion was, that they had been in the demoniacs. Agreeably to this opinion, the in of the New Tejiament. ' 7 1 in them, they /poke and aded under his influence, without having (as we Gadarene demoniacs, conceiving of themfelves as the mere organs of indwelling demons, fay to Chrifl, If thou cajl us cut, f^ff^^ «^ ^o go away into the herd of fwine : (^I £>cbaAAfi? r[ji.a,<;, iTrlrof^ov ifxTv diTiX^iiv iU rriv oiyiXw ruv %oi^uiv,) Mat. viii, 31. On other occafions, the demons are repre- fented as fpeaking in the poiTefled. The learned and ingenious Semlerus afTerts^ ex verbis illis, I^>iA6ov, l^ri^x^ro ^oiifAoviOi, non conficitur, djemonia effe in horaine v(piroi(ji,£vx^ And he afTigns as the ground of his afTertion, that a fimilar phrafe occurs with refpe£l to the leprofy, 1? XiTT^x uTTi^A^svy Mark, i, 42. Luke v. 13. p. 3^> 3/5 38- In p. 45, note 30, he fays, Cypri- ani inveni primam illam truculentam phrafin, de chfejforum corporibus ejiciuntur j de obfejjis corporlbus exire coguntur.— Illud IxQoiXXEiv, ejicere, induxit interpretes, non vero refertur ad corpus ipfum ho- minis. Indeed, through the whole of his tracSl, he feems more inclined to difpute the perfonal prefence of demons in the human body, than their power of afflicting it with uncommon dif- eafes. And in the palTage here cited, he feems willing to affign the notion of proper pofTefflons, fo late a date as the age of Cyprian. It appears however from the earlieft writers, that demoniacs were fuppofed to have demons within them in perfon. Semlerus himfelf fays, F 4 fliall 72 On the Demoniacs fhall fliew ill the fequel) the ufe of their own underftandings. Now this cannot p. 8. note ^ In corpus intrat daemon fatidicus ; and in proof of this i:flertion, very properly appeals to to Eurip. Bacch. v 300. "Orav ^ap 3-£o\ '£IS TO inM' 'EA0H ziroAJf ; and alfo to Virgil, I£.r\. VI. 77, &c. At Phoebi nondum patiens, immanis in antro bacchatur vates, magnum ^/>ff- tore pofTit excujjijfe deum. Ariftotle (de Mirab. Aufcult. Extrem.) fpeaking of a ftone in the river Nile, exprefTes himfelf in the follovi^ing manner: (^u^T£X^i di >cj tok oaiuovi rm yivoiut.ivoi; ycxro.oig [ I hrafyllus Sc Plutarchus zroieT ^l a^i^x zjcoq r^q $Q(,iu.ovi(^Qy.mtr\ aiji.ix yx^ Ta> ■ZD-porfG>7i/.zt rouq pKr]v 'AnEPXETAI[Thrafyllus'EHEPXETAl]ToJa*^cviov. Vide Thrafyll. apud Stob^um XC VllL & Plutarch, de Fluviis, p. 1159. Jo^'^P^^^s, in the paflage cited from him above p. 42. reprcfcnts the demons zs ente7i?ig thofe called demoniacs; and immediately afcer adds, that the root baaras drives away (fcJfAaui/fi) demons, Elfewhereheaffirms, that Solomon inftrudl- ed men in the art of curing thefe unhappy perfons, which was, by extracting the demon through the nof- trils : i^uAy.sv ot(poA)j7r1ot cf the Greeks, concerning whom Aridotle (lib. i. Ethi- cor. Epidem.) fays, raV kUjM.$oA)i7naj ettivoioi cJ'^jpo- vioc fkOao-ta^fi;^. Lymphans fignifieg, making one mad, It, lymphante deo, vociferans. Stat, Thebaid. vii. 662. the of the New ^ejlament. 79 the Idea of madnefs, or an alienatioa of mind. Their larvati^^ and cerriti^ in particular, who anfwer exadlly to the pojfejfed with demons in the New Teftament, were all mad-men. To be full of larva '^9 or the ghofts of wicked men, was a phrafe exprcffive of the moft outrageous madnefs. In like manner amongfl: the Greeks^' rage and phrenzy were the ufual atten- dants of infpiration and poffeffion ^ 5 and s The larvati are defcribed by Feflus, as furi- ofi, & mente moti, quafi larvis exterriti. la Plautus (Captiv. a6l. iii. fc. 4. v. 65,) it is faid of Ariftophontes, Jam dellramenta loquitur: larvse ftimulant virum. Vid. Aulular. A(5l. iv. (c, 5. V. 15, Larvae hunc, atque intemperiae, infaniaeque agitant virum. ^ Hellade percufla, Marius cum praecipitat fe, Cerritus fuit ? Hor. Sat. lib. ii. fat. 3. v. 27B. ^ Juarvarum pleni. Plaut. Amphitruo, A'^. ii. fc. 2. V. 144. See Dr. Sykes's Inquiry, p. 17. v/A£Tf^ov jBactAsa XiXoc^mi^ -Kj P«)t;;^£ufi, y^ vtto ts S'fS fAoclvBTxi, Herodotus, lib. iv. c. 79. The Heathen prophets, who are always reprefented as pofleffed by their deities, were befide themfelves. the So On the 'Demoniac i the fame word denoted both tht being mad^ and having a demon \ The highefl degrees Ni/y ^\ •roc fxiyifx rcov ocyaucov t/i^juv yiyviroct $ix fAocvixgy d'E^'cc fxivroi $o(TH $ih(Ji.i\>y\i' *i Tf yx^ Sri iv /leX(poT^ ■BT^ocprjTK, al' T IV Aoo'jovvi leoHai^ ^uveTrrxi fjklv zroXXoc ^ri >^ KjtAci, l^ioc Tf ^ Sn(ji.o(7ix Triv 'ExXaJ'a tl^yd^ aA»&ac. The manner in which Dio Chryfoftoin defcribes the cafe of a prieftefs of Hercules, con- firms the general propofition of Plato : TxZrx >^ iXtyh a;^' u(T7n^ ol "sroXAol Tcav XtyoiJt.ivoou hhoov xva^Uf. ^ yvvxiycoovy aVO|Uta 'v«cj zJ£^^$iVii3^x rnv KiCpecXYiv y^* ipr,^ furcre dicebat. A:iif/.o-Jxv ^l Kj t^V K* T. A. itidem illos etiam aiebat furcre. In the fame fenfe it is u fed in Keliodorus, lib. iv. cap. lo, 9\ zrocTc ^oiiuovixv EOtKf, 8Ta'? cc\?kOKoIcv ri to k^^T a-jTr^v I ii^iam larvae frimulare videntur, adeo inuntatura quiddam illi accidit. The fame author adds, ^xi^o))oi)f rm Ho^r.v^ furias {limulare puellam. Lu- cian calls demoniacs under great terrors, r^g ^xi- fAovu:/lxg ; and defcribes them, as lunatic^ KxiocrriTr-' TQvlccg -crcog tyiv (TiXvivrrj^') as flaring with their eyes, foaming at the mouth, and being fpeechlefs. Phi- lopfeud. p. 337. ed, Amftelodam. p. ^i.^. ed. Par. Suidas hath produced a pafTage (from Colle(51:an. Conftantini Imperatoris, a ValeHo editis, p. 145.) in which §oiiixcvr,(TO(,; denotes infania correptus* In the Phceniife of Euripides, v. 895. oaiwos/wvla? is ufed to defcribe thofe who were befide thcm- felves. "" Lambert Bos (in his Exercit. Philolog. p. 62.) obferves, KastoJ'aijuovai' eft apud Ariitophan, in Pluto, A£g in the fame fenfe as they are calkd jxxuscoiiy beati. A^ye yxo txoi^ ov txtcktAoh G 2 fubjefts. 8 4 0;2 the IDemoniacs fubje(5ls, as well as on this, adopted the phrafeology and fentiments of the Hea- thens. When Jofephus fays, that cer- tain Jewifh impoftors, perfuaded the inuU tit lid e to he pojj'ejfed by a demon'' ^ he can only mean,, that thefe impoftors worked up the people into a phrenzy, or prevail- ed upon them to ad: like mad men^ The madnefs of which the multitude Sebs (pn? Eudaj^xova? Etyat jc, xaXa? ; Die enim mihi, nonne omnes als decs beatos efle atquc bonos ? Plato in Sympof. The fame epithet is often ap- plied to particular gods, as the reader may fee, by confulting Ode de Angelis, p. i88. Kajto^ai^wu denotes unhappy or wretched^ and in this fenfe oc- curs continually in exclamations, when perfons complain of their mifery ; (as the fame learned writer allows^ p. 190.) and on other occafions : particularly in Lucian de Luclu, v. 2- p. 304^ w yixv.Q'Joiiixov avO^coTTf, Homo infelix, Thofe who- brought their mifery upon thcmfelves were de- fcribed by this term : Tov rt H^JIai aoiyJoiV (pmt (pv-cg. Cupidmem vero naturae vitium appellabat, cui fuccumbentes miferi' Tpio-fucJ'ai/xiou is ter beatus ; and T^yrxccao- ^txlfji.(i)v is tcr infelix. Ode p. 190. Auitxovoc-j TO jsM^i^ aWti-OGv, Bel. Jud. lib. ii. cap. I 3. § 4. were of the New Tejlanmif, 85 were guilty, did not proceed from de- monical poffeffion, but from human ar- tifice or perfuaiion. This is a very re- markable pafTage; becaufe it contains a clear proof, that the Jews fpoke of per- fons as being pofleflfed by demons, or as having demons, when they meaned mere- ly to affirm, that they were mad. Light- foot^ hath Ihewn, that the Jews were wont to attribute to evil fpirits, fuch difeafes as difturbed the mind; and, what is more to our purpofe ftill, that thofe vexed with an evil fpirit were infane % They even gave the fame name both to demons and difeafes, from whatever caufe thofe difeafes might proceed. Kor- dicusy fay they, is a demon who rules over thofe that drink too much new wine ; and P Hot. Hebr. Mat. xvli. 15. as cited above^ p. 76. 4 Compare what the fame author hath ad- vanced on Mat. viii. 28. and Luke xiil, n. and what occurs below at the beginning of the next fection with refpedl to the Jews. G 3 it 86 On the 'Demoniacs it is a difeafe generated from the repletion of the veffels of the brainy whereby the under- /landing is confounded , and it is a kind of f ailing ficknefs \ ...: It probably was from the eaftcrn na- tions, that all other people derived their notion of demons ; we cannot therefore be furprifed to find, that the nations bordering upon Judea, as well as thofe before taken notice of, join infanity and poffeffion together. The Arabic word Gjin, according to Cailellus *, which fignifies a demon, fignifies madnefs; ' Llghtfoot, Hor. Hcb. Mat. xvii. 15. Mal- monidcs in Sabbat. II. t;. (cited by Wetftein, vol. i. p. 283, b.) Spiritum malum vocant omnes fpecies jnorborum, qui vocantur melancholia. Et in Eru- bin. iii. 4. Spiritum malum vocant omne dam- num, quod non venit a manu hominis, fed alia, quaccunque illi fuerit, caufa. In Gittin. vii. I. quern cepit Cardiacus. Bartenora : animus per-. turbatur ob malum fpiritum, qui prsdominatur in eo qui bibit vinum novum. At Mu'imon eft in- iirmitas, quas procedit ex reccfTu cerebri, undc perturbatur mens. * Lex. Polyg. and of the New Tcjlament. Sj and maginiuty which denotes a pcrlbii poffejjed by a demon, is uTed for a per ib a furious and infane. With fuch unifor- mity did all the ancient nations, in their rcfpedive languages, exprefs madnefs by demoniacal poffeffion ! And is net this a clear proof, that the former was a conftant attendant upon the latter ? Accordingly we find in fadl, that thofe whom the ancients conceived to be pof- feffed, were infane in their underftand- ings. This appears from a thoufand in- flances. 1 iliall only take notice, that their dramatic writings are our fureft rule whereby to judge what opinions prevailed in common life : and that in the plays of ^fchylus % of Sophocles ', Concerning Oreftes, fee the Chcephorae of i^fchylus, V. 1 053, 4. In the Agamemnon of the fame poet, v. 1 149, it is faid of Caffandra, ^fiivoixavrii; nq tt ^io'3po^-/}^y Lymphatica es numi- ne incita. In like manner Lycophron CafTandra, *H (J* i))^iQV y&.c, fj-ixivstixt. In like manner Ifocrates, (Orat. Areopagit vol. i. p. 34.8. ed. Battle,) makes mention of :iXKQ^Qcii/.Qvr,(Tx^uv ^ Thus in Philodratus, (Vlt. Apollon. Tyan* Jib. iii. cap. 38. p. 128.) when the mother was afked, why fiie thought her Ton poffeiTed by a demon, fhe replied, the demon a ^''J'yx^'i^''' ^^^^ yk-^ iyjiVi non fana ilium mente patitur cfle, it 94- On the Dc??2o?imcs it proceeded, it is poffible they might defign to reproach him with this alone. Neverthelefs, on this fuppofition their language is grounded on the connexion there was originally fuppofed to be be- tween pofTeffion and infanity, Thofe who thought favourably of Chrift, re- plied to the calumny of his enemies, 'Tliefe are not the words cf him who hath a demon ^ \ that is, ^* We cannot difcover *' any thing in his difcourfes, that looks •* like the ravings of a demoniac, or *' from whence it can be juftly inferred, " that he is difordered in his under- *' /landing". At another time, the Jews being un- able to bear the fevere reproofs of this divine prophet, broke out again into rage and reviiings : !Say we iiot well, that thou art a Samaritany (one that beareft us the moft implacable hatred,) and haft a demon \ that is, *• art quite befide thyfelf ?" Or they " John X. 21. [ Ch. viii. 48. might of the New Tejl anient, g^ might mean, that he was a pojfejfed madman^ Jefus replied, 1 have not a de* mon^t *^ I fpeak the words of truth and fo- ** bernefs." When he added, If a man keep my faytngs, he JJjall never fee death ^i his enemies, from the bitterefl: malignity, wrefling his words into an abfurd fenfe, accufe him again. Now we know thou hnjl a demon '\ ** nothing can be more evident, ** than that (under the influence of an evil " fpirit,) you mull have loft your fenfes." Abraham is dead^ and the prophets ; aiid thou fay eft, If a man keep f72yfayingy he fhall never tafle of death. Art thou greater than our father Abraham ^ who is dead; and the prophets who are dead? whom makeji thou thyfelf? On an occafion ft ill different from thefe, they repeat the fame language. He had accufed them of a de- fign to take away his life; which they s Ver. 49. ^ Ver. 51. * Ver. 52. th us g6 On the 'De?no7nacs thus difclaim, T^hoii hajl a devil ( demon y) who goeth about to kill thee ^^ ** What evi- ** dence have you of our wanting to mur- ** der you ? If your underflanding were *' not difturbed (by a demon,) you would ** not have advanced fuch a o^roundlefs *' charge'." •^ Ch. VII. 20. ^ The foregoing paiTages may, perhaps^ enable us to underhand, Mark iii. 22. The f crib es which came down from yerufale?n, fa'idy He hath Beelzebub, A learned and ingenious writer conjedlures, that the meaning is. He hath Beelzebub at hand, as his ajjociate and minijler* But /• carry him fuch great lengths,) to reproach him with being poffeiTed by the prince of demuns, or with the highefl degree of abfurdity and infinity* ^ Mat. xviii. II. Luke vii. 33. In the feveral paflages cited above, I have explained the phrafe, having a demon^ in fuch a manner as to include in it the idea o^ pojfejfion as well as that of infanity -, becaufe both thefe were originally included in it. Neverthelefs, it ought to b€ obferved, that words often lofe a pare of their H light 98 On the Demoniacs light demoniacs were regarded in our Saviour's time, and by thofe very perfons original meaning -, and that this may be the cafe here. Having a demon^ might be, and probably was, ufcd by the Jews in genera), as the equivalent phrafe, being pojjejjed by a demon^ certainly was by Jofcphus in par- ticular, to cxprefs mere madnefs, without in- cluding in it dem.oniacal pofleflion as the caufe. It is certainly not necejfary to underhand the phrafe in its moft extenfive meaning in all, or indeed in any of the palTages which we have cited : for what the Jews wanted to ir.fer from the difcourfes of Chrill, and the behaviour of John, was, that they were difordered in their underftandings, anct therefore not worthy to be attended to. Why hear ye him ? was their language concerning Chrilt. John X. 20. To me it feems evident, that the prin- cipal idea affixed to the phrafe in queftion was that of infanity. So the Jews themfelves explain it, He hath a demon^ and is mad. When fome, who thought favourably of Chrift, replied, Thefe are not the tuords of him who hath a demon^ they muft mean, that they obferved in his difcourfes no figns of phrenzy ; nor doth it appear, that they meaned more thar^ this, by denying that he had a demon. In- deed, if perfons fpoken of as poflefled, were not difordered in their underftanding, why might they not fpcak and a6t as rationally as other men ? In who of the New Tejlament, 99 who converfed perfonally with hlni. And their fentiments are perfedly con- formable to thofe of all other perfons in the ancient world. What reafon then is there to fuppoft, that Chrift and his apoftles entertained a different idea of demoniacs from what all other perfons did? This is a point which ought not to be admitted without proof. If there be no proof of it, (and none hath ever yet been offered,) the very con- trary ought to be admitted. It fliould be taken always for granted, (as we obferved before on another oceafion) that all men ufe words in their ordinary figniheation, when there is no reafon to believe the contrary. The New Teflamerit, how- ever, ftirnifhes us with clear and certain proof, that the facred writers did ufe the phrafe, having a demons in the fame fenfe as others did. a word, the whole debate turned upon this fingle point : Is there, or not, any thing in Chrift's difcourfes inconfiftcnt with a found underflanding? H 2 This 5 CO On the Demoniacs This proof arifes in part from the account given of the Gadarene demo- niac °. St. Mark defcribes him as a man with (or rather in) an unclean fpir it ^ 'y and St. Luke calls him a man that had de- mons"^. From this laft phrafe, if inter* preted agreeably to the ufe of it amongft the Jews, we may infer, that he was not in his right mind : and th^ fame in- ference may alfo be drawn from the for- -mer. For we have flievvn elfewhere% that to be in the fpirit, is an expreffion that implies feme fufpenfion of our own faculties, and our thinking and ading under a foreign impulfe and impreffion. This ^\\V2iiQybeingin afpirity is equivalent to ** Matthew mentions two demoniacs, ch. viii. 28. But Mark (ch. v. 2.) and Luke (ch. viii. 27.) take notice only of one ; as I likewife fhall do in this place, my prefent argument not de- pending upon their number. ^ 'E;/ Tji/fUjtAoIi axa03i^1w, Mark v. 2. ^ O? il^xi ^aijuona, Luke viii. 27. ' Inquiry into the Nature and Defign of Chrift's Temptations in the Wildernefs. that of the New Tejiamejit. loi that which more frequently occurs, haV" ing afpirit or demon-, as appears not only by comparing Mark and Luke together, in the paffages here referred to, but alfo from Mark himfelf. For wt the very fame perfon, concerning whom, he fays *, that he was in a?i unclean fpirit^ he defcribes -f* as the man that had the legion, and was poj/ejjed by a demon. If the former phrafe therefore imports a fpiritual impulfe that controuls the rational faculties, the latter muft do fo too. The farther particulars mention* ed concerning the demoniac at Gada- ra, confirm this account of his diforder. For we are told, that he had been often bound with chains and fetters, and as often broke them^ impatient of all re- ftraint; that he lived amongft the tombs ', far from the converfe of men, * Ch. V. 2. t Ver. 15, 16. ^ See below, ch. ii. fe6l. i. No. 4. * The melancholy, efpecially under the par- oxyfms of this diforder, delight in folitude and H 3 making 102 On the Demoniacs making dreadful ont-cries day and night] that he was fo exceeding fierce, as to make it dangerous for travellers to pafs darknefs, Maimonides in Sabbat. II, c. Dr. Li^ht- > f f ' foot tells us, (Hor, Hcb. on Mat viii. 28.) that lodging among the tombs was reckoned by the Jews as one fign of a madman, (rompare Wetften, in loc. p. 355 ) Dr. Freind likewife (Hiftory of Phyftck, part I. p. 18, 2 1.) fays, that one of the mofl remarkable fymptoms of the madnefs called ]ycanthropy was, to wander aynongji the fepukhres cf the dead. Bellerophon is defcribed by Homer, lib. vi. ver. 202, -u^oirov avOpojTrwu aAen'vwv, veftigia hominum vitans. See Euripidis Bacch, v. 32, 33. A fimilar paffage from Aetius III. 8, 9. is cited by Wetften. on Mat. viii. 28. p, 354. The fepulchres in the eaftern countries are not in towns and cities, but in folitary and unfrequented places ; and in this view they fuited the melan- choly apprehenfions of demoniacs. But what feems to have difpofed them to refort to thefe man- fions of the dead, rather than to other gloomy re- cefTes, was the apprehenfion of their being poflefTed by the fouls of dead men, which were fuppofed, wicked fouls efpecially, to hover up and down about their burying places. See Plato's Phaedon, p. 386, C. ed. Ficini. Macrobius in Somn. Scip. )ib. i. cap. g, 13. Porphyr. de Abftin. lib. ij, § 47. Ladant. Div. Inftimt. lib. ii. cap. 2. Tibul- ^ear of the New Tejlament. 103 near him''; that he wounded himfelf with flints, and was without clothing. The converfation he held with Chrift is a farther proof of his infanity ; as there will be occafion to (hew in the fequel. Af- ter his cure, he is defcribed as being in his right mind'' , which before his cure there- fore he could not be ; for this defcrip- tion of him is direftly oppofed to his for- mer ftate as a demoniac, or as one faid to be poffeffed by demons ^. From hence it follows, not only that this de- moni:^c was a madman ; but that his be- ing fuch was an idea intended to be con- lus I. 6. 15. See alfo Hieronymiis Maglus, Vari- arum Lectionum, leu Mifcellaneorum, lib. iv. «ap. 12 " See Wetftenlus on Mat. vlii. 28. ^(a(pov'^v\(x, Mark v. 15. Luke viii. 35, ^ They fee him that was pojfeffed with a deinon (toi/ J'aijOtovi^ofAfvov) and had the legion^ fittings and ihthed, and in his right mind, Mark v. 15. See aSfo Luke viii. 35. In like manner, fpeaking tht words of fob erne fs (<7wip^o(ruvJij,) is oppofed to being mad. Ad xxvi»«25. H 4. veyed 304 On the Demoniacs veyed of him by the hiftorians, when they defcrlbcd hirn as a demoniac. They might alfo hereby farther intend, that his madnefs was regarded as the efFe6l of poiTeffion, or fuch as was ufually afcribed to that caufe. This man and his affociate are the only inftances of demoniacs, whofe cafe is recorded with fuch particular circum- flances. But when perfons are de- fcribed in the fame general terms as thefe men are, as having demons ^ or a7i unclean fpirit^ and in terms of the fame import ; ought we not tounderftand this language, on thefe occafions, in a fenfe conform- able to the ufe of it in a cafe, where it is impolTible to miftake its meaning ? If in the hiftory of the Gadarene demoniac, the evangelifts ufed this language to exprefs madnefs -, did they exclude this idea from it at other times, for the fake of contra- diding themfelves, as well as all the reft of the world ? Thofe of the New Tejlainent. 105 Thofe who lived near the times of the evangelifts, were under no difficulty to underftand their meaning ; as appears from a paflage of Celfus concerning Mary Magdalene ; in which he calls her a dijlraBed woman ^, referring to the ac- count given of her in the gofpels, that out of her went /even dejnons \ Seven ^^ was fometimes ufed by the Jews as the number of perfedion, and it frequently denotesy^i; that to be a defnoniac, de- notes in the New Tcftamenty as in all ©ther ancient authors, a poffc/Jcd madmariy or rather a perfon affli(!ted with fuch jiind and degree of madnefs as was ori- ginally afcribed to pofleffion. Such therefore each of thefe demoniacs muft have been, under v/batever other diforders they might labour. It is not pretended, that their other difordfs v/ere inconfiftent with what wa$ called poffcfnon ; they were rather confidered as the effe expreiTed by faying, the patient had a \ Ch, xii> 32. ' Ch. xi. 14. diitnh. oj the ]^ew Te/tamcnt. H5 'dumb fpirit 5 hereby diftinguilhlng this dumbnefs from that which is owing to natural caufes^ or to a defedt in the or- gans of fpeech ". Agreeably hereto we are told^ that when the demon was gone out (or the madnefs imputed to the de- mon was cured), the dunib man f pake "", When the prOphetefs Pythia was out of her fenfes, and opprefied with too ftrong an infpiration, (he was faid to be jilled with a dumb and evil fpirit '^, Th^fecond like- wife was a cafe of melancholy y which ia the opinion of the ableft judges. Hippo- cates and Galen % may produce either apoplexieSj or convulfions^ or blindnefs^ ac- cording to the part on which the pituitous humour falls *. Thefe cafes^ therefore, " See above, p. 109, iio. "^ Mat, Ix. 33; '^ 'AA«A8 >cJ MO'.yoi wj/iupt^lof. Plutal^ch, de Orac. defeat, p. 438. Hippocrates' in his Aphorifms, lib, vi. aph. 56, and Galen in his obfervations upon it. Thefe obfervations may ferve to explain the cafe of the epileptic youth, more fully than we did I 2 da 156 On the Demoniacs do not at all difligree with that idea of 3 demoniac, which we before endeavoured to eftablifli, which is that of a perfon ui^der an alienation of mind, or difordcr of underftanding, proceeding, or origi- nally thought to proceed, from the pof- feffion of demons. The learned writer " farther appeals to paralytical cafes, in fupport of his hypo- thefis. But paralytics are never fpoken of in the Gofpel as demoniacs. Nay, the Gofpel exprefly diftinguiflies palfies from pofTeffions '. Dr. Lardner ^ like- wife preffcs into the fervice two paffages above, p. 107, J 08, 109. He had a fpirit that was not only dmnh^ like the perfons whofe cafe we are confMlering, bift^Y^alfa. With regard to this la'ft circumftance, it may be obferved, that if the pi- tuitous humour falling upon the optic nerves occa- flons blindnefs, as the moll learned phyficians telf ws it will j the fame humour falling upon the nuditory nerves may occafion deafnefs. "^ P. 98. ^ Mat. iv. 24, cited tibovc, p. 64. * P- 58. 59. wbicb t)f the New Tejiament, i\j which have been already explained'^; that which fpeaks of a woman whom Satan bound '^ and that which defcribes all dif- eafed perfons as opprejfcd by ^ the deviL With regard to both thefe parages, it has been fliewn, that a diftindion fhould be made between diforders which the Jews confidered as injii5led by evil fpirits, and fuch as they afcribed to evil f^'uiis po [J ejf^ ing mankind. Difeafed peribns in gerberal were' thought to fufFer under the power of evil fpirits ; but thofe only were thought to be pofleffed, whom evil fpirits entered and aduated, occupying the feat of the human foul, and performing its various fundions. If poffeffion was com- mon to all the difeafed, it could not have been employed, in the manner it is in the NewTeftament, to diftinguifh one fort of difeafed perfons from another. We have now examined all Dr. Lard- ner's objeftions to the account we have ^ P. 74, 76. 1 3 given 1 1 8 On the Demoniacs given of the Gofpel demoniacs. And if he (who was fo well acquainted with the fubjcd) did not think it liable to any other, we may prefume no other can be railed againft it. I fliall clofe this fedion with obferving, 1. That what hath been here ofrered, confirms what was before *^ advanced to prove, that demoniacs laboured under real and violent diforders. Such, it will be allowed, epilepfles and madnefs are. 2. From the foregoing account of the Gofpel demoniacs, it alio appears, upon what grounds pofieflions might be diftin- guiflied from difeafes in general, and from lunacies in particular. It hath been (hewn % that, on feveral occafions, the New Teftament includes pofleflions under the general ttrmSyf^ck-^ nejjl's and difeafes i and confequently confi- dersthem asoneparticular fpecies of them, ' Sea. iv, ' P. 6s. Ax of the New Tejlament. 1 19 At other times, it diftinguiihes poffefTions from difeales in general, in conformity to the popular language, which it adopted on this fubje<3:, for reafons that will be explained hereafter^. Thofe who firft introduced this language confidered pof- iefiions as difiindl: from every kind of difeales ; for, while the latter implied fome diforder in the corporeal fyftein,thc former, in their opinion, foppofed the corporeal fyftem, however found in itfelf, to be adluated and over-ruled by a fupe- rior agent. »^^^ /f^ t^r^<^ ^ /o. 3^S . * But to fome it feems ftrange, that pof- feffions, if they import madnefs, fhould be diftinguilhed from lunacies. That the New Teftament doth diftineuifli between them, I readily allow'; and it is not with- out reafon, that a learned writer ^ blames ^ See below, chap. 11, feci. iii. i Matt. iv. 24- ^ Dr.Warburtoii,Serm,vo]. In.p.224,125. Some exprciHons of Dr. Sykes, againft whom thebifhop's fermon is particularly levelled, feem to have given occafion to the cenfure of this learned writer. I 4 thofe 120 071 the Dcfnojiiacs thofe who confound them together. But the anti-demonift is under no neceflity of doing this. In order to underftand this matter, it is necellary to examine the fen- timents of antiquity concerning it; for the evangelills have not delivered any new fyllem of phyfics, but on fuch fubjefts followed the modes of fpeaking then in ufe. Now it was the general opinion of antiquity, that fome difeafes are owing to the influence of the celeflial bodies; and that the paroxyfms and periods of others are regulated by the moon in particular'. This was the cafe more efpecially with refpedl' to epileptic difeafes^ the jfits of which, it was affirmed, conftantly return- ed every new and full moon. Galen fays, the moon governs the periods of epileptic cafes'^', and others referred the difeafe ' Dr. Mead's Treatlfe concerning the Influence of the Sun and Moon upon human Bodies, and the pifeafes thereby produced, p. i, 2. ^ pe Piebus criticis, I. iii, cited by Mead^p. 3$. of the New Tejlament. itX entirely to this planet ". Hence epileptics were, by the Greeks and Latins, called lunatics. The evangelift Matthew, there- fore, without doubt, by lunatics meaned epileptics \ He could not be ignorant of the common fignification of this term ; and hath himfelf recorded an inftance of its application to an epileptic cafe *. Hence it appears, on what grounds the ancients in general, and the evangelifls in parti- cular, diftinguiihed between demoniacs and lunatics ; the former of whom we call maniacs, and the latter epileptics. Thefe two diforders are attended with very different fymptoms ; and they were formerly by fome afcribed to " Aretaeus de diuturnis Morbis, 1. i. cap. 4. or Mead, p. 46. Epileptics were^ hy the Greek writers, fometimes called o-fAriViaKoi, (Alexand. Trallian. 1. i. c. 25) dnd in the hijlories of the Gojpely (TfArjvja^o'jafvoj, (Matt, xvii, 15; and by fome of the Latins after- wards, lunatici^ (Apuleius de Virtutibus Herbar. c, 9 & 65.) Mead, p. 38. See alfo note (P) below. * Mat. xvii. 15. ' > dif. I2i On the 'Devionuics different caufes, (one to the inhabitation of demons, the other to the influence of the mooHj) from which they borrowed their refpedive denominations. It is ne- ceflary to add, that the fame perfon was reputed by many both a demoniac and a lunatic : a demoniac, becaufe they refer- red the epilepfy to the pofl^ffion of de- mons ; ahmatic, becaufe the nts of this diforder were thought to keep lunar p';:- riods. If fome afferted the natural influ- ence of the moon upon this diforder ; others taught, that the patients were more fubjed to the incurfions of demons at the changes of this planet than at any other time ^ This, perhaps, was thought to be the ^ Apud Matth. iv. 24, ubl Gra^ceeft (rAjji/ia^Oia/- >K?, interprcs Arabs (in cditione Romana, 1619) li Latlne exponamus, vertit, ruentes in principiis lu- nationum. Maxime vero plenilunio infeftantur. Nee obfcura eft ratio ; quia turn plenius cerebrum eft humoribus ; unde et tunc idonei magis, qui a dasmcne vexentur. Talis epilepticus ille qui a MatthaeOj xvii, 14, lunaticus dicitur : Lues autcm cafe of the New Tejimnent. 123 cafe of the youth defcribed in the Gofpel. His father reprefents him both as hma-- tic ^nd /ore vexed with a demon. He was what fome modern phyficians'^ call epi- leptic mad''. He was not confidered as being mad or vexed with a demon at all times, but only under the paroxyfms of ix. 39. demoniacus vocatur. Hanc rem fic ex- preflit Juvencus, I. iii. Nam curfus lunje natum mihl dsemoiiis arte Torquet. VofTius on Idolatry, 1. il. c. 19, p. 203- Stilling- fleet, Oiig. Sacr, p. i66. See alfo Grotlus oa Matt. xvii. 15, and Marie ix. 27, and the citation from Lucian produced i*bove, p. Sr, note ('), Pricasus, on Matt. iv. 24, in the 5th volume of the Critic! Sacri, p. 8296, hath the following note : Bafil de fceneratorlbus agens, Wnvici^oi a,7rxir7[rx\^ u^tts^ ol rotg £7rtArjU//«9 Tr&iBi/rff J^xi^aovEj, xaros raj TDi^io^ai; rug /.oviC^Q^i]iozlfi^r,7oci, 7\oyifT^->i ytxi ^tx^i^ix?-. He afterwards calls the demoniac f/.xivoy.ivov, and diflinguifhes ^olmiuv Ik ^ixAf/jW^'xarc?, aut $irtvixu>^. Vide Chryfoftomi Epift. tt^oi; 'Erccyil^iov ^s^.ty,ov(c»Tx^ Eum omnitno afTectum videbis prout quos nos w^- lancholicos appellamus. Vide eundem dc precrbus in ecclefia pro energumenis, Homil. 4 &: 5. De in- comprehenfibili Dei Natura, verfus finem, inter fermones ad pop. Antioch, SECT. laS On the Demoniacs SECT. Vll. Prop. VII. Demoniacal po^ffejionsy fwhe* ilier they arefuppofed to be real or imagi" nary) , and the diforders imputed to them, were not peculiar to the country ofjudea, and the time ofChriJl-, nor doth it, appear ^^ that they abounded more in that country^ or at that time^ than any other. TT hath been confidently afferted, that there were no demoniacs, or not fo many, amongft any other people as the Jews ; nor amongft them but about out: Saviour's time. Hence unbelievers (un- happily prejudiced againft the Gofpel by fuch mifreprefentations of it) have afked, ** How came it to pafj, that the devil had " more power over the worshippers of the ** true God, than over thofe who had rc- *^ nounced their allegiance to him ? And " how came the devil to exert his power ** at the appearance of his judge and ** avenger. of the New Tejlament. 1 29 •'^ avenger, rather than at any other time, *' when he might do it with more hopes ** of impunity ? Or, can we regard Chrift ** as the Saviour of mankind, if he gave ** the devil new powers to deftroy them ?'* In anfwering thefe objections, Chridiaii writers, inftead of inquiring into the truth of the fad, have chofen rather to take it for granted, and fet themfelves to account for it. ** There might be poiTeffions in former times, fay they, though there are none now. A greater liberty and power might be allowed the evil fpirit in the age of Chrift, than in any other, on account of the intimate relation that demoniacal pojj'tf* fions have to the doctrine of redemption "", and for other weighty reafons, fuch as the glory that accrued to God, and the tefti- mony that was borne to Jefus \ when " Bifhop Warburton's Serm. vol. ili. p. 229. ^ Id. p. 217. Dr. Macknight's Truth of the Gofpel Hiftofy, p 169. Stillingfleet, Orig. Sacr. p. 166. This laft very learned writer is at a lofs K Satan J 3^ On the Demoniacs Satan was cad out by a divine power."' On this laft' account, one'' learned writer afllrn^s, that '' in the poffcffiort of the bo- dies of men, he feems to have been, in part, FORCED upon the employment." Neverthel-fs> according to the fame wri- ter, there could have been no great back- wardnefs on the part of the devil to tor- «nent mankind ^ for he fays, ** It would be ftrange, could we find no marks of 'the rage of his expiring tyranny"." to determine whether frequent pofTeffions, at and after the time of ChriPi-, were owing to the malice of the devil, ib orxler to difparags the miracles of our Saviour, or, to the providence of Godp in order to augment his glory. ^ Waiburton, p. 220, 221, ^ P. 217. Dr. Joriin thought, (as Jenkins "^xi^o '], K4 of 136 0?! the Demoniacs of Chrift. Lucian wrote his Philopfeudes, on purpofj to expofe the folly of the learned phyfic-ans, and the moft able phi- lofophers, the heads of their feveral fedts, for their abfurd attachment to demonifm, polTeffions, and magic ^ Thefe articles, at that time, feem to have compofcd the . pommon creed of all men, except the fol- lowers of Democritus ^ The exprefs mention made of demoniacs (under this very name) by Lucian \ by Plutarch', ^ In the Philopfeudes of Lucian, Cleodomus the Peripatetic, Dlnomzchus the Stoic, and Ion tht Pla- toniji-i do all plead the caufe of denionifnj, vol. ii, p. 33O5 &c. ed. Var. Amflel. 1687. Towards the clofe of the dialogue, p. 346, a Pythagorean is introduced to give his fandion to the fanii? do<5lrine. So that pofTelHons, cxorcifms, and magic compofed the creed of the philofophers of different fecSl-s, as well as of the common people, in the time of Lucian. ,' .^ Lucian, ubi fupra, p. 349 '- :^ He fpeaks of thofe who delivered detnoniacs from their Urrjrs., raq ^o(,i^oMUi\/toc(; aVaAPi arli^ci txv ^n>xx- xoiVy Philopfeud. p, 337. See above p. 23. ' Plutarch fays, (Sympof. 1. vii. c. 5.) The magiciaiis and of the New Tejlament. 137 and by Apollonius'', bears ample teftimo* ny to the common perfuafion concerning the exigence of fuch perfons in their times. The eftablifhed theology of the heathen world, from its firft rife to its final overthrow, refted upon the bails of demonifm. Scarce was there a fingle oracle delirered but by a perfon faid to be pofTeffed. With regard to the Jews, Jofephus tells us, that the method of exor- cifm prefcribed by Solomon prevailed or Jucceeded greatly among them down to his own time\ Indeed, the very exiftence of commanded the demoniacs to read over and pronounce the Epbeftan letters. He ufes the very word ^octfjcovi^ofAt- v»?5 which is commonly ufed in theNewTeftament. ^ In Philoftratus's Life of Apollonius, mention is made of a young man who had been a demoniac two years, ^ocii^ovav ^l ^vo ir-/}^ lib. iii. cap, 38. p. 1285 ed. Olear. Concerning another youth, it ii faid, ^xifAooif iXavvH tri. And Apollonius under- took to caft out demons, lib. iv. cap, 2C, p. 157. i%^H) Antiq. lib. viii. cap. 2. § 5. In fpcaking of 138 On the Demoniacs exorciJIs"^^ both before and after the time of Chrift, and the genera! prevalence of magic arts'" amongft this people, as well as amongft the Gentiles, are a full proof that a belief of frequent poffeflions was com- Saul,(Antiq.lib.vi.cap. 8. §2.) he hys, de}nGns came upon himy "zrffr/i^p^fTo -csx^n nyoi, xa» ^aiixovioc^ aiid that ivben the demons ca?ne upon him, and difturhed him^ (^OTTOT civ aurw -sr^ocioi^ rx Scciixovia. xcci TJcparlct,) ^^David ivas his only phyftdan againjl the d'ljiurhance ])€ fuffercd from thtm^ and brought hhn to his right mind again^ Trps^Try a?ro rwv cF5ti^i/.cj/w'j -voL^o^yy^-j^ — ^cvof laxflo? Jv— Ji^l ttTOi'I^y \ol'^-z yina^on to'j SauAcy. In cap. Ii» § 2, he makes Jonathan fay to his father, that when an evil fpirit and demons feized him^ David caft foem Qut^ [i^fiot^Kvi^ In his Jewiih War, lib. vii, cap. 6. § 3. he fays, the plant baaras drives away (£^;£/\au- f£i) demons, Elfewhere (Ant. lib. viii. cap. 2, § 5.) ^^ fpeaks of a demon's going out (^^lovu) of the poirelled perfon, and being 2.^]MitA to return no more. This phrafeology is very conformable to that of the Gofpel. ^ Mat. xii. 27. Ads xix. 13. Jofeph. Antiq. iib,viii. cap. 2. § 5. Juftin Mart. Dial, cum Tryph. ■p. 311, Iren. lib. ii. cap. 6. § 2. Origen. cont, Celf. lib. i. p. 1 7. lib. iv. p. i 83, i 84. " SeeLightfoot, vol. ii. p. 175. Beza, Whitby, Grotias on Ads xix. 13, 19, and Bifcoe's Fiiftory of the Ads, p. 290. of the New liejiament. 139 nion to both. The fame conclufion may be drawn from the manner in which fuch of them as were flrangers to the dodrines of Chriftianity, addrefled our Saviour: Have mercy on me^ faid the woman of Ca- naan, my daughter is grievoujly vexed with a demon". In the fame ftyle, a Jew im- plores his compaffion on behalf of his fon : Look on my fon ; he hath a fpirit^ and is fere vexed \ It was not thofe who receiv- ed, but thofe who rejec^iof(r6ai, vypcav ^i tji/wv H vim ullam efle, quse hominum genus vexaret. Dr. Lardner, p, 87, conjectures, that Pofidonius was a Chriftian. I omit ISS On the 'Demoniacs I omit many great authorities, becaufc they have been produced by others \ And it feems not improbable, that the reality of pofleffions was doubted by many who, through too much caution, never publicly exprefled their doubts ; and that, like Dio Chryfofl:om\ in difcourfing of demons, they rather p opofed the fentiments of others than their own. However this may be, it is known to every one, that fince the improvements of fcience in later times, the moft able and judicious phyficians have confirmed by their fufFrages the opinion of the moil learned and judicious amongft the an- cients upon the fubjed: before us. To * The learned Wetftein, in his Comment on Matt. iv. 24, p. 282, 283, hath cited feveral emi- nent phyficians, who difapproved the dodrine of real polTeirions, whofe teftimonies are here omitted. See alfo his citations from P. Egineta and Sext, Empiricub, p. 281. Orat. 23. "Ottw? ^\ yjy\ ^onfAovtot ri Tzovvipov ryu- take of the New Tejiament. 159 take no notice of Dr. Friend \ and other ingenious writers, the authority alone of our illuftrious countryman Dr. R. Mead, fhould have more weight with us, than the opinion of multitudes bred up in ig- norance and fuperftition. This cele- brated writer hath proved, that the cir- cumftances related of the Gofpel demo- niacs are fymptoms of natural diforders, and do not exceed the power of phyfical caufes"*. Waving all authority, let us attend to fuch matters of fad: as are obvious evea to thofe whofe profeilion does not oblige them to ftudy the animal (yftem. We have feen, that the reality of poffeflicns cannot be demonftrated by reafon, be- caufe the diforders imputed to them may proceed ivova natural caufes^ and it cannot ^ Hiftory of Phyfic, part i. p. 18 — 2i. ^ Infanorum haec funt omnia.— .Nihil profe£lo hie facrum, nihil, quod ex male afFetSla corporis fanitate oriri non poffit, reperimus. Medica Sacra, cap. ix. p. 66, 67. See alio his preface, be i6o On the Demoniacs be proved that they do not. I now add, that realbn remonftrates againft the doc-- trine of poffeffions, and clearly fliews us, that the diforders imputed to them a5lu- ally do proceed from natural caufes. The temperament of the body, the texture of the brain, the motion of the blood, the excefs or defed of the animal fpirits, the influences of air and diet, intenfenefs of thought, violent paffions, and fudden frights, will difturb or deftroy the regu- lar exercife of the underflanding. It is matter of common obfervation, that what renders the fpirits too volatile, caufes the raving fpecies of madnefs ; and what de- preffes them, the melancholy. What is here obferved concerning maniacal, is equally true with refped: to epileptical diftempers. Various confiderations arc urged by Hippocrates % to fhew that the epilepfy may be accounted for without having recourfe to any extraordinary in- " De Morbo facro, p. 303, 307, 308, 309, 310. ter- of the New'TeJlament. i"6i terpofition of the gods. I fliall take no- tice of one, both becaufe it lies level to every capacity, and becaufe it hath, 1 believe, been oniitted by the feveral learned vi^riters upon poffefiions, who have appealed to the authority of this moll: able and judicious phyfician. Goats, he obferves, are remarkably fubjeSi to the epilepfy ; and, on diJfeBing the head^ the brain is found to be overcharged with a rheum of a very bad f me II ; a plain proof he adds, that the animal was difeafed, not pojfeffed by a deity''. Now, if maniacal and epileptical diftempers owe their rife to natural cauies 5 and (fo far as reafoa can judge) to thefe caufes only 3 it is not only groundiefsj but abfurd, to afcribe them to a fupernatural influence. In order to weaken the force of this argument, it hath been faid by fome, K«» £v ruTo ^YiXovQTi yvu^Yi^ on tv 8 3"£j\ to' crcc^x M that 1 62 On the Demoniacs that demons mix mith the morbid mat- ter^; and by others, that an evil fpirit could not dillurb the human frame, with- out occafioning Jome or other oj thefymp" toms which accompany natural difeafes "^ ; and that, in order to prove the truth of the Gofpel demonianifm, we need only to urge the teftimony of the Gofper. But this reply, inflead of weakening our ar- gument, is a plain confeffion of its force; it admits that demoniacs are difeafed ; that the fymptoms of demoniacal difeafes are the fame as thofein natural ones 5 and confequently that, as far as we can judge by the ligh t of reafon, what is called poffef- fion is a mere natural difeafe. It may be objefted, that what is here allowed by the advocates for the demoniac fyftem, is merely that pofretfjons may be accompa- nied with Jome of the fymptoms of natural p Nye on Natural and Revealed Religion,- p. 21J. ^ Bp. Warburton, p. 235. ' P. 236. dif- of the New Tejlame?2t* 16 j difeafes. 1 anfwer, that no other fymp- toms than thefe are mentioned concern- ing the Gofpel demoniacs. In the cafeof the epileptic youth, (for example) though largely delcribed, what one fymptom is there that doth not agree With the falling- ficknefs ^ ? With regard to the teftimony of the Gofpel, it is a point that will be examined hereafter. As the feveral diforders imputed to poffeffion, proceed from natural caufes^ like other diforders allowed not to be preternatural ; fo, like thefe, they yield ^ P. iEgineta, iii. 1^. de Morbo comitlall : Morbus comitialis convulfio eft totius corporis, cum principalrum a£lionum laefione. Fit base af= feiSlio maxime pueris— -poitea vero etiam adolef- centibus & in vigore confiftentibus, minime autem adultis & fenibus. — Inftante vero jam fymptomate, collapfio ipfis derepente contingit, & convulfio, & quandoque nihil fignificans exclamatio. Prascipuum vero ipforum figniim eft oris fpuma, quum reliqua ctiam aliis morbis quodammodo Tint communia, Wetftein on Mark ix. 18. See the fame learned writer on Matt, xvii. 15^ Ma to 164 On the Demdmacs to natural remedies', and each of them requires a peculiar procefs. The an- cients % in their treatment of perfons * With regard to the epilepfy, fee Hippocrates, " Ariftotle de Mirabll. ^vv^^zKii §\ xal tok ^oitf/.G-'- pto-ly, oi'ni^-)(irai to ^oafxoviQV. Ariftotle, or whoever was the author of this book, is fpeaking of a ftone which grows in the river Nile, concerning which Plu- tarch fays (DeFluviis, p. 1159, D.) TO-ojf? ^£ zc-po? THg Sociy.o\/i^o[j^iViii;y u^J^oi, yoi^ -us^o^i^YiV/xi rat*? p'ktiv, aVfp- p^fT^i TO ^on{ji.oviov. See Jofeph. Antiq. lib. viii. cap. 2. § 5. & de Bel. Jud. lib. vii. cap. 6. § 3. Tobit, chap. vi. and viii. Plaut, Mena^ch. A6t ii, fc. 2, 4, 5, Aa V. fc. 4. Plin. Nat. Hift. lib. XXV. cap. 24. lib. xxvii. cap, 83. lib. xxviii. cap, 16. lib. xxix. cap. 4. lib. xxx. cap. 10. lib. xxxvii, ^^P» 3j 4- Plotinus, Ennead. ii. 9,14. — Apuleius, de Virtu t. Herbar, 10. de Artemifia, fays, fugat Sc daemonia. — And in xix. 6. Si infans contrijiatus fuerit, herba Ariftolochia fufFumigabis infantem^ hilarem facit h convalefcic infans, fugato daemonio. The ancients thought that poflefilons might be procured as well as removed by natural means : Ibi in potando neceffarius modus, ne lymphatos agat, PJin. Nat. Hift. lib. xxxi. cap. 5. ThalaflT- eglen circa Indum amnem inveniri :— hac pota fup- of the New Tejlament. 165 fuppofed to be poffefled, applied a great variety of medicines, according to the different fymptoms of the patient. And our modern"^ phyficians, befides medi- cines, recommend bleeding, bliftering, purging, {having. But what effect can medicines and evacuations have upon the devil, who is conceived to be fpiritual and incorporeal ? Why (hould it be thought, that the fame evil fpirit is ex- pelled from the body of one perfon, by medicines that would not affect him in the body of another ? or that he is fome- times driven away by hellebore, at other times drawn off by a blifter? If phyfi. cians are able, by fuch varions means, to lymphari homines, obfervantibus miraculls. The- angelida in Libano Syriae, — qua pota magi divi- nent. Id. lib. xxiv. cap. 102. p. 352. ed. Harduin. Now, is it not more likely, that certain waters and herbs fhould diforder the animal fyftem, than that they fhould controul the devil ? "^ Shaw's Pradice of Phyfic, vol. i, p. 26, Mead's Medica Sacra, cap. ix, M 3 ejea i66 On the Demoniacs cjedl him from the human body, the de- vil is fubjecfl to man, not man to the devil. What abfurdities will not fomc perfons run into, rather than allow, what feems felf-evident, that diforders which both proceed from natural caufes, and are cured or relieved by natural remedies, are no other than natural diforders ? All the arguments from reafon, elfe- where >' urged againft any fuperior created fpirits poflefling the power of working miracles, or producing any cfFe£l in our fyftem, contrary to the general rules by which it is governed, conclude here. But I fhall only obfervc, that in every part of the world that falls under our obferva- tion, we fee a fixed order of caufes and ef- feds, fuch as is not difturbed by any in- vifible beings ; and the prefervation of this order feems effential to the happinefs of the creation. May we not from hence conclude, that the human fyflem in parti- l PifTert. on Mir. parfim, cular of the New Tejlament. 1 67 cular IS governed In the fame manner, and fubjedl to invariable laws, fuch as none but God can controul*? Are we to take it for granted, that God will fuffer thefe laws to be controuled, merely for the fake of fubjecting the healths, the underftandings, and the lives of mankind, even thofe of the tendered age% and of eminent piety\ to th.e caprice and malice of evil fpirits ? This is a point not to be admitted without the flrongefl evidence ; fo repugnant doth it appear to all our ideas of the equity, goodnefs, and mercy of the gracious Pa- rent of mankind '. Now, if reafon fhews * If it did not follow from hence, that there ne- ver were any real demoniacs in the world, yet it would follow, that they are as common now as they ever were, which few, i^ any, will aflert. ^ Mark ix. 21. ^ Luke xiii. 16. "^ It has been faid, that the difeafes afcribed to pofleflions are the very fame, whether they proceed from natural caufes or the agency of demons. But if malicious ckmons had the power of poflefllng M4 us. 1 68 On the ^Demoniacs us, that there is, and muft be, a fixed or- der of caufes and efFeds throughout the whole fyftem of nature; and that both -the generation and cure of the difeafes in qucilion are the efFeds of this conftitu- tion ; then reafon doth certainly remon- flrate againd afcribing them to fuperna- tural caufes ; which is the point we un- dertook to prove. Nor let any think this a point of fmall importance. Not to mention here the many other ^ inconveniences attending the belief of our being in the power of any fuperior malevolent fpirits, this belief hath a diredl tendency to fubvert the foundation of natural piety, and to beget idolatry and fuperflition *. Thefe, we are certain, were the efFeds which this belief produced amongfl the Heathens. They endeavoured (as it was natural for them mankind, we fliould foon find ^ fatal difFerence in our condition. ^ DifTcrt. on Mir, chap. ii. fed. 4. * Id. p. xoo, to of the New Teftament. 169 to do) to appeafe the anger of the de- mons to whom they attributed their dif- eafes ; and to them they applied for a cure'. The Jews themfelves, when they adopted the pagan fyftem of demonology, offered facrifices to Sammael, to prevent him from accufing them to God for their fins^ Endlefs fuperftitions hath the dodrine of pofleflions generated amongft Chriftians, efpecially in the darkeft ages of the church. Fafcination and witch- craft then made a capital article of reli- gion. According to the account given us by hiftorians, ** nothing was to be feen but priefts driving out devils from thofe who were faid to be pofTefled. The courts of juftice, compofed of magiftrates who ought to have had more underftand- ^ Morbos turn ad iram deorum immortalium re- lates efle, et ab iifdem opem pofci folitam. Celfus, Prefat. See alfo Hippocrates de Morbo facro, the introdudion 5 and Homer's Odyff. lib. v. v. 394— • 397* ^ Buxtorf in voc, Sammael, or DiiTert on Mir. p. los- ing 170 On the Dem:macs ing than the vulgar, were employed in trying witches and forcerers, who were found guilty upon the pretended evidence of the devils^." Is this a hiftory of creatures who boaft of being rational ? Their Maker had in- dued them with the faculty of reafon -, but they had negleded to cultivate it; . they were taught to think it impious to ufeit, and to try dodlrines by it; evident as it is, that there is noother principle in ■ our frame that can enable us to diftin- guifh between truth and fahhood. It can be no matter of furprize to us, that 8 I fhall mention one Inftance, which may ferve as a fpecimen of the reft. Urban Grandier, the curate and canon of Loudun, was found guilty of cxercifing the black art (for which he was burnt alive), upon the evidence of the following devils: Aftaroth (a devil of the order of the feraphims, and chief of the poflefTing devils); Eafas, Celfus, Acaos, Eudon, Afmodeus (of the order of the thrones) ; Alex, Zabulon, Nephtalim, Cham, Uriel, Achas (of the order of the principalities). See the General DicStionary, under the articles Ur- ban Grandier and Loudun. the of the New Tejiamenf. 171 the do(flrine of polTeffions, though totally unfupported by reafon, though contrary to the cleareft principles of it, contrary to all we know concerning the order of nature, and the perfedlions of its author, to the certain evidence we have, that the reputed effeds of fupernatural poffeffibn are in reality the efFeds of natural caufesj it cannot be matter of furprize to us, that this dodlrine, however abfurd, fhould be too generally received by men, who made no more ufe of their reafon, than if they had none. Greatoccafionhave weto be thankful to God, that, in proportion to the degree in which men cultivate their reafon, ftudy nature, the animal fyftem in particular, and become concerned to yield aflent only to evidence, and to aflert the honour of the divine adminiftration ; the deftrudlive dodrine we are oppofing finks into con- tempt. The light of the Gofpel, at its firft appearance, expofed the folly of all the 172 On the Demoniacs the magic arts ^ And fo it did when it {hone forth a fecond time at the reforma- tion from popery. At this glorious a^ra, reafon, which had long been enflaved by the moft debafing fuperftitions, recover- ed fome degree of her proper influence, and began to rejed: the idle flories of witchcralt, pofTefiions, exorcifms, which liad been propagated by artful and inte- refted impoftors, and adopted by the credulous part of mankind. It is needlefs to purfue this point any farther, inafmuch as the ableft advocates for the demoniac fyftem, from a convic- tion of its abfurdity, contend only for the reality of the pofTeffions which are taken notice of in Scripture; and refl their be- lief of tbofe poffeffions upon the authori- ty of Scripture. We (hall therefore pro- ceed to examine the fentiments of the fa- cred writers on this fubjecfl. * Aas xix, 18 — 20. SECT. of tilt New Tejlamenti 17 j SECT. X. Prop. X. The doSlrine of demoniacal pof- fejjions^ injlead of being fiippor ted by the Jewifh or Chrijiian revelation^ is utterly fubverted by both. 'T^HIS is a point of the greateft import- ance, and therefore deferves to be fully confidered. Here I would obfervc, I. That whether the dodrine of poA feflions be true or faife, it was not origi- nally founded on revelation ; nor did it ever receive the fandion of any of the prophets either of the Old orNewTefta- ment. With regard to the prophets of the Old Teftament, they ftand clear from all fufpicion of countenancing the dodrine of real pofleflions. It is not pretended, that they ever exprefly taught it. In all their writings, no traces of it are to be found, no mention of a fmgle inflance of reputed I 74 On the Demoniacs reputed pcflefTion, nor any allufion to it. For, with regird to Saul, of whom we read, that an evil fpir it from the Lord troubled him \ it is fufficient to obferve, that the wox&ffirit is often applied to the temper and affeBions of the human mind'^i and that the Jews were wont to call all kinds of melancholy an evilfpirit \ Saul's diforder, therefore, v/as a deep melan- choly. This appears, not only from the language in which it is defcribed, but alfo from the hiftory of its cure ; for it was not cured by prayer, but by mufic j a pro* per method of exhilirating the animal ' I Sam. xvi. 14. xviii. 10, '^ See Numb. V. 14. Pf, li.io. If. xxxvii. 7-, 36, 37. Ezek. xviii. 31. Hofea iv. 12. v. 4% Luke ix. 55. Rom.viii. 15. 2 Tim. i. 7. In Judg. ix, ' 23, an evil Jpirit denotes a fpirit of difcord. In Hof. xii. I, the Septuagint calls the falfhood and treachery of the Ifraelites issovr.^Qv iri/lv^siy a wicked fpirit or difpofition. ^ Lightfoot, Hor. Heb, in Luc. xiii. 11* Mai* mdiidcs in Sabbat, ii. 5. fpirits, of the New Tefiament. 175 fplrits, though not of expelling demons. Some, indeed, have inferred from the cafe of Elifha, on whom the hand of the Lord came t when the minjlrel^played'^t that mufic, if it was a natural means of invit- ing a^Wfpirit into men, might prove as effectual in driving out a^j^one. But the only ufe of mufic in this cafe was to compofe the fpirit of the prophet, which had beendiflurbed by anger, and thereby unfitted to receive divine influence and infpiration. There were feveral occafions, on w^hich it is natural to fuppofe, fome mention of the doftrine of polTcflions would have been made in the Old Teftament, if it had been revealed to the ancient pro- phets. On this fuppofition, who would not expe(fV, in the hiftory of their miracu- lous cures, to read of their expelling de- mons " ? So likewife, when Mofes pre- ™ 2 Kings iii. 15. ^ In Deut. xxviii. God threatens to punifh the fcribed 176 On the Demoniacs fcribed 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 pojfef- fion ? The pagan religion provided many rites of purification for thofe who wxre poffefTed by demons, the gods of that religion °. Now, if Mofes knew thefe gods to be the devil and his angels, and that they pofleffed mankind, would it not have been judged necefTary by this. pro* phet, and highly defirable by the Ifrael- ites, that fome rites of purification fhould be appointed for thofe who were inhabited by fuch impure infernal fpirits ? Is not a Ifraelites, In cafe they difobeyed his laws, as with other evils, fo with various difeafes, and particular-' ly with madnefs^ (v. 28) the very difeafe ufually imputed to the pofleflion of demons. Neverthelefs, there is no intimation here given of the exiftence and power of fuch evil fpirits, much as it would have been to the purpofe of Mofes to have made mention of them. ^ Sec Hippocrates de Morbo Sacro. dia-' of the New 'Tejlam^nf. 177 nkio'lical poffeffion more contaminating than the leprofy^ and other merely corporeal diforders ? Neverthelefs, though many rites and facrifices were appointed^ in order to cleanfe perfons from the latter, not theleaft notice is taken of the former. It is more extraordinary ftill, that the Old Teftament prophets, though they foretel the peculiar glories of the Mef- fiah, defcribe thofe extraordinary gifts of the fpirit which he beftowed upon his followers, and the miracles which he him- felf performed 5 though they fpecify his other fupernatural cures^ his giving fight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, fpeech to the dumb, feet to the lame, and health to the difeafed % have taken no notice of what is fuppofed to be one of the chief glories of the Meffiah* and more extraor- dinary than any miraculous cure of mere bodily diforders, his ejedling demons, and enabling his followers to do the fame. P If, xxix. j8. XXXV. 5, 6. liii. 4* N The 17S On the Demoniacs The proper inference from hence feems- to be, that what is called the ejedion of demons is the cure of a natural difordeiv and is included in Chrift's reftoring the difeafed to health ; efpecially as our Sa- viour, when applying to himfelf the pro- phecies concerning his miracles % doth not fpecify the eje^5tian of demons, though, at that very time, he cured many of evil Jpirits\ Accordingly, we find in fa(fl:, that the evangelifts^ have included reputed pofleffions under thofe natural maladies, which the prophets foretold Chrifl: fhould heal. Were there any thing fupernatu- ral in what is called poffeffion, would the prophets of God have been infpired to *1 Matt. xi. 4, 5. ' Luke vii. 21. ^ They brought unto him many that ivere pojfejfed with demonSy and he caj} out the fpirits with his word, and healed all that zuere fick \ that it ?night be ful" filled which was fpokcn by Efaias the prophet ^ (chap, Jiii. 4. j Himfelf took our i7ifir?nitics^ and bare our fick' neffesy Matt, viii, 16, i^. See above, fe£l. iv. p. 64, &c. fore- of the Isfew Teftament. i^p foretel the Mefliah's cure of natural dif- orders, and not of thofe which were fu- pernatural ? Be this, however, as it will^ it muft be allowed, that the Old Tefta- ment isjlent on the fubjedl of poffeflions, and cannot be employed to eftablifh their reality. With regard to the prophets of the New Teflament, it muft, I apprehend^ likewife be allowed, that they were not the original authors of the doctrine ofpof- feffions. In Chaldea, in Egypt, in Greece^ and all other countries, the doftrine of demons generally prevailed from the ear- lieft ages '♦ From the Gentiles, it was t The magi amongd the Chaldeans taught, that the air was .full of fpectres, il^^Xm zrKY\^7i slvoci tov ^i^ac* Diogcn. Laert. Proem, fegm. 7. From Dio- dorus Siculus (lib. i. p. 12. ed. Rhodomanij, it appears, that the doctrine of demons was en- tertained in Egypt. Pythagoras maintained, that thi air was full of foiihy and that thefe were what were deemed to be demons and heroes^ ^ t.a* Tffxyloc Tcu oii^oc ^^v^^oci/ 'i(ji.7rXiuu' xoci tktkj, S iiJ!.ovoc<; rs K«* r;pw£»? vo,«/^£o-0ai. Diog, Laert, Pythag. lib. N 2 dc- iSo On the Demoniacs derived to the Jews, not at Babylon only^ but in every other place of their difper- fion, and even in Judea itfelf. We need no other proof thail the New Teftament, that the dodrine of demons, and (what wasgrounded upon it) that of demoniacal poffeflions, were common both amongft Jews and Gentiles, in our Saviour's time ; as was ihewn above t. Indeed, both the language and fentiments of mankind con- cerning poffeffions, were formed long before our Saviour's appearance in the world. Nor can any thing argue a greater ignorance of antiquity, than to treat this dodrine as one of the peculiar difcoveries of the Gofpel of Chrift. Whether the vlii. § 31. Thales (IcJ. lib. i. §. 27.) Pythagoras (Id. lib. viii. § 32) Heraclitus (id. lib. ix. § 7.) Plato and the Stoics taught, that all things were full of demons^ (Plat. Conviv. p. 1 194. Plutarch de Placrt. Philof. lib. i. cap. 8.) See alfo Varrc apud Auguft. de Civ. Dei, lib. vii. cap 6. ' P. 139. See alfo Matt. xii. 27. A£ls xix, 13^ X9. dec- of the New Tejianmit. 1 8 1 doctrine be true or falfe, it doth not ap- pear to have been originally founded on revelation. We may, without fear of being contradicted by the records of anti- quity, pronounce it to be the invention of human imagination. Indeed, at iirfl: fight, it clearly appears to be the genuine ofF- fpring of pagan fuperftition. Some, however, may be ready to object, that though the dodrine of pofleflions was not firft introduced by Chrift or his apoftles ; yet that it received the fandtion of their authority. To thofe who raife this objed:ion,we are not backward to make the following conceffion, ** That our Saviour in performing, and the evangelifts in re- cording, the cure of demoniacs, do ufe thofe modes of expreffion, which were common in the age and country in which they lived.'* It will be our bufinefs, in the fequel \ to {hew, that they did not hereby give their fandion to the hypothe- ; Chap. II. Tea. iii. N 3 fis 1 8a On the Demoniacs fis concerning demons, on which thofe modes of expreflion were originally built. In this place. I would only obferve, that when they are profeffedly flating and ex- plaining the Chriftian revelation, they never affert the reality of demoniacal pof- feflions, or reprefent it as a part of that do^lrine which they were immediately inflrudted and commiffioned by heaven to publifli and confirm. This is a fadt which cannot be denied j nor can it be accounted for on any other fuppofition, than that the doftrine of poffeffions made no part of that revelation which they received from God. This dod^rine is not only unfupported by revelation, but con- tradidlcd by it. For, II It is inconfiftent with the funda- mental principle both of the Jewifh and Chriftian difpenfations, with the proper evidence of miracles in general, and with the nature of that miracle in particular, which was performed upon demoniacs. The cf the New Tejiament, 183 The grand principle which runs through the whole Jevvifli difpenfation, is"*, that Jehovah 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 what- ever, befides God, are able to controul thofe laws, or that courfe and order of events, which he eftablifhed. Accord- ingly, the Old Teftament refers to the immediate and miraculous agency of God alone, all thofe efFed:s which are con- trary to that order. The Chriftian dif- penfation proceeds upon the fame prin- ciple ; and farther teaches, that as there is but one God, fo there is but one me- diator'' between God and man, to whom any power or authority over mankind is delegated, and who, indeed, hath all power, both in heaven and earth, given unto him. Now, if there be no Sovereign of nature but God, and no ^ Diflertatlon on Mir. chap. iii. fe£l. 5. . Id. fe£l. 6. p. 404. N 4 me- 184 O;^ i^^^ Demoniacs 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 in particular. Indeed, there could be no law of nature^ no fixed conflitiition of thin.^s, either refpeding the world in general, or the human fyftem in parti- cular, if the order of that conftitutioq might be difturb^d at the pleafureof ina- lignant fpirits. With regard to the evidence of the Jewifh apd Chriftian revelations, it arife? from the miraculous teilimony borne to them by God- And whoever copfiders the true nature of miracles, (qnder which denomination we are to include all efFedts produced in the fyftem of nature, contra-- ry to the general rules by which it is go- verned) and the ufe which the Scripture makes of them, urging them as abfolute proofs of the fole dominion of Jehovah over univcrfal nature ^, and of the divinity ^ DifTcrt. en Mir. chap, iii..recl. ^. . 'of of the New Tejiamenf. iS^ of the miflipn and dodrine of his pro*- phets^ ; whoever duly confiders thefe things, will naturally infer from them the utter impotence of demons, to produce any effects in any part of the fyftem of nature, contrary to that order which God hath eftablifhed in it. For fuch effecfts, could they be produced by demons, would not be, what the Scripture reprefents them, decifive, infallible tefls of a divine interpofition. But I forbear to purfue this argument any farther in this place, as there will be occafion to refume it in the fequer, when we fliall point out fome particular miracles, whofe credit and au- thority neceffarily fuppofethe utter inabi- lity of demons to poffefs mankind, in the planner they are commonly faid to do. I fhall only obferve here, that the very miracles performed upon thofe who were called demoniacs, ferve to fhew that they were not really poffefTed. Thofe, indeed, who affert, that there were real demo- * PifTert, on Mir. chap. iii. kdi, 6. * Chap, iii, niaQSi i86 On the Defnoniacs niacs in the age of Chrift, triumph in the miracles performed upon them, as highly ufeful to demonftrate the inferiority of evil demons to that beneficent Power which rules the univerfe, and their fub- jedion to the Son of God. But the Gen- tiles themfelves never confidered demons as rivals of the fupreme Divinity, but ra- ther fuppofed they derived their power and authority from the celeflial gods, and aded in fubferviency to their de- defigns\ From the evangelic hiftory itfelf, it appears, that the Jews thought Beelzebub able to controul all other demons as his fubjefts, and to expel them from the bodies of men. What good end then could be anfwered by proving, what Gentiles and Jews were ready to acknowledge, that demons were inferior to the fupreme numen ; and that • See Plato in Sympof. p. 202, torn. iil. ed. Ser- jani. Apuleius (De Deo Socratis, p. 67^, ed, pelph.) fays, Cun6^a cceleftium voluntate nuf- mine et aud^oritate, fed daemonum obfequio ct opera & minifterio fieri arbitrandum eft. of the New Tejlament* 1 87 Chrift had equal power with Beelzebub? Can we difparage that great miracle, the cure of demoniacs, in a more efFedual manner, than by reprefenting it as wrought with fuch intentions as thefe ? It was performed with the fame gene- ral defign as all the other miracles of the Gofpel ', and it feems to me to contain in its own nature, a proof peculiar to it*^ felf of the abfolute nullity of demons, and thereby a confutation of the dodrine of pofleffions. If demons poflefs mankind, they muft do it either by their own iia- tural power, or by a power fiipernatural and miraculous y occaiionally imparted to them by God for that purpofe. That they do not poflefs mankind by a miracu- lous and divine power, feems evident from hence, that, in this cafe, the Deity muft contradid himfelf, and counteract his own power in carting them out» Nor is it reafonable to fuppofe, that demons have z natural power of poflefling mankind. It muft i88 On the Demoniacs muft here be remembered, that reputed demoniacs, when they were cured by Chrift, were reflored to a perfect 2ind per- manent ftate of fanity. Now, if demons have a natural power of entering the bo- dies of mankind, why did they not return to thofe bodies from which they were ejeifted ? Was a return to them more dif- ficult than their entrance into them at firfl ? If you affirm, that they werej^^r- petually rejirained by God from exercifing their natural power of re-entering the bodies from which they had been ex- pelled ; you affirm more than you can fupport by any pofitive proof, and what is in itfelf very improbable ; for demons cannot be reflrained from ufing their na- tural powers without a miracle^ ^ perpe- tual miracle, ^q^n doth reafon, or doth revelation warrant the expectation of fuch an extraordinary and continued interpo- fition of the divine power in any cafe ? Is it credible that God (hould beflovv and con- of the New Tejlament. i S9 continue powers to any of his creatures, whicli he always, or ahnoft always, re* flrainsthem from ufing ? The only juft inference, therefore, that can be drawn from the perfedl and lafting cure of a re- puted demoniac, is, that demons had ne- ver pofleiled him, and that the diforder imputed to their poflelTion was a natural one. We will not take any farther pains to (hew how certainly the impotence of demons may be viferred ivom the leading principle of revelation, and the proofs by which it was eftablifhed. For, III. All the prophets of God, in every age, w^hen profeffedly delivering their divine melTages to mankind, have with one voice proclaimed the utter impotence of demons ; and hereby entirely fubvert- ed the doctrine of demoniacal poffeflions. It is, I apprehend, a point, in which all are agreed, and which is capable of the cleareft proof, that by demons in Scrip- ture, Wc are to underftand the heathen deities* J go .On the De)?wniacs deities. It is the name by which thofe deities, fuch of them efpecially as were the more immediate objeds of public worship, are defcribed by the Heathens themrelves\ By this name they are de- fcribed in the Septuagint verfion of the Old Teftament". In flill later writings of the Jews, the Apocrypha, they are called by the fame name '^; and the NeW Teflament affirms, that the heathensy^^ crificed to demo?is \ With refpedl to Beel^ zebub, the prince of demons, in particu-^ lar, it hath been fhewn already *, that he was the god of Ekron. It is ftill, how-^ ever, a matter in difpute, whether the heathen gods or demons were confidered by the facred writers as the fpirits of dei^ fied men and women, or as apoftate angels* If you allow, that the Scripture reprefents b DifTert. on Mir. chap. iii. fe6l. 2, and Wol- fius on Adts xvii. i8. p. 1253, ' Deut. xxxii. 17. Pf. xcvi, 6. Pf. cvi» 37. ^ Baruch iv, 7. • I Cor. X. 20, 21, compared with ver. 19, 7. 14. * See above, p. 31. them of the New T^ejlament. i^ri them as fuch dead men and women as fuperftition deified, you muft allow that the Scripture hath overturned the doc- trine of poffeffiorls, by giving us fuch an account of the ftate of the dead, as can never be reconciled with the fuppofition of their having power over the bodies of theliving^ If, on the other hand, yoa maintain, that demons are not of human origin, we lofe, indeed, one argument againft pofleffions, with which the Scrip- ture fupplies us ; but it is an argument that, however conclufive, is not wanted. For, whoever the heathen demons or deities were, whether human or angelic fpirits, they are all> without exception, branded in Scripture as being utterly void of all power to do either good or evil to mankind. Very many paffages to this purpofe, both from the Old and New Teftament, have been produced in a for- mer publication ^ ; and for this reafon are *" DifTert. on Mir. p. i6i, * Id. p. 233, &c. here 192 On the Demmiiacs here omitted. So very clear and deter- minate is the language of Scripture on this point, that all the wit^ and learning, and zeal of thofe who contend for the reality of the polTeffions and prodigies afcribed to the heathen gods, have not yet been able to devife any method of evad- ing the argument againfl: their power, drawn from the Scripture reprefentation of them, but by fuppofing, that, though the heathen gods themfelves were mere nullities, yet powerful evil fpirits perfo- nated them> and performed in their names thofe very things which the Heathens afcribed to their gods ; and that, in reali- ty, thefe evil fpirits were the gods they vvorfhipped. How groundlefs and abfurd, as well as how reproachful to the pro- phets of God, this fuppofition Is, we have elfewhere {hewn^ That I may not repeat what occurs there, with refpefl: to the Scripture Idea of the heathen gods or demons, I will ^ DilTert. on Mir. p. 240, her^ of the New Tejiamenf, 193 here only examine the account given of them in St. Paul's firft epiftle to the Co- rinthians. In their heathen ftate, as the apoftle reminds them, they had worship- ped ^2//«^ /V^^A ^ Upon their embracing the Gofpel, moft'^ of them were fo per- fe(5tly convinced of the abfolute nullity of all their former gods, that they pleaded this as an excufe for affilting at feftivals in their honour. To thefe perfons, St. Paul thus addreffes himfelf: TFe know that an idol is nothing in the worldly and that there is none other God but one\ Strong prejudices, aided by great parts, having prevented many from difcerning the meaning of this plain paiTage, it will be neceflary to examine It with fome at« tention. It may be obferved, "^ I Cor. xil. 2. ^ I Cor. viii. i. ^ know that we ALL have knowledge, zrocvjig^ i. e. pars maxima noftrum. Grot. * I Cor. viii. 4. O I. That 194 0/2 the Demoniacs I. That by an ido!, v/e are here to underftand a heathen demoji or deity, and not (as fome apprehend) the mere imager or Jlatiie, which reprefented him. The image or ftatue, abftracSedly confidered, was regarded by all Heathens, no lefs than by all Chriftians, as a mere mafs of fenfelefs matter : what diftinguifhed the latter from the former was, a belief of the nullity of the deities themfelves. In- deed, the original word, which we render ido^ y and which fignifies an image or re- frefentation of things in the mind, is very frequently applied by the Greeks (to whom St. Paul is here writing) to ghojls or fpeclresy which were fuppofed to ap- pear in the likenefs, or to be an image and reprefentation of their former bodies ". Hence they employed this term to de- ^ The reader may find ample proofs of this point in Le Clerc and Elfner, on i Cor. viii, 4. in the latter writer efpccially. See alfo Wolfius in loc, fcribe of the New T^ejl anient. 19^ fcribe their demons ^ who were the ghofls or images of dead men. Regarding their gods as deified human ghofts, they call them indifferently idols and demons'^ -^ By the Jews ahb, as appears from the Septua- gint tranflarion of the Old Teftament, thefe two words are ufed as equivalent^. ^ Philoftratus, in giviug m account of the de- moniac, on whofe behalf his morhtr applied for relief to the Indian fages, fays, thac the demon de- clared, he was u^uiXov avi^cg, the ghoji of a man. And the letter written to this demon, to drive him away from the demoniac, runs thus : y\ l^iroV/J' usacx; ro s'l^caXov, Epiftola ad Spedrumj Vit. Apolionii, lib, iii. cap. 38. p. 128. In another place (lib. iv. cap, 20. p. 157.) ^:ci(xu)v and ftoW.ov are ufcd as equiva- lent terms, in reference to a perfon poiTeilejj v ixi^ y.oov IXocuvei (Tf. — pocvoig YtpUi to s'liuXov. ^ Ei^-jcXoc yoiiv fuoTio? auT«?, xat Sccifxovxg vixsTg oiv- Tot Ki/tA'i7xaT£. Merito igitur vos ipfi idola & dae- monas eos vocatis. Clemens Alexandr. Cohort, ad Gent. p. 49. ed. Potteri. ^ This appears by comparing Vf, xcvi, 5, zrxy Tig 01 ^ioi ruv i^voov occiy.cyix^ v/ith i Chrun xvi. 26, zravTs; a ^£oi rxv I'h^iiv u^ooXx. In Deut. xxxii. i" (which will be cited at large below) the heathen gods are called demons^ and in the 21R: verfe, chey are called Idols, O 2 That 196 On the Demoniacs That St. Paul, by an idol, mufl here mean a heathen demon or deity, appears not only from the ordinary fignification of the word, but alfo from his oppofing the idol to the true God, and inferring the nullity of the idol from there being but one God\ What in one place he calls idols^ he in other places calls gods, lords "", and demons'", Thefe are the fubjecfl of the apoftle's difcourfe ; and there is no pertinence or propriety in any thing he advances concerning idols, if you do not underftand thereby the demons or deities of the Gentiles. His whole argument relates to things offered in facrifice unto idols ". Could he then by idols mean mere ftatues ? Was it not to their demons or ' I Cor, vili. 4, 5, 6. In like manner, he oppofes idols (falfe gods) to the true God, 2 Cor. vi. 16. IP^bat agrecjnent hath the temple of God with idols? that is, with demons or falfe gods, worfhipped by the Heathens, ^ I Cor. vlii. 5. " I Cor. X. 20. ° I Cor. viii, 4, gods oj the New Tejiament* 1 97 gods that the Heathens offered facrifice? Doth not the apoflle himfelf fay, they fa^ crtficed to de??ions ^ ^ Could he then mean any thing different from thefe by idols ? The following paffage deferves particular confideration : If any man fee thee which haft knowledge fit at meat in the idols TEMPLE, Jhall not the confcience of him that is weak be emboldened to eat thofe things which are offered to idols '^ f It feems im- poffible to reconcile St. Paul either with himfelf, or with common fenfe, if he be not here fpeaking of the temple and fa- crifices of the heathen gods. It may be added, that the apoftle fuppofes, that a Chriftian whofe faith in the Gofpel was not eftabli(hed, might, with confcience of the idol, eat of the facrifice as a thing offer^ ed unto an idol': he likewife fuppofes, that a Heathen might fay, This is offered in facrifice to idols ^. Now, had the ^ I Cor. X. 20. ^ I Cor. viii. 10. ' Ver. 7. [ Chap. x. 28. O 3 Chriftian 198 On the Demoniacs Chrlftian any reverence for what he knew to be mere wood or ftone ? And would the Heathen reprefcnt the objed of his devotion as nothing but fuch fenfelcfs matter ? For the feveral foregoing reafons, we mud: by idols here underftand the hea- then demons or deities, thofe very deities whom the Corinthians had worfliipped in their gentile ftate, and whom St. Paul liimfelf, on other occafions, defcribes un- der the fame term^ Nothing but the great importance of it, could juflify our enlarging upon a point fo very evident as this. If by idols the apoftle meaned demons, then what he ' Te turned fr 0711 idols ^ thar is, from falfe gods, to fervc the living and true God^ I ThefT. i. 9. He tells the Corinthians, i Cor. xii. 2, Te were carried aivay to thefe dumbs idols. ElX-Xa a(puji/x vocat Apoftolus, nam •• ocem quamvis conarentur edere non poterant, Virgillus, bb vi v. 492. ■ — Pars tollere vocem Exiguam : inceptus clamor fruftratur hiantes. Elfner on i Cor, viii. 4. affirms of the New Tejlament. 199 affirms concerning the former, muft be equally true concerning the latter. And it is merely for the fake of avoiding this conclufion, that fome have denied the principle from which it is drawn, and maintained, that, by idols, the apoftle in- tended not the heathen demons, but their images and'ftatues. 2. The idols or demons here fpoken of were not devils (in the fenfe in which that word is now commonly ufed), but fuch human fpirits as the Gentiles dei- fied. We read, indeed, in the Englifh tranflation, T^he things which the Gentiles facrijicey they facrifice to devils '\ This is the paffage which is fo frequently urged as a full proof, that the heathen deities were not the ghofts of dead men, butfpirits of a higher order. The argument, how- ever, is founded on a falfe tranflation of this paffage, which makes not the leafl: men- tion oi devils; the word thus rendered being, " 1 Cor. X. 20. O 4 in 2 CO On the Di^moniacs in the original, quite different from this, namely, demons^\ Now, how doth it appear, that, by demons, the apoftle meaned devils ? It is faid to appear from hence, that the word dejnon is fometimes iifed in an /7/fenfe. What then ? If the Heathens had evil as well as good de- mons, will it follow from hence, that demons were apoftate angels ? By no means ; as we have fliewn elfewhere '\ It is not even certain, that the apoflle ufes the word here in a bad fenfe^. This, ^ Diflert. on Mir. p. 208. ^ Mr. Mede, (p. 636, of his works) feems to have thought that demons might betaken in a good fenfe, in j Cor. x. 21. Nor is it anyjuft obje£lion againft this opinion, that Porphyry (De Abftinent, lib. ii, § 36, 37, and in the citation by Le Clerc, on I Cor. X, 20.) and fome other philofophers ufe the word in an ill fenfe. For the apoftle is not here ftating the opinion of particular philofophers, but defcribing the objedls of popular worfhip, and fpeaking of the notion which the Heathens in ge- neral had of them: they facr'i fie e to demons^ that is, to fpirits whom they regard as real deities. I readily . how- of the New T^ejlament. 201 however, is a matter of no importance. The queftion is not whether the fpirits acknowledge, hov/ever, that the Heathens had evil as well as good demons; and that the public wor- ship fuppofed fome of them to be evil. But this Is far from proving, that thefe demons had not once been men and women. How immoral were the cbaraclers, and how licentious was the worfhip, of thofe gods that were certainly of human extradi:, fuch as Jupiter, Venus, Bacchus, and many others ? Ofiris or Serapis was the chief of evil demons; Plutarch, p. 362. torn. ii. To thefe there may be a reference in 2 Cor. vi. 14, 15, 16, particularly in that expreffion. What concord hath Chr'ijl whhBe^ Ual ? The heathen demons might be called Be» lial^ either becaufe they were of no ufe, or becaufe fo much wickednefs entered into the idea which the Pagans entertained of them. Eelial ex w? non, nihil, et ^V\ quod in Hiphil notat prodefle; fecundum R. Davidem notans inutilem. According to Drufius in loc. Hominem nequam non male quis vocet. There may be, however, no reference here to the heathen gods at all, whether they v/ere deified ghofts or not; the word Belial being often applied to living men ; and it being the general defign of the apoftle in this place, to diffuade Chriftianj from fuffering themfelves to be drawn into ai?^. thing criminal by the Heathens. Vide Grot, in loc. here 202 On the Demoniacs here fpoken of were good or bad ; but whether they were the fpirits of dead men or devils. If it can be proved, that demons moft ufually denoted amongft the Greeks (to whom St. Paul is writing) fuch fpirits as are conimonly meaned by devils; that this alfo is the known fenfe in which St. Paul and the rell: of the apoftles ufe it in all other places ; and that it beft fuits the occafion on which it is ufed here : in this cafe it mufl be allowed, that our tranlla- tors had good reafon for making him fpeak of devils. But if the very reverfe of all th s be true, we (liall be fully jufti- fitd in rejeding their interpretation. With regard to the Greeks^ it is a fadl not to be disputed, that amongft them demons (in whatever fingular fenfe fome particular philofophers might ufe it) did, in common language, generally, if not univerfally, denote deities y tlwfe dei- ties whom the Heathens worfhipped, who were of the New Tejlamenf. 2K)J were not devils, but human fplrlts^ From St. Paul's acquaintance with the ^ In confirmation of v/hat is urged elfewhcrc (DifTert.on Mir. chap. iii. fe^. 2.) to prove, that by demons the Greeks underftood deified human fpirits, we may add a paffage from Herodotus^, cited by Raphelius, on i Cor. x. 20.^ T'o^ ^\ ^c^t- T)iv 'yxfxiij^^o-:; iJi'oci. Daemonem autem hanc cui immolant, ipfi Tauri aiunt efie Iphigeniam, Aga- memnonisfiliam. Stobsjus, (Eclog. lib. i p. 128.) and Maximus Tyrius, (Diff. xxvii. ed. Oxon. p. 026- ) cited by Ode, p. ^85, 186, fpeak of the con- verfion of human fouls into demons, after their departure from the body-. The fame author ob- fprves, that, in the Sibylline Oracles (lib. viii. p. 684. ed. Gallasi) Rome is reproached with wor- Oiipplng Manes exanimos, iduia mortuoruin fepultorum. This pafiagd confirms what was obferved above, that idols and demons are equlvalmt terms, and juftifies the ufe made of them by St. Paul. Tatian (in Orat. contra Graecos, p m. J4.8.) having cnu- jnerated many of the heaJiv^n gods, and expofed their characlers, fays, Toiouroi th/.-? 'iVtv ol ^aiy,oi/£f, ovToi oh-rriv sly^xpixirnv copicrav. Hujufmodi quidam funt dii (dsemones) qui fatum determinarunt. Eufebius fpeak§ of a temple dedicated oclayji/i J<;i//xoyt 'A^^c* Greek 204 On the Demoniacs Greek learning, we may infer, that he could not be ignorant of the ordinary ^iT»?, impuro Veneris numini. De Laudibus Con- Hantini, lib. iii, cap. 55. See alfo lib. iii. cap. 26. where Venus is called a lafcivious demon. Ode, De Angelis, p. 191, cites thefe paflagcs, amongft mmy others, to fhew that the fathers of the Chrif- tian church gave the title of demons to the hea- then gods. And they prove more than this, viz. that they gave this title to thofe gods that were known to be of human extra£l. The fame author, in the forecited place, fays, that Eufebius (Vit. Conftantini, lib. iii. cap. 56.) calls i^fculapius ths demon of the CiUcians^ (rov tcov KiXixw ^oilf^ovoi,') though he himfelf did not allows him to be either^ derno?! or a god^ (that is, in the fenfe in which he was thought fuch by the Ciiicians,) but an im- fojior^ » J'a/juwv, i^'i yi Bici;. TlXocvog ^i rig ilu^wy. By the demon of the Ciiicians^ Eufebius did not mean .^fculapius himfelf, but a fpirit that lurked in his temple, and pcrfonated him. It is evident, how- ever, from Eufebius's denying this fpirit to be a demon, or deified human ghoft, that the Gentiles regarded iEfculapius as fuch. I cannot omit a remarkable paflage in Clemens Alexandrinus, becaufe it flrongly ronfirms the ac- count here given of the fenfe in which demons were underftood by the Greeks. AvtUx ol ifxirsi^ot m fig- of tilt New Tejlament. 205 fignification of demons amongft the Greeks. Nay, it is certain in fadt, that he did know, that the Greeks by this word expreffed gods taken from amongft men. For after preaching to the Athe- nians concerning the refurredtion and Sov zjoliTa.q Tocg S'ifjca? twv xxroi^O(jt,ivu'J Ivi^^utrocyTo* i\ 73-^0^ avOpcoTTWw ^i^ocG-KOVTig^ ug otv l^atriocv XaSaVaj TTUV AfiTap^/jav, tov zirs^iyiiov -sTB^nroXsTy tottov* Jam vero qui funt eorum dodlrinse periti, in multis templis tanquam deorum ftatuas, omnes fere mor- tuorum loculos pofuere, daemones quidem vocantes eorum animas, eas autem doll ab hominibus docen- tes, ut quae divina providentia propter vitae purita- tem poteftatem acceperint, ut ad hominum minifte- rium locum qui eft circa terram obirent. The temples of the Greeks were the tombs or fepulchres of their gods. Hence it is faid of Chriftians, (in Minut. Fel. cap. viii. p. 50. ed Davif.) Templa ut bufta defpiciunt. And Tertullian (de Spectac. cap. xiii.) fays, Dum mortui et dii unum funt, utraque idololatria abftinemus, nee minus templa quam monumenta defpuimus. Nov/ St. Paul is fpeaking of thofe gods who had temples eredled to their honour, and confequently of fuch as were dead men, glory 206 On the Demoniacs glory of Jefus Chrifr, they reprefented him as a fetter forth offtrafige demons'^, or godsy as our tranflators have here rendered the word ; being themfelves fenfible, that, in this place, it mull: neceffarily fignify deified men. Now, is it not more likely, that St. Paul, in writing to the inhabi- tants of Greece, would ufe the word in the common and ordinary fignification of It amongft that people, in which he knew they uf-d it, and would underftand him in ufing it ; than that he fhould, with- out giving any notice, aflign it a different meaning, to which they were not accuf- tomed ? We are next to inquire, whether it was well known to Chriflians, not excepting thofe newly converted to the faith, that demons denoted devils, when ufed by St. Paul and the reft of the apoflles. Whit a late writer'' hath copied from others, ^ hdis xvii. 1 8, 22. Diflert. on Mir. p. 203. !^ Up. Waiburton, Serm. vol, ii. p. 70, note (2). hath of the New Tejlame?it. 207 hath been advanced fo long and fo often, that it feems to have obtained general credit, viz. that v^hatever notion the Gentiles had of demons, the facred writers never ufe the wordy (and they life it often] but they always mean Satan and his angels. It v^^as not merely by the Gentiles, but by the Jews alfo, and (as we {hall flie w in the fequel) particularly by the authors of the Septuagint verfion of the Old Teftament, (which is fo often followed by the writers of the New) that demon is employed to defcribe a human fpirit. This alone is fufficient to perfuade an unprejudiced mind, that the New Teftament writers ufe the word in the fame fenfe; till fome proof of the contrary be produced, none having yet been offered. The Scripture fpeaks of no more than one devil, and never confounds him with demons'*. For the fuller fatisfadlion of the reader, we will take notice of ail the occafions on which See above, p. 12. this 508 On the Demoniacs this word is ufed in the New Teflament, It occurs there above fifty times in refe- rence to polTeffions ; and we haye (hewn above % that when ufed in this connec* tion, whether by the facred writers or others, it conftantly denotes a human ghoft. On other occafions it occurs more rarely. I will fet down all the places in which we meet with it, when it hath no direct reference to pofTeffions, and in their proper order, i . When St. Paul, in his ad- drefs to the Athenians \ calls them ver^ devout towards demons ^^i or the gods, could he defign to brand them as worfliippers «= P. 21, 42. ' A6ls xvii. 22. ^ Aafl-iiJai/xovfffpa?. See Mede's Apoftacy of the latter Times. A£i(r»J*a/^&;v, though it be often ufed to defcribe a perfon that is fuperjiitioiis^ doth alfo often mean one that is religious and devout^ and is oppofed to the parous deorum cultor, fpoken of in Horace. Auti^xiijlouU Is alfo frequently put for religion, and is ufed in a good fenfe, not only by. the Heathens (fee Budaeus), but alfo by the Jews who fpolce the Greek language. See Jofeph Ant. lib. X. cap. 3. § 2. and other places cited by Krebfius, in his Obfervat. in Nov. Teft. e Jofepho, p. 232. of oj the New Tejlament. 209 of de'uils ? Would a perfon of his polite- hefs, arid who always ftudied a refpedful and engaging addrefs, open his difcourfe at Athens in fo Ihocking a manner'' ? Be- sides, he could not affirm with truth, that the Athenians were worshippers of devils. Nor would the Athenians under- fiandhim as ufing the word in this knfe. It being, as he well knew, very different from theirs, when they reprefented him as a fetter forth of f range demons^ , — 2. The next place in which we meet with this word, is in the paffage in queftion ', where, as we Ihall ihew when we come to confi- der its fcope and connection, it niuft fig- nify the heathen deities, that is, dead men.— 3. St. Paul, in his Epiftle to Ti- mothy, when foretelling the apbftacy of Tome profeffingChriftians from the purity of the original faith, amongft fevei*al other inftances, fpecifies this ^t^y remarkable ^ See Dr. Lardner*s Credibility, vol i. p. 253, 2d. ed. * A(51s xvii. 18. See above, p. 206, * \ Cor. X, 20. P on& 210 0)1 the Demoriiacs one, their giving heed to dodlrines (not of devils, but) concerning demons ^, The apoftle here muft refer to the worfliip of faints, pradlifed by idolatrous Chrifllans^ as we have fliewn elfewhere ^ This is allowed by the mod learned and judicious interpreters amongft proteflants, and is aflerted even by that celebrated author '\. who fo pofitiveJy declares, in exprefs cont^adidtion to himfelf, ** the facred writers never ufe the word demons bat they always mean Satan and his angels." This pallage is the more remarkable, as it {hews how this word was ufed by St. Paul 'y and that he thereby did not mean devils, but beatified or deified human fpirits. Now, .is not St. Paul the beft in- terpreter of himlelf ? If he be, ought we not to explain the word in his Epiftle to ^ I Tim. iv. I. I DifTert. on Mir. p. 167, 204. ^ Bp. Warburton, after citing this prophecy, adds, Li which words ^ the Holy Spirit graphically de^ firibes the worjhtp of SJlNTS^S^rm, Vol. iii. p. 302. the of the New TeJlarnenU 2 1 i 'fche Corinthians, in a {^w^o. conformable to that which it is allowed to bear in his Epiftle to Timothy 5 efpecially as it is no where elfe to be found in all his writings^ but in the places here noticed? — ^4. St. James fays, T^he devils (in the origiaal, the demons^) believe and tremble. 1 do not re- member to have feen it obferved by any writer, (and therefore I fubmit the ob- fervation entirely to the judgment of others,) that this paffage is taken frdrri one in the book of Job % which v/e un-» happily render, Dead things are formed from under the water s^ ^and the inhabitants thereof \ but which may more properly be tranllated, 'The giants ^ tremble '^ under the " Ta ia,iiJ.ovix» Jam, ii. 19. Chap. xxvi. 5, f £3^,^?Q'1^, the rsphaim. This word fometimes fignifies the ghojls of the dead in general. Wilt thou Jhew wonders to (methi?n) the dead ? Shall the dead (rephaimy ghojis) arife and pralfe thee? Pf. Ixxxvili. 10, When Ifaiah Is foretelling the deftrudlion of the oppreflbrs of God's church, he fpeaks of it as a thing already accomplifhed in the following terms, P a waters. 212 On the 'Demoniacs water s\ (or in the cibyfs,) together with They are dead ; they Jhall not live ; they are deceafed (rephaim^ ghojis) s they Jhall not rife^ chai>. xxvi. 14. In the following paflages, it feeins to denote the ghofls of zuicksd men in particular, who are in a ftate of perdition ; and more efpecially, perhaps, thofe of the giants.^ who periftied by the flood, and fuch as like them filled the earth with violence and terror. In Prov. ii. 18. we read, that the hoiife of the adulterefs huUneth unto death, and her paths unto (rephaim) the giants ; that is, to the wretched fo- ciety of thofe rebellious fpirits who corrupted the old world. And, in chap. ix. 18, it is faid of the perfon that frequents her houfe, He knoweih not that the dead (rephaim^ the giants) are there, and that her guejis are in the depths of hell -, he doth not con fid er that lewd and vicious courfes fink men into the very bottom of the infernal region, to keep company with the apoflate giants. Again, we are warned by So- lomon, Prov. xxi. 16. The man that wander eth out of the way of underjlanding, Jhall remain in the congre- gation of (rephaim) giants i he fliall be confined to the company of thofe great apoftatcs from virtue, who, for their licentioufnefs, were fwept away with a deluge. See Mr. Mede's Difc. on this text (Works, p. 31.) The prophet Ifaiah, (chap. xiv. 9.) when foretelling the deftru6lion of Babylon, reprefents the infernal regions as being in great commotion at the approach of its monarch : Hell their of the ISIew "Tejiament. 213 their hoji \ or fellow -inhabit ants. Job is from beneath is moved for thee^ to meet thee at thy coming \ it jlirreth up the dead (the rephai?ti^ or giants) for thee ; even all the chief ones of the earth : it hath raifed up from their thro?ies all the kings of the nations. Compare Kzek, xxxii. 18, 21. Rephaim properly fignifies giantSy in Gen.xiv. 5. Deut. ii. 11, 20. iii. il. Jofli. XV. 8. xvii. 15. 2 Sam. xxi. 16, 18, 20, 22. I Chron. XX. 4, 6, 8. In the pafTage from Job now before us, it is explained concerning giants, that is, their ghofts, in the Chaldee Paraphrafe, the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and many modem verfions, ^ ^/^inj, which the learned Schultens here renders iniremifcunty and the Latin Vulgate gemunt. Our Englijfh tranflation renders the fame verb to feary I Chron. xvi, 30. to fjake^ Pf. xxix. 8. to tremble, Pf, cxiv. 7. Pf. xcvii. 4, Jerem. v. 22. Hab. iii. 10. and often to grieve znA be in anguijh, ' Under the waters. Mr. Peters, in his excellent Diflertation on Job, (p. 359.) and others, fuppofe, that Job here refers to the waters with which the giants were overwhelmed at the flood. Compare Mede, p. 31, &c. But the ingenious Mr. Scott, in his judicious notes on this pafTage, obferves from Windet, De Vita Fund^orum Statu, p. 243. that the Jewifn rabbis placed gehenna under thofe waters, Vvhich they fuppofed to be lower than the earth, P 3 here 214 ^^^ ^^^^ Demoniacs here celebrating the dominion of God over the man (ions of the dead ; and he affirms, that the giants ^ the fouls of thofe mighty men, who were fuch 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 coternporaries on earth, or that now in- habit the fame manfions*. That the Jews ' Ho/l. The original word was thus underflood by the Chaldee Paraphraih It rather denotes either their inhabitants^ or their neighbou7'S . zti^' fellows. But It is immaterial to determine, whether it refers to thofe wicked men who dwelled on the earth at the fame time with the giants, (as fome explain the word;) or (as others) to thofe who have been fmce gathered to their affembly. * The explication given above of the text In queftion agrees well with the fucceeding verfe : Hell is naked before him^ and defiruttion hath no cover- ing. Job xxvi. 6. Is not this explication alfo more agreeable to the defign of Job, v/hich was to extol the unlimitted power of the Divine Being, than that given by the Septuagint, the Targum, and fome learned roderns, which feems to fet limits to that pov/er? Can the giants be born or brought forth again Jrom under the waters ? thought of the New Tefiame:it, 2 1 5 thought that Job here referred to wicked ghofts, to the ghofts efpecially of the an- cient giants, clearly appears from the Chaldee Paraphrafe^ and from the Sep- tuagint". The words, however, maybe underftood in a more general fenfe to the following effect : *^ The departed fouls of the wicked tremble in the loweJlJJjeol'', even all the inhabitants of thofe gloomy manfions ^." Now the demons 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 particular. For demons denoted the ghofts of v/icked t K**Uli!n. Compare Gen. xv. ao. in Hebrew, with the Targum. '" TiyoiVTig, Symmachus renders It, B'iOfAxx^oi. " The exprefllon in Job, under the waters, an- fwers to the lowej? hell, or Jheo I, in Deut. xxxii. 22. SeePeters on Job, fe6t. 8. and Windet, p. 204. And though rephaim, as we have (ten, fometimes fignifies ghoils in general, yet it is evident, that Job is fpeaking of that part of fhcol which is allotted to wicked fouls, ^ Compare Schultens on Job, p. 708. P 4 men. 2i6 On the Demoniacs men', of fuch efpecially as fufFered a vio-,- lent death % and particularly thofe dcr jftroyed by the flood, who were confidered as the worfl; kind of demons ". So that the apoflle fcems only to have tranflated this paffiige of Job, when he faid, The de- mons trembU. As to the additional cir- cumftance of their believing, mentioned in the tranflation, it is clearly implied in the original; adread of God's juftice being inconfiftent with a diibelief of his exift- ence. I add, that St. James doth not appear to be delivering any new dodlrine concerning demons in this place, but rather to be arguing with the perfons to whom Jie vyrites, upon their own princi- Demons bore this meaning amongft the Jews. See Jofephus as cited above, p, 42. and Diflert. on Mir. p. 208. ' Diflert. on Mir. p 209, 229. P'^ -vi^v yiydvluv \[/u^jc), 01 TUifn rov )iO(TfJt.QV il(r\ ■aXocvufxtuoi ootiiAQViq, Athenag. Apol. p. 28. B. TertuUian fays, (Apol. cap. xxii.) De angelisqui- bufdam (he is fpeaking of the fons of God in Gen. yi» 2.) corruptior gens daemonum evafeiit. pies. of the New Tejlamenf. 217 pies, or appealing to a fadl that they would not difpute, becaufe eftabliflied upon the authority of the Old Teftament. 'Thou helieveji that there is one Gody and fo far thou dojl well: but this faith alone is not fufficient ; for the demons alfo believe and tremble. In reafoning with Jews, or with Jewiili converts, what was more natural than to employ a prinpiple allowed by themfelves *, and contained in their own Scriptures ? It is the more reafonable to fuppofe that the text in queftion is bor- rowed from thefe writings, as the imme- diately fucceeding arguments, from the cafe of xAbraham and of Rahab, are cer- tainly drawn from thence. If the fore- going obfervations are jufl, this paffage is a clear proof that by demons in the New Teftament, we are fometimes to under- * That the ancient Jews underftood the forecited paffage from Job, fo far as St. James employs it, in the fame fenfe that he did (as well as in what feems to me to be the true fenfe,) appears from the Chaldee Paraphrafe, which may be thus literally rendered ; Can the giants that trenible^ &c. fland 21 S On the Demoniacs ftand theghofts of dead men. — 5. It can bear no other meaning in that prophecy of St. John ■*, The rejl of the men, ivhich were not killed by thefe plagues, yet repented not of the "works of their hands y that they jhould not worfiip demons % and idols of gold and fiver. This paflage refers to the idolatries pradlifed in the Roman church, which confifts in the worfliip of departed faints and fenfelefs idols, not of devils, as this word is now underftood- — 6. In the fequel of the Revelation of St. John, he had a prophetic vifion of the fpirits of de^ mons "Working miracles^ ^ which, as was ob- ferved above fjfome refer to the miracles pretended to be wrought by departed faints, and in fupport of their worfhip. Or, according to the genius of this pro- phecy, the fpirits of demons working mira- cles may be a fymbol or figurative repre- fentation of the deceit 2Si^ fraud pradifed by men of the temper and fpirit of de^ * Rev. ix. 20. *^ Ta (^at/Aovj«. \ Rev. xvi. 14. t P. 46. rnons. of the New Tejlament. 219 mons, in fupporting their claims to a mi- raculous power. — Once more, 7. The utter defolation of Babylon is thus de- fcribed in this book, // is become the habi-' tation of demons^. The demons who were thought to haunt defolate places, were fuch as were believed to polTefs mankind ^ and confequently were hu- man fpirits. From this diilindt examina- tion of ail the occafions on which demons occur in the New Tellament, wennay, I prefume, fafely conclude, that it never means the devil and his angels there ; leafl; of all in the writings of St. PauU On the contrary, there is as much evi- dence as the nature of the cafe admits, that both he and the other apoftles by- demons meaned the ghofts of dead men; and they ufe the word, as the ancients did, fometimes in a good, at other times in a bad itr\{Q, If there be any exception to the meaning here affigned it, it muft *" Rev^ xviii. 2. With regard to the proper mean- ing of this paflage, fee below, feci. iii. article 2. J Matt. xii. 43. be 220 On the 'Demoniacs be in the paffage under our prefent confi- deration. This leads us to confider, whether the occajian on which it is ufed here, obh'ges us to underftand St. Paul as fpeaking of devils, though he doth not (nor do any of the other apoftles) ufe it in any fuch fenfe at any other time. Let us then examine thefubjedl of his difcourfe, and the fcope of his argument, which, it will be al- lowed, is a good method of determining his true meaning. It is a point too ob- vious to admit of any difpute, that the apoftle is here defcribing the heathen gods, fuch of them as were the objeds of popular worfliip. By demons, therefore, he cQuld not mean devils : for thefe fpirits were not known, much lefs wor- iliipped, by the Heathens. Confequently it is not true, that they partook of the table of devilsy or that they drank the cup of devils. Nor doth St. Paul ever charge them with this crime. In the beginning of his Epif^ of the New Te (lament . 2 2 1 Epiftle to the Romans, he particularly fpe- cifies the vile ebjeds of their devotion, and could not, one would imagine, omit, on that occafion, the mention of one un- fpeakably viler than all the reft, had he known that the devil was included amongft them. The obje confirms the explication here given of it. For they pleaded it as a reafon for feafting in his temple upon what had been offered infacrifice to the idol, or falfegod, tho'he was fuppofed by his vvorfliippers to mingle with, and to partake of the vidim?. The Corinthian converts joined theiridolatrous acquaintance in thefe religious banquets, under a full perfuafion that the idol could not pollute them, nor do any thing either to the prejudice or benefit of mankind'^. P That the Heathens often feailed upon the fa- crlfice in their temples, and that the gods were, thought to take their part in the entertainment, is (hewn by Cudworth on the Lord's Supper, (fee Mo- fheim's edition) Whitby and Wetftcin on i Cor. x. 20,21. andElfner on this phice,and on iCor. viii. io<. '^ Hence it appears, that thofc writers mufl: be midaken, who fuppofe that this maxim, an idol i; 0^2 St 2 2S On the Demoniacs St. Paul, who (as will be fh^wa imme- diately) adopted thli maxim, ufed it in the fenie here alngned it ; for he tM^- where cenfures all the demons of gentilifm as mere vinltics \ It feems, indeed, to be borrowed from the Old Teftament, where it cannot bear (as all allow) any other fenfe than that in which it is here ex- plained. ^// the gods of the Heathens are nothings^ » Behold ^ ye are of nothhig, and nothing In the worlds means no more than that an idol is not the true God, or hath no proper divinity in him. For, though an idol were not the true God, yet might he h^ fomething in the worlds he might have much of th:it powder his votaries afcribe to him, and his favour or difplcafHre might be a matter of great importance. Never thelefs, the re- verfe of all this was fuppofcd to be true by thofe who adopted this maxim, llicy reafoned in the following manner : Quod nori eil contaminare ani- mum non poteft. Nihil ergo in eo peccati fi in templo epuler, fi ad exfra vocatcs earn, fi poft pro- fe6lain focum data menfs accumbam. Grotius on I Cor. viii. I. ' A(!^sxiv. 15. In i Cor. xii. 2. the npollle calls them dumb idols. How v/ell this agrees to human ghofts may be feen in Elfner, cited above, p. 1(58. note ('). ^ Elilim^ nothings, or things of no value. Pf. xcvi. 5 of the New T^ejiament. 229 your work cf nought \ They cannot do evil^ neither alfo is it in them to do good"". 4. When St. Paul fays, JVE KNOW that an idol is nothing-^ the expreilion im- ph'es, that the nullity of the heathen gods or demons was a principle admitted by himfelf, as well as entertained by thofe Chriftians whom he was now addreffine. There was ?iot, indeed, in <^//theChriftians at Corinth this knowledge^. For fome of the new converts v/ere not able to (hake off all at once their old opinion concern- ing the power of their former gods, or at leafl: not to efface the impreffion of it from their hearts: and confequently thefe perfons, in partaking of what had been offered in facrifice to the heathen gods, would feel fome degree of their former religious reverence and awe of them, and feem to themfelves to be joining with them in one common feart:''. It was far *" If. xli. 24. See alfo v. 29. " Jerem. x. 5. *' I Cor. viii. 7, ^ For fome with confcie?2cs of ihe idol, u>ito this hour^ Q 3 other- 230 On the De?noniacs otherwifc, however, with the major part of the Chrifiian church, with thofe efpe- cially of more enlarged underftandingSjt and a liberal turn of mind, or who were more fully inftrudled and eftablifhed in the docftrines of Chriftianity. So ftrongly were they perfuaded, that an idol was no- thing in the world, that under the (lielter of this principle, they did Jit at meat in the idoTs temple\ and partook of the confe- crated feaft as a common and ordinary re- paft. They feem even to have valued themfelves greatly upon this conduct, as a proof of the uncommon flrength and freedom of their minds. Now, when St- Paul tells thefe perfons. We know that an idol is nothing ; he plainly admits the truth of the principle upon which they afted, and Indirectly reproves their vanity in boafling of their knowledge of it, as if they were in this refped Angularly wife \ eat it as a thing offered unto an idoL and their conjciencc heing %ueak is defiled. I Cor, viii. 7. ^ I Cor. viii. 10 ,^ Hence it is, that when he enters upon the ar-. of the Ne-iv Tef.ament. 23 1 As if the apoftle had faid, '* Though you are puffed up with your knowledge of the nullity of idols, and are fo forward to fhevv it ; this is no peculiar difcovery of yours, I and all well-inftruded Chriftians are as perfedly acquainted with it as you can be^'* It is very remarkable, that, not- gument concerning tilings cfFered to idah, he fays, I'f^e know that we all ha\je knowledge^ i Cor. viii. i. where Grotius obferves, Neifli ictCpus-i'^'ai'i/oi putent fe folos fapere, non minus et nos intelligimus quid fit idolum five deus coniinentitius. See aJfo Mr, Locke on i Cor. viii. i — 13. who paraphrafes v. 4. in thefollov/ing manner, I knoiu as wdl as youj that an iclcl, 2zc. ^Thebifhopof Gloucefter (Serm. vol. ii. p. 71.) fays, admitting that the Chrijlians conceriied had ns thought of receiiifig good or harm from thofc idob, yet (what is more to thepurpfe) wefe^ St. Paul had. But it is clear from the pafTage we are now conndering, that St. Paul agreed in fentiment with the Chriftians concerned, that idols w^rc nothing in the world, and confequently thnt no good or harm could be expeded from them. His lordlliip had before (p. 69.) reprefented Sr, Paul as faying, that thcfe idok %vere dtvils. Now if thefe idols were devils, it would from hence follow, that devils arc nothing in the worlds a conf^qucnce that his lordfliip will not al- Q 4 with- 232 0?2 the Demoniacs withftanding the ill ufe made of thia principle, he not only admits it to be true, but labours to eftablifh it. 5. This brings us to examine the rea^ foning employed by the Apoftle to prove the nullity of idols, and at the fame time to prevent the abufe of this dodtrine : We know that an idol is notJiing in the ivorld, low, and which cannot he drawn from the nullity of demons. His Jordfliip, however, is at no lofs to folve the difficulty ; for he fuppofes (p. 71.) the apoftle's meaning to be. Though ye am pojjibly receive no benefit from idols ^ (by which he affirms St. Paul meaned de* vils-i) as your proie^ors and tiencfaSiors^ ye may yet receiije real damage from the deml, the declared enemy of mankind. According to this account of idols, they w}ci:q fc?}icthing. Yet this writer in the fame breath fays, (p. 70.) The good and evil de?nons ofGen- iilifm^ were indeed thofe idols ^ not of the altar ^ but of the brain ^ which the facred writers eficemcd metaphyr fical NOTHINGS. Can St. Paul be fpeaking of any other demons than thofe of the Gentiles, when he fays, The Gentiles facrifice to demons ? Now, if the demons of gcntilifm were the idols which the facred writers efteemed nothing in the world ; why ^loth his lordfiiip affirm, that thefe idols arc devils, and that we may receive damage from them ? and of the New Tejlament, 233 and that there is none other God but cne, FOR though there be (amongft the Gen- tiles) that are called Godsy whether in hea- ^oen or in earth, both celeftial and terref- tlal ; (as there he gods MANT, and lords ?/IANT^y that is, there is indeed amongft the Gentiles a vaji multitude of reputed deities, fomeyi'T;^r^/^;z in their refpedivc provinces, and oihtvs fubordinate, but all of them fuppofed to poffefs real power and dominion.) But to US (that is, to Chriftians) there is but one God, the Pa- th er^ of whom are all things, and we in him y and one Lord Jefus Chrijl, by whom are all things, and we by him. As if the apoftle had faid, *^ All Chriftians, if they think rightly, muft allow, that the good and evil demons of paganifni are mere ^ Le Clerc fcppofes that Paul here afTerts, that there are gods many (in heaven God and hisangels); ?ind lords many (in the earth magiflrates) : a fen- timent quite foreign from the defign of the apoflk, and well refuted by Whitby on i Cor, viii. 5. Qompare Jerem, ii. 28. nuK 234 0^ ^^^^ Demoniacs jnullitles, for this plain reafon, that our religion fuppofes and aflerts the ible do- jninion of Jehovah and hisMefliahoverthe human race, and, in fo doing, utterly fub- verts the claims ofall other fuperior beings to interpofein human affairs. It demons have any power over nnankind, whether it he original or fubordinate, or can do theai either good or evil, it cannot be truly af- firmed, that they have no other God or Lord but Jehovah and his Cbrift, fro/n whomor through whom are all things : for, on this fuppoiition> it might be faid with truth, that from or through demons are many things^ and that they are Jomething in the world. We cannot, therefore, but agree with you in your main principle, that demons are nothing, unlefs we re- nounce the fundamental article of the Chriftian faithJ* Such was his zeal for this principle, that when warning thofe Chriftians againfi; the abufe of it, who urged it as a plea for eat- ing of the Nezv Tejia?nent. 235 ing things offered to the heathen demons, and even for aflifting at fellivals in their honour, he thus expreffeth himfelP: What fay I then ? that the idol is any tilings or that which is offered in facrifce to idols is any thing? *' Earneftly as I amdiffuading you againft joining v/ith the Heathens in the facrifices or feilivals of their de- mons, far be it from me to fugged, that thefe demons have any degree of power, or that what is offered to them fuffers any real pollution. After what Ihavefaid on this fubjecfl, you cannot fufpedt me of holding any fuch opinion." But Ifay^ that the things which the Gentiles facrifce^ they facrifce to demons, and not to God-, andl would not that ye (hould havefellowjlnp with demons. *' My meaning is, that the wor-r ihip of the Heathens is not direded to the true God, but to their own deities, whom they fubftitute in his flead, and whon^ they regard as real deities ; and it muft ^ I Cor, X, 19. be 236 0;z the Demoniacs be very unfit for Chriftians, who know that they are nothing in the world, and that there is only one God, to join in the wor/hip and communion of falfegods^ or to ^o any adl, that, by fair con^'rudion, implies their having a religious reverence for them, a belief of their power, or a de- fire of their favour and friendfhip". The apoftle proceeds, Te cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons ; ye can- not he partakers of the Lords tahky and the table of demons. ** You cannot, without great abfurdity and felf-contradidlion, pay homage to Chrifl: as the only Lord over mankind, by celebrating his fupper, if you acknowledge the authority of other lords and agents between heaven and ^ With this the Corinthian converts were juftly chargeable, when they afTifted at the facrrfices of the heathen gods, or partook of the facrcd banquets in their temples; the gods themfelves, as it was fup- pofed, (baring in the common feaft. * The fame fentiment is elfewhcre thus exprefTed by the apoftle, JVJmt agreement hath the temple of Gdd with idols ? 2 Cor. vi. 16. earth. cf the New Tt J! amenta 237 earth, and celebrate feflivaU in their ho- nour. If you acknowledge their claims, you muft deny his ; if you admit his, you muft give up theirs ^" The apoftle urges feveral other conil- derations to diffbade them from eating promifcuoufly, and without fcruple, things offered to falfe gods ; but as they are chiefly drawn from the ill efFeds their example might have upon others, who might be tempted to imitate it, though not fully perfuaded of the lawfulnefs of doing it, they need not be explained in this place. It is very obfervable, that, copioufly as the apoftle treats this fubjed:, he never once makes any mention of the devil, never intimates that he, or any mif- chievous fpirits, perfonated the heathen gods, fupported their worfhip, and were ^ The apoftle, in like manner, taxes the Colof- fians (chap. ii. 19.) with not holding the head, be- caufe they ivorjhipped angels. For though they might allow Chrift to be the chief mediator, yet they utterly fubverted his proper claim to be the Jble me'. that, by the fon of God, this demoniac only meaned a godlike ?nan ; and that he concluded Chrift to be fuch from the majefty pf his "appearance, and the authority with which he fpoke. (Mark v. 8.) Com- pare Mat. xxvii, 54. Bxit he might have the fame meaning with thofe demoniacs who called our Lord ^he Mefftah, the So7i of God, Luke iv, 41. ^ Mat. iv. 24, 25. * IIoAAorif p^^cvct?, Luke viii. 27. ^ The fame thing, perhaps, is implied in his beinv (fften bound. Whenever his fits were obferved to be coming on, his friends attempted to confine him. See Dr. Lardner's Remarks on Ward, ancj Mr„ If of the New T^ejlamenf. 247 If I might be allowed to propofe a con- jedure, 1 would obferve, that perhaps the demoniacs would run into the common opinion concerning Jefus as the promifed Meffiah, more eagerly than perfons of a cooler judgment; the latter being ftruck with fome contrary appearances in his character, (fuch as the poverty of his con- dition, and the fpiritual nature of his dodtrine), which efcaped the attention of the former, who, for this reafon, with greater confidence fainted him under his high charader, agreeably to the firft im« preffion which his miracles made on the minds of all men. This feems to me much more probable, than that infernal fpirits fhould freely and zealoufly affert the divine claims, and fpread the glory, of Jefus as the: Meffiah. The foregoing obfervatlons are, in a great meafure, applicable to the cafe of Mole there cited, to whom the public is indebted for this, and the foregoing curious and important obfervation with refpe^l to this demoniac. R 4 the 24S On the "Demoniacs thePythonefs at Philippi, who, for feveral days together, followed Paul and his com- panions, crying out, T^hefe men arethefer* 'vantsof the Moji High God, which Jhew unto usthewayofjalvation^. Though (he la- boured under a melancholy, or feme fpe- cies of infanity ^, fhe might be informed, either by attending the preaching of St. Paul, or by converfing with others, what the apoftle and his companions profefled themfelves to be. The ftrong impreflion which this information made upon her mind, will eafily account for this woman's condufl: in following them from day to day in the manner here related; efpecial- ly if we add, that, under a melancholy, the mind is always fixed upon one objed:. The honourable teftimony (lie bore to Paul could not be the eftedt of the fpirit of Python or Apollo ; becaufe it tended to difparage himfelf, and the whole tribe of heathen deities. If you ^' A6ls xvi. 17. » DifTert. on Mir. 275, 276, and above, p. 106. fay of the New Tejiamejit, 249 fay itwa? the devil who bore this teftimony to Paul, you will Snd it more difficult ftill to account for this zeal for truth ia the father oi lies ; bccaufe this teftlrnony, as it would appear to proceed from one of their own godr, would have great weight witn the Gentiles. Nor was any evil fpirit conjlrained to bear this teftimony to Paul ; for the apoftle was grieved at it, and, in order to put a flop to it, cured her diforder^. This brings us to examine another objedtion againft our idea of pof- feffions. 2. It is urged, that Chrift commanded the devils [demons) not to dif cover him \ ^ A£ts xvi. 18. It might be expelled that foma notice fhould be taken here of the demoniac at E- phefus; but his cafe will be confidered at the clofe of this fedion. '^ Dr. Warburton, p. 221. See Mark i. 23 — 26, 34. iii. 12, Luke iv. 33, 34, 35, 41. In the place jaft referred to here we read, that Jefus rebuking them (the demons), fuffered them not to fpcah : for they knew that he was Chriji, The words may as well be rendered, He fuffered them 7:oi to fay ^ that they huew him to be Chrijiy or the Mejftah, 25<^ On the Dt^moniacs This objection properly belongs to the third general argument in favour of real poffeffions, and is introduced here only en acxount of its near affinity to the pre- ceding article. In order to folve this difficulty, it will be neceffary to recolledl the idea which the ancients entertained concerning de- moniacs. It hath been obferved already, that the demons within them were fup- pofed to occupy the feat of the human foul, and to perform all its fundions in the body. During his pofTeffion, the de- moniac himfelf was filent ^ it was the de- mon alone that fpoke in him^ What- ^ A pafTage from Plato, full to our prefent pur- pofe, hath been referred to above, p. 149, note (^). Luclaii likewife, when ftating the common opinion concerning perfons pofiefled, fays, in exprefs terms. The patient is Ji lent ; the demon returns the anfwcrs to the qucfilcns that are cjked: 'O ^h vqij"^)) xvrc; (tiusttx, q Apollonius thus addrefTcs a youth fuppofed to be oofieffed : 1 o-j, txZtu J^pi'^fK, aAX' $xi[xwv. Non tu hacme contumeiia afEcis, fed d^mon. Philoftrat. Vit. ApoUon. p. 157. ed. Olear, ever of the New Tejiament, 251 ever was done by the former was attri- buted to the impulfe of the huter^ De- moniacs werenot only regarded by others, but generally conceived of themfelves, as fpeaklng.and ading under the influence of the fpirits by which they believed themfelves pofleffed-, or as being thofe very fpirits. At leaft, every thing they faid and did correfponded to their appre- henfions of the fentiments and inclina- tions of the indwelling demons ", being themfelves indeed (in their own imagina- tion) nothing more than their organs of * Aai'otcov EAauvfi (ts. Daemon te aglt. Philoftrat. ubi fupra. Mensechrous, under the character of a., madman, thus addrefles Bacchus and Apollo: Bro- mie, quo me in fylvam venatum vocas ? Muha inihi imperas,, Apollo. Ecce, Apollo, denuo me jubes facere impetum. Plaut. Men. a6l v, fc. 2. V. 82, 109, 1 15. ^ See the pafTage frorn Plautus cited In the pre- ceding note. ° Cuinam haec res eft fimilis r homini in quo eH: fpirltus malus, et opera quae facit omnia ex ejus lententia facit, et omnia verba quae loquitur, ex ^jus fententia loquitur. Pirlce Eliezer 13. fpeech 252 On the Demofiiacs fpeech and adlion *. Hence the demon and the demoniac were often, in common fpeech, confounded together j both were defcribed under the fame term \ and the fame adt was referred indifferently to either. St. Chryfoflom, in the palfages cited from * This fully appears from the account given of the demoniacs in the New Teflament. They ad- drefs Jefus In the fame manner that (to their appre- henfjon) demons wot'Icl have done, if they had been prefent. Either confounding themfelves u^ith de- mons, and fancying themfelves to be fuch ; or elfc fpeaking in their names, and under their imagined influence ; they beg not to be tormented before the time, and a/k leave to enter a herd of fwine. *' In that paiTage from Plautus (Mercator, 2i€t. v, {c. 4, V. 20.) Etiam loquere larva, the word larva, which properly fignifies a ghofl, feems to be uk^ for the madman poffefTed by him. Demon feems like- wife to have been ufed by the Jews in the fame manner. When fome reproached Qhn9:wkh having a ieimny and being mad-y others replied in his vin- dication, "^hej^ are not the words of a demoniac {ioti- f&o5«^o^£>8). Can a demon (that is, a demoniac) i^en the eyes of the blind ? John x. 20, 21. Their meaning was, "• His difcourfes are fober and ratio- nal ; and is it likely, if he '.vcrc a poiTefTed perfon, or a madmrji, that God would impower him to perform fuch great miri.lcs ?'* of the New T'eJIament. ty^ hitn above \ at one time, reprefents the demons 2.% faying they were the foul of fuch a monk ; though, at another time, he afcribes this to the demoniacs, Inftances of fame manner of fpeaking are to be found in the Gofpel. St. Mark, on one occafion, fays ^, Unclean fpirits, %vhen they SAW Jefus, FELL DOWN before him, and CRIED ; faying. Thou art the Son ofGod^ On another occafion ', fimilar to this, the fame evangelift reprefents, not the unclean fpirit, but the man fuppofed to be pof- feffed by him, ^.^ feeing Jefus, worJhippif2g himy {ox falling down before him'^y) andc/j- ing^ What have I to do with thee^ JefiiSy ihou Son of the Moji High God""? In the fequel of the hiftory of this demoniac, we are told by St. Mark% that HE befoiight Jefus much, that he woidd not fejid them away out of the country. By St. Luke p, in the parallel ^ P. 51, 52. ^ Mark iii. 11. ^ Mark v. 6, 7. " Luke viii. 28. " Matthew likewife, chap, viii, 28, 29, and Luke viii. 28. agree with Mark. ° Chap. V. 10. ^ Ghap. viii. 31. 254. ■ On the Demoniacs paflagc, it is faid, the DEMONS befovghf him, that he would not command them to go out into the deep. The requeft to enter the fwine is, by the three evangelifts, referred to the demons '^. On all thefe occafions, the demoniacs were the only perfons who fpoke to Jefus ; of them alone it is true, that they faw him, and fell down before him. Neverthelefs, demoniacs having been anciently confidered as the mere or- gans of evil fpirits, it was no uncommon thino- to afcribe to the latter what was faid and done by the former. The evan- gelifts, we have feen, adopted this phrafeo- logy, and referred to demons the ads of the demoniacs. And therefore, when they tell us, •' that Jefus fufFered not the demons to fay, that they knew him to be the Mef- fiah,*' they are to be underftood of the men poffeffed by them. Thefe are the perfons who publifhed Chrift's charafter ; and, on *^ Matt. viii. 31. The demons befonght him, Mark V. 12. All the demons befought him. Luke viii. 32. They (the demons) befought him, this of the New Tejlament. 255 this account, might be enjoined filence. If you ftill contend, that it was not to the perlbn poffefled, but to the fpirit fuppofed to be within him, that Chrift addrelTed this injunction j yet it muft be defigned to have its efFed: upon the former, rather than upon the latter, who was mod ef- fedlually filenced by being ejedled. la reality, it is a matter of little moment, whe- ther the reftrain t was laid on the demoniac?, or not; for if Chrift, in mere conformity to the accuftomed modes of fpeech (as will be fhewn below in the third fedlion) com- manded demons to come out I he might, upon the fame principle^ command them to befilent' Nor was any thing more likely to awe the demoniac himfelf into imme- diate filence, than his hearing fuch a com- mand delivered to the fpirits that (in his opinion) a(fluated him, by one fo famed as Jefus was for his power of controuling them. The language was adapted to his apprehenfions, and the difturbed ftate of his mind. And if Chrift favv^ fit to fpeak to him at all in that ftate, was it not pro- per 256 On the Demoniacs per to fpeak according to his conceptions^ and in the manner moft likely to be at- tended with fuccefs ? Indeed, if Chrift had addreffed the demoniac, he would ne- verthelefs have been confidered as fpeak- ing to the demon ; as appears from the following fadl. When Jefus afked a pof- felTed perfon"". What is thy name? the man, conceiving of himfelf as an evil fpirit, or as being merely the organ of evil fpirits, regarded the queftion as pro- pofed to them, and, under this impreffion, replied. My name is legion, Chrift forbad his own immediate difci- ples to declare him openly to be the Mef- fiah % (leaving men to colledt it at leifure from the evidence that was fet before them), that he might not draw after him an immenfe croud of worldly-minded Jews°, who miftaking the nature of his " He afked him^ ccvtov^ the man, not, ro -urvEVfAx TO axaOctpIov, the unclean fpirit, whom he commanded to come out of the man, Mark v. g. See alfo Luke viii. 30. " Mat. XVI. 20. ** From the fame and other motives, he fome- times forbad the publication of particular miracles. king- of the New TeJIameiit. 257 kingdom, were difpofed, and had once at- tempted, to take him by force, and make him a king ^ Perfons of fuch a temper were not prepared to receive the fpiritual dodrines of the Gofpel ; and their fol- lowing Chrift in large crouds, in order to advance him to the throne of David, mud have given umbrage to the Roman go- vernment, or at leaft afforded the Jewifli rulers, filled with envy and hatred "^ againft him, an opportunity of accufing him of fedition and treafon. Now, the fame prohibition which Chrift gave to his ov^^a difciples, (and alfoto many others*,) it was See Hammond on Mat, viii, 4. Where no inconve- nience could arife from it, Chrifl required the publi- cation of his miracles, as in the cafe of thsGadarene demoniac, Mark v. 19. P John vi. *^ John iv, I, 3, ix. 22. * The ftrltSi: charge given to demons, or demo- niacs, not to make him known, taken notice of Mark ili. 11. 12. was at the fame time given to the multitudes that followed him, in order to be healed, (as appears from Mat. xii. 15, 16.) and probably therefore, for the fame general rcafon, the S equally 258 On the Demoniacs equally proper to give to the demoniacs, whofe confident perfaafion of his being the Meiiiah, and warm gratitude to him for the benefit of their miraculous cure, would prompt them to proclaim their exalted opinion of him. If Chrift had any peculiar reafon for checking the zeal of the demoniacs, it pro- bably was the define of leaving no room for the fpecious pretence, that there was a fecret agreement between him and thofe evil fpirits, who were judged to be fo ea- ger in applauding him. Chrift's refufal of (what was deemed to be) their teftimo- ny, is a full proof that they were not co?!- Jirained by God to bear it : and at the fame time ferves to condemn the condud: of thofe impoflors that afterwards fwarm- ed in the Chriftian church, who laid fo great a ftrefs upon the pretended confeffion made by demons ^ and even claimed a power of extorting it againft their inclination and defirc of preventing all tumult and diflurbance, A4at. xii. 18, 19, 20. inte- of the New T^ejiament, 259 intereft. The frequent and confident ap- peal to thefe confeflions, which the Fa- thers make, do them no credit, and were without doubt, received with contempt by men of underftanding. For, if demons are wicked and lying fpirits, as they are generally fuppofed to be, they are much more likely to fpeak fallliood than truth. 3. Some have fald, that demoniacs could not be mere madmen, becaufe they argue ninth Chriji in a very rational manner f and fpeak to better purpofe than the bulk ofthofe who were in their fenfes. This afiertion being chiefly founded upon the behaviour of the Gadarenc de- moniac ', let us inquire how far it agrees ' Mat. vlli. 28. Mark v. 2. Luke vili. 27. Mat- thew fpeaks of two demoniacs j Mark and Luke take notice only of one^ who v/as probably the fiercer of the two, and had laboured under his dif- order a longer time, or on fome other account was the moR- remarkable He belonged to the neigh- bouring city, (Luke viii. 27. and Wetftenius inloc.) and v/as probably a man of note and fubftance there ; as Dr. Lardner conjedtures in his Remarks S 2 with 26o On the Demoniacs with the fuppofition of his being directed and affiled by fuperior intelligences in all that he faid and did. i. When the demo- niac f aw Jefus afar off\ he ran ^ to meet him. Was not this condudl abfurd on the common hypothefis ? The unclean fpirit dreaded nothing fo much as being expelled and tormented by Jefusj and yet haftens in to his immediate prefence; in ftead of flying from it. z. In the next place, the demoniac fell down before fefus, and wor^ fhipped him\ Did the devil, under whofe influence he is fuppofed to aft, hope, by this external homage, to deceive the Son of God into a good opinion of him, or to bend him to a compliance with his propo- fals ? 3. When Chrifl: faid. What is thy name f how ridiculous is the anfwer, in cafe it was returned by the unclean fpirit. My name is legion ; for we are many^ S up- on Dr. Ward's DiiTertatlons, p. 3. See alfo bis Cafe of the Demoniacs, p. 4, 5, 10. ' Mark V. 6. * Luke viii. 28. Mark Vr 6. pofe fo the New Tejiament^ 261 pofe that in a large army* either a private foldier, or one of the officers, being aflied what his own name was, fhould reply, My name is army ^ for we are many; what opinion would you have of his \inder- fianding? or how would this name dif- tinguifh either the foldier or the officer from all the other foldiers and officers in the army "" ? 4. More abfurd ftill was the behaviour of the devil, (if he was the de- " It is very aftonifhing to find writers of found judgment in other matters, inferring from this an- fwerofthe demoniac, or (as they fuppofe) of the devil, that the madman was really polleflcd by a gre^t multitude, if not exacSlly by a legion, of de- vils. Is any credit due to the father of lies ? Can there be a better reafon for difbelieving any thing, than his affirming it to be true ? Could Chriflde- fign to bring mankind to give him credit, and to receive dodlrines upon his teftimony ? If one de- mon alone can, as it is fuppofcd he can, deprive a man of his fight, and fpeech, and hearing, and of his reafon too, and do all this in a moment, why fhould a legion of demons be employed, and lofe that time which they might have fpent in doing mifchief elfewhere? S 3 mon 262 On the Donontacs mon here fpoken of) when Chrlft ordered him to come out cf the man\ of whom he had taken poffeffion. One moment he difclaims the authority of Jefus, and re- fents his undertaking to ejed him ; What have I to do with thee, thou Son of the Moji High God^'f The very next inftant, he acknowledges his power over him, and intreats him not to exert it: 1 hejeech thee, 1 adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not. Immediately after, he upbraids and reproaches him, and, at the fame time, appears to expect fome efFeds of his difpleafure. Art thou corae hither to tor- ment us before the time^f He hath re- courfe again tofupplication, and befeeches Chrift, that he might not befatt away out of the country % nor commanded to go out in-- ^^ Luke vlli. 2^. Mark v. 8, ^ Lukeviii. 28. Mark v. 7. ^ Mat. xxvili. 29. The time here referred to is commonly thought to be that of the day of judg- ment, (2 Pi-'t. ii. 4. Jude vi.) which was confidered as the feafon appointed for the punifhment of all evil rpirits. Sec Rev. xx, 10, 15.. Mark v. jo. tO of the New Tejlament. 263 to the deep"". To the devil, vve are told, the whole world is but one place\ Why then doth he dread a temporary banifh- ment from fo fmall a fpot as the country ^ Luke viii. 31. By the deep or ahyjfs^ we are moft probably to underftand the place allotted to the wicked, in the interval between their death and the final judgment, . called the pit of the abyfs, (p^lx^ rr,^ aboVda, Rev. ix.'l^a, and the ahyfs, V. II. See alfo chap. xk. i, 2, 3. This place is called thei r prifon, 1 Pet. iii. 19. Mere they are referved unto judg?nerJ, 2 Pet. ii. 4. See "VVhitby on this place, and above, p. 213, and Jude v. 6. It was the opinion of the Jews, that thefe evil fpirits were on foine occafions releafed from their confine- raent, and fuffered to wander upon the earth till the end of the world. Perhaps, what the demoniac, confidering himielf as the mere organ of an indwel- ling demon, dreaded, (though without any vifible reafon) was the being remanded back tj this prifon fooner than he fliould otherwife have been ; or the being punifhed before the day of judgment. Ac- cording to this interpretation of the deep-, the demo- niac, it may be thought, fpeaks in character. By the deep, according to fome, we are to underftand the fea. In favour of this application of the word here, it may be pleaded, that nothing is too abfurd to come from a madman. ■^ Totus orbis illis locus unus ed. Tertullian, p. 23. Rigalt. Paris, 1641. S4 of 264. On the Demoniacs of Gadara ? Why is he (o uneafy at being cafl: out of one man, if he hath the power of entering another ? Why doth he fear being fent into the deep or abyfs f What- ever idea he had of this place, he depre- cates an evil he had not been threatened with ; and which, had it been threatened, he could not hope to avert by his inter- ceffion ; efpecially if he afked, as fomc fuppofehe did, for leave to continue in that country, only for the fake of oppofing Chrift? What is dill more extraordina- ry, while under a dread of Chrift, as his judge and avenger, who could have re- manded him to the abyfs for his part crimes, he afks for leave to do farther mifchief, and to enter into a large herd of fwine ; defirous, it is pretended, to bring an odium upon Jefus, as the author of the mifchief. Could the devil expedt fuch a requeft to be granted ? Laftly, when he had procured for himfelf and his affbci- ates the quarters he defired, why did he, by deftroying the fwine, lay himfelf and his of the New Tejlainent. 265 his legion under a neceffity of feeking new ones, which, he acknowledges, were not to be had in that country without the confent of our Saviour ? Nay, he feems to have afked leave to enter the fwine with a farther view, viz. to prevent his being fent immediately to the place of punifli- ment. How abfurd then was it wilfully to expofe himfelf to the evil he depre- cated, by drowning the whole herd? Would you, if you were in your fenfes, pull down your houfe, in v^hich you wiffi* ed, and were allowed to live, if you knew that, whenever it was deilroyed, you fhould for fome pad crime, be confined in a dreadful dungeon, and fuiter upon the rack ? On the whole, I am not able to difcern, in any part of the demoniac's be- haviour, the figns of extraordinary faga- city, fuch as mark the agency of a fpirit of celefllal origin ; and therefore can fee no reafon to believe, that any fuch fpirit jnade ufe of the organs of the man to carry on a ccnverfation with Jefus. On 2:66 On the Demoniacs On the contrary, the behaviour of the demoniac, from the view we have already taken of it, appears to be that of a mad- man, agreeably to the exprefs reprefenta- tion of him in. the hiftory ^ Nor is any one circumftance mentioned concerning him inconfiftent with this reprefentation. Here it fliould be obfei'ved, that it was a common opinion amongft the Jews, if not amongft all the people of the Eaft, in the belief of which the Gadarene demoniac muft have been educated, that the punifli- ment of the fpirits of wicked men would not be completed till the day of judg- ment'. Itmuft be obferved farther, that Jefus had been long famed for expelling demons, and thereby exercifing an abfo- lute power over them. Nor is there any reafon to fuppofe, that this demoniac was a ftranger to his fame in this refpecfl *" : for, though a confiderable time had elapfed fince his firfl: feizure with madnefs, yet his diforder only returned at certain ^ See above, chap. I. p. loo, &c. • * See Job xxvi. 5. explained above, p. 211, and p. 262, 263. ^ Sec above, chap, II. p. 245. of the New Tejlame?it. 267 feafons, with intervals of fanity between them^ Every one knows, that madmen are often diftinguiflied by the quicknefs and acutenefs of their natural parts. Their lucid Intervals fometimes lafl for a confi- derable time ; and, in fome cafes, a fingle moment makes a vaft alteration. Even under their diforder, they fometimes fay things furprifingly juft, far more fo than any thing faid by the Gadarene demoniac. They reafon rightly from wrong princi- ples, and appear both raving and fober at the fame time, efpecially on different fab- jeds. We muft add, that the unhappy man, whofe cafe we are confidering, being, like other demoniacs, ftrongly tinctured with the common opinion about poffef- fions, fancied himfelf really poiTeiTed ^ ; nay, fometimes (as was ufual in fuch cafes) perfonated the demon by whom he thought himfelf infpired, and fpoke as if he was himfelf that very demon. Now, his con« dud is the natural refult of the principles § P. 246. ^ This is jufliy reckoned as a fymptom of mad- nefs by P. iEgineta, cited by Wetfteii), v. i. p. 281. and 268 On the Dc?nomacs and imprcffions here explained, and of a difordered underftanding. Perceiving at a diftance the company, at the head of which was Jefus, the de- moniac, then in the height of his diforder, ran to them\ as he was wont to do to all paffengers, whom he was eager to affault : for we are told, that he was exceedingjierce^ Jo that no man might pafs that way '\ Our Lord obferving his approach, faid, Come cut of the man, thou unclean fpirit^* This language is by two evangelifts exprefly affigned as the reafon of the demoniac's addrefs to Chrifl \ and confequently was h Mark y. 6. i Mat. viii. 2S, Similar examples, were they wanted, might be found in Wetflen. in loc, p. 354. Thefe demoniacs were chiefly dangerous to Gran- gers, who pafTed pretty near the tombs, whence they might be fuddenly and unexpededly aflaulted. The i'wine-herds, though at no very great diftance, might have no apprehenfion of danger, either on account of their own fuperior numbers, or on ac- count of their former fuccefs againft the madmen, who are not wont to renew their afTault upon thofe by whom they have been ()nce fevercly handled. ^Mark V. 8. Luke viii. 29. ^ For he had ciimmanded the unclean fp'irtt to corns fut of the man. Luke viii. 29. Mark v. 8. of the Nev) Tejiament. 269 prior to it. Hence the demoniac con- cluded, that the perfon who addreffed him was the fame who was fb famed all over Judea for his power over demons, and he ivorfiipped, ov fell down before him^ acknow- ledging him to be the Son of God"^, It is obfervable, that fome fpace of time inter- vened between the command of Chrift and the cure of the demoniac, though, on other occafions, his commands were in- ftantly obeyed. Here the execution of it was fufpended, and aconverfation carried on with the demoniac, to give the fpecta- tors, who were ftrangers to him, an op- portunity of deliberately obferving his vi- fage and behaviour, (which manifefted the great diforder of his mind) as well as to prepare the way for the event that im- mediately fucceeded the cure of the de- moniac. No fooner, however, did Chrift fay, Come outy thou unclean fpirit, than the demoniac was awed and checked ", as it ^ Mark V. 7.Lukeviii.28. Compare John Ix. 35-38. His awe of Chrift might be owing to (om^ fa- was 270 On the Demoniacs was neceflary he Oiould, to prevent his doing mifchief to the company. But, inftead of rejoicing in the hope of deli- verance from his prefent mifery, and be- ino- thankful to Jefus for the f^ivour de- figned him, he conceives himfelf injured, is difpleafed, and remonftrates : What have 1 to do with thee, thou Son of the Mojt High God? Believing himfelf to be an evil demon, or that he v^as actuated by a demon fpeaking in and by him, he feels a dread of Chrift's power ^ and, in the name of the demon, or his ov^n, he hefeeehes and adjures Chrift not to torment him". He pernatural impreffionj or clfe be the mere efFedl of Chrift's rebuke. It is well known, that even the fierceft madmen are liable to ftrong impreflions of fear-i and are often reftrained by threatenings. See Mead's Med. Sacr. p. 79, 80. The following ac- count is given by Aiitius, iii. 8, 9. de Melancholia : Tiyvovrxi §\ ol iffoXXo) tuv (j.sXocy^oXtyMV diiXoi. In the cafe before us, the demoniac was certainly much afraid of Chrifl: ; and, on this account, it is probable, forbore to afTault the company. « It is difficult to determine the precife ideas of the madman, when he befought Chrift not to torment pleads of the l^ew Tejiament. 271, pleads with him, that the time appointed for the punifhment of wicked fpirits was him before the time^ Mat. vlii. 29* I cannot forbear to mention Wetftein's interpretation of this pailage, which may deferve to be examined. Non quod aliquando tempeftivum eflet torqueri, fed italoquun- tur maniaci ; recordabantur, quomodo vi ct vincu-« lis conftriili, modo medicamentuin ingratiim & pur- gans bibere, modo vense feftionem pati, h ad prx- fcriptum medici vivere fuerint coaiSli, quibus fimila metuebant. That maniacs were anciently treated with great feverity, appears from the teftimonies produced by Wetfl-ein, p. 355, and from Celfus^, lib, iii, cap. 18, who recommends punifhing fuch of them as do mifchief with hunger, chains, and ftripes. What was dreaded, feems to be, not fuch treatment, but the being fent to the abyfs. Compare the language of another demoniac parallel to this : Art thou come to dcjlroy us ? Mark i, 24. Luke iv. 34, It is very remarkable, that not only this demo- Iliac, but others, (Mark i. 24.) exprefs great per- turbation at the fight of Chrift, and the apprehen- fion of being cured. If you fay it was the devil who exprefled this perturbation ; I anfwer, Why then did he not immediately withdraw himfelf from the prefence of Chrift, and enter and torment perfons at a diftance ? It is certain, that the demoniacs fpeak as if they themfelves were demons ; and they might fancy themfelves really fuch, more naturally than fancy their being many other things. :: not 272 On the Demoniacs not yet come j and feemingly upbraids him with an intention of infliding that punifhment before the time. Then drop-' ping the thought of the day of j udgment, he expeds fome marks of difpleafure im- mediately ', what he could not tell, whe- ther being baniflied from that country, or drowned in the fea, or fent to the abyfs. Our Saviour, to give the fpedlators a flill farther Caelius Aurelian. Mori). Chron. i, 5. de Mania: Furens alius fe pafTerem exiftimavit, alius gallum gallinaceum, alius fidile, alius laterem, alius deum. And P. ^gineta, iii. 14, de melancholia et infania, et his qui numine afflati putantur : Putant aliqui fe animalia bruta efle, et illorum voces imi- tantur : aliqui vero vafa teftacea fe efTe putant, et ne frangantur timent.— Quidam vero etiam putant, fe ab aliquibus majoribus potcftatibus impeti. Now, a madman, who conceived himfelf to be a demon, or who reprefented one, being accommodat- ed, as he thought, with a fuitable habitation, and believing that Jefus was that extraordinary prophet who caft out demons, might be (as the demoniacs of the Gofpel were) greatly terrified at Jefus*s ap- proach, left he Ihould be expelled by him, and per- haps fubje^led to fome additional or premature pu- nifhment. See above, p. 262, 263. juft of the New Tejiament, 27^ opportunity of obferving the height of his diftradion, as well as for the other reafon juft now mentioned, continued the con- verfation, and alked him, What is thy tiame"^? He anfwered, like a madman, who thought himfelf pofleffed with a mul- titude of demons, or that he was one of the number, My name is legion ; for we are many, more than fix thoufand. He could not know that he was pofleffed by a fingle demon, much lefs that he was pofleffed by a vaft multitude of demons y but he fpoke what his diforder fuggefted ; and either fancied himfelf to be a legion of demons, or to be aduated by a legion. He con- founds himfelf with thofe fpirits under whofe influence he fuppofed himfelf tb fpeak and adl. ^ This queftion, in any other view than' that here pointed out, feems liable to many other objedtions befides thofe mentioned by RoufTeau in the intro- dudiion. Would Chrift alk the devil his name ? In what language did he exped an anfwer ? For whofe information could that anfwer be defigned \ See above, p. 260. T Juft 2^*4 ^''^ ^^^^ Demoniacs Jufl: at this inftant, as his eyes wandered, he dilcerned at fome diftance a herd of iwine ; and, agreeably to the falfe appre- henfions he had of hiinfelf, faid. If thou cajt us out,Juffer us to go away into the herd ofjwine. A llrange requeftfor an immate- rial being, a pure fpirit, and one of celef- tial origin, to make ! but not at all unfuit- able to the character of a madman, that fancied himfelf to be, or that fpoke in the name of, an unclean fpirit, who, next to tombs defiled by the bodies of dead men, could find out no habitation more unclean, or more conformable to his ideas of him- felf, than the body of a fwine \ Were it poffible to find out a rational meaning for every thing faid by the de- moniac, even this would not prove that he fpoke by the fuggeftion of the devil ; for madmen fometimes fay things furpriz- ^ Cum putarent, fe Immundos efle fpirltus, non potuerunt aptius domicilium fibl eligere poft fepul- chra quam porcos. Jalkut Rubeni f, lo. 2. Anima idolatraium quse venit a fpiritu immundo, vocatur porcus» Wetftein on Mat. viii. 31. ingly of the New TejTament. 275 inglyjuft, which is far from being the cafe with this demoniac, whole whole conduit feems to me to correfpond precifely to that of a mere madman, under thofe im- preffions v/hich he had received from edu- cation, and the information he gained in the intervals of his fanity. But the truth is, that interpreters, to fupport a favourite hypothefis, afcribe to him fenfe and faga- city more than human, though the hifto- ry itfelf will warrant us to pronounce him difordered inhis underftanding ; and they force a rational conftrudion upon the very circumftances, which feem to have been mentioned by the evangelifts with lio other view than to illuftrate his infanity^ 4. It hath been alledged, that demoniacs difcovered more than human ftrength. This allegation is chiefly fupported by the cafe of the demoniac under the fore- going article, who had been often bound with chains and fetters, and had as often broke them^ ^ Mark v. 3, 4. T a The 276 On the Demoniacs The ancients, perhaps, were lefs fkil- ful than the moderns in the methods of confining fuch unhappy perfons ; and who is ignorant that mere madmen difco- ver very amazing ftrength ', from an ex- traordinary flow of animal fpirits, or from fome other caufe, efpecially in the moft violent paroxyfms of their diforder ? But fo great is the force of prejudice, as to make the plained fymptoms of a natural difeafe, proofs of the interpofition of fu- perior beings. I cannot conclude this fedlon without taking notice of the cafe of the demoniac at Ephefus, who is thought to have given proofs both of power and knowledge more than human. To the Jewifh exorcifts, who took upon them to call over thofe that had evil Jpirits the name of the Lord j ejus, the eviljpirit (that is, the man who was * Caffii Problem. 61. Cur phrenetlcl et furiofi rn paroxyfmis robuftiores funt, virefque habent auc- tas ? Wetftein on Mat, viii. p. 355. See alfo p. 354» (^)- fup- of the New 7eflament, 277 fuppofed to be pofieffed by him*) 72?/^, yefus I know, and Paul I know ; but who are yef The hiflorian adds. And the 7na?i in whom the evil fpirit was, leapt upon them, and overca?ne them''^ Before this event, St. Paul, for the fpace of two years, had cured all forts of difeafes, and ejeded demons, in the name of Jefus, at Ephefus : how then could this demoniac be ignorant either of Jefus or Paul ? Moreover, the demoniac finding that cer- tain Jewifli impoftors vainly pretended to the power of expelling demons, and fancy- ing himfelf to be a demon, or poflcfled by one, his indignation and rage(accelerating the motion of his blood and fpirits,) fup- plied him with new ftrength, and he af- faulted and vanquiflied the exorcifts, who were not prepared to make a defence, and * We have here a new proof, that the demon or evil fpirit is lomctimes put for the demoniac. See above, p. 250, &c. " Kdi% xix. 10 — 1 7. T 3 were 273 On the 'Demoniacs were difgraced and difpirited by the public detection of their impofture. The difap- pointment and difgracecf thefe magicians ierved to vindicate the credit of St. Paul's miracles, to create an high reverence of Jefus, in confirmation of whofe divine au- thority they were performed, and to deter others from profaning his facred name, by ufing it only as a charm ^. * Hence it appears, that if this demoniac was aflifted by a fupernatural power, this afliflance mufl: have proceeded from God, not from the evil fpirit, who could have no other aim, that to lefTen the credit both of our Saviour and his apoftle. Nor could a difplay of the power of the demon on this occafion, produce any other efFe<3:, than creat- ing a fufpicion in the people, that Jefus and Paul were confederates with himfelf. If with this ma- licious view, he was willing to bear teftimony to Chrift, what occafion was there for being compelled to bear it by God ? and would God favour his ma- licious views ? The occurrence related, feems to have been providentially defigned to bring difgracc upon the Jewifh exorcifts, and thereby to anfwer the purpofes mentioned above. The of the New Tejiamcnt, 279 The more carefully I examine the lan- guage and behaviour of the New Tefta- ment demoniacs, the more difficult doth it appear to me to draw from them a proof of the reality of demoniacal pofleffions. I cannot difcover in them clear and cer- tain marks of the interpofition of any fu- perior agents, much lefs of infernal fpirits, who certainly could have no great zeal to aflert the honour of their enemy and avenger. In a word, if you will afcribe the condudl of the demoniacs to the agency of demons, you muft allow that the latter aded out of charader, and were as mad as the demoniacs themfelves could be. T4 SECT, 28o 0/1 the Dtvnoniacs SECT, 11. \ Farther argument in favour of real pofleffions is taken from the deftruc- tion of the herd of f A'ine, which the de- mons are faid to have entered, and ftimu- ]ated to inftantaneous madnefs'^ This cafe is confidered by fome as a decifive proof of the power of demons, both over the human and brutal race, and is thought even to have been purpofely defigned by Providence, to convince us of this prin- ciple, and to refute the oppofite opinion. To enervate this argument, Dr. Sykes fuggefted^ and Dr. Lardner^ ftrenuoufly contended, that the fwine were frighted by the two madmen^ and fo driven down the precipice into thefea. On the other hand, the advocates of the common hypothefis ^ Mat. viii. 30. Mark v. ii. Lukeviii. 32. "" Inquiry, p. 52. ^ Cafe, p. 17, 101. and Rerparks on Dr. Ward, p. 17. infift of the New Tejlamenf. 281 infift upon it, (to my apprehenfion, with great reafon,) that it was impofiihle for two men, however fierce, to put fo vaft a herd of fwine as two thoufand into mo- tion in an inftant, and to caufe them all to ru(h with violence dov/n a precipice into the fea ; fwine, contrary to the nature of mod other animals, running different ways when they are driven ^ But this part of the controverfy might well be fpared ; it not appearing from the hiftory, that the men ever fell upon the herd, or made any attempt to drive them into the fea. Nay, the hiftory exprelly refers their deftruftion to a diiferent caufe from the behaviour of the madmen. To underfland the true ftate of the cafe, which doth not kcm to have been attended to by the writers on either fide "" Not to add, that It was next to impoiTible, that thefe two men ihould overcome all thofe who tended the fwine j efpecially as, in order to compafs the herd, they muft have leparated from each other. And indeed had thcv, under the influence of their djforder, driven the iwine into the fea, it is Urange they did not follow them there. of 282 On the Demoniacs of the queftion, we muft recollect that thofe perfons who were anciently thought to be poflcfled, were difordercd in their underftandings. Thefe two, poffeffion and madneis, were imagined to bear to each other the relation of caufe and effeSl^ and accordingly to commence and ceafe together. When demons were fuppofed to eJiter 2iny creature, immediately he grew mad ; when they departed^ this diforder was removed. The ^1;/^^;/^^ of their en« trance was madnefs y and a compofed be- haviour was the evidence of their depar- ture. And therefore, when it is faid, in the cafe under confideration, that the de- mons went out of the madmen, and enter-* ed the fwine , the evangelifts, if you inter- pret their language agreeably to the po- pular opinion on which it is founded, mull: mean, that the madmen, in confe- quence of the departure of the demons, were cured, and reftored to their right mind ^ , and that the fwine, in confe- ^ This appears from Mark v. 15. Luke vili. 35. where the man is defcribed as being in his right mindx of the New Tejlament. 283 quence of the demons entering them, were infedled with rage and madnefs ; the cure of the former, and the madnefs of the latter, being the very ground upon which it was concluded, that the demons had quitted the one, and taken poffeflion of the other. The evangelifts muft farther mean by this language, that the men were cured before the fwine were difordered; otherwife theywould not have fpoken of the demons as paffing out of the former into the latter : When they came out of the tneriy they entered the herd of fwine ^ It appears likewife from the hidory, that at the time the demoniacs were cured, they were prefent vvith Chrift ; and the herd of fwine at fame dtfance from them ", after the demons were departed from him. See above, p. ico, &c. ^ Luke viii. 32. Mat. viii. 32. ''In Mat. viii. 30. v/e read. There zvas a good way off from them an herd of many fivine feeding-^ Ht/ (?£ [jt.ay.^xv aV aJrwj/, k. r, A. But St. Mark fays, There was there nigh to (or en) the 7nou7jtalns^ (many inanufcripts, verfionSjand printed copies read in the Never- 2 §4 O^^ ^^^^ Demoniacs Neverthelefs, no fooner was leave afked for the demons to enter the herd, than it fingular number, tcpof tw opft, the mountain) a great herd of fwine feeditig. And St. Luke (chap. viii. 32.) confirms this account of St. Mark, There was thereon the mountain^ Hv Jg i^it h tw opn, an herd of many fwine, A learned and very ingenious friend conjectures, that the original in St. Matthew con- tained the negative particle, as the Vulgate now doth, Erat autem non longe ab illis : which read- ing was approved hy Beza, and other learned writ- ers. He adds, ** Dr. Mill, in his note on Mat. viii. 30. conje(fl:ures that the negative particle was added in the Vulgate by Jerome ; but it is to be obferved, that the particle is in a manufcript now extant, which is fuppofed to have been written by Eufebius of Vcrcelli before Jerome flourifhed. It is alfo in four ether very ancient Latin manufcripts, publiflicd by Blanchini in his Evangeliarium Qua- druplex. Concerning the Eufebian manufcript. Dr. Kennicott (Hebrew Text, vol. i. p. 306.) ob- ferved, " that Blanchini had lately printed a manu- fcript of the Gofpcls in the old Latin verfion writ by Eufebius, who died in the year 371, which night therefore be above 1380 years old.*' In farther confirmation of the reading of the Vulgate, my friend obferves, *' that the Perfic verfion, in Mat. viii. 30. reads, Erat prope eos grex porcorum (agreeably to the fame verfion, Mark v. 11.) an4 was of the New ^ejiament, 285 was granted : Forthwith^ or mmediatefyj Jefus gave them leave, and /aid unto them^ that if this verfion was made from the Syriac, (as Mill, in his Prolegom. No. 1370, J472, and iMi- chaelis, in his Introductory LeiSlures, feci. 59. af- fert) it is probable that this latter verfion originally agreed with the Vulgate j and that it hath been fmce altered, as the verfions have been in many in- ftances, in conformity to the corrupted Greek. See Dr. Kennicott's Obfervations on i Sam. vi, 19. p. 37, 38. Should that celebrated perfon, who is now employed in collating the manufc;ipts of the Old Teftament, undertake to collate thofe of the New, (a talk for which he is fo eminently qualified, and of equal importance with that in which he is now engaged) we fhall then be able to determine, whe- ther any Greek manufcripts fupport the reading of the Vulgate. In the mean time, it is proper to obferve, that, in the opinion of many, there is no contradidlion between Matthew (according to the prefent reading) and the other evangelifls; for the word /AJt)fpau, ufed by the former, may here only ^tnoit fome dijiance. It is applied, in the Septua- gint, and other writings, to fuch as is not very con- fiderable, Exod. xxxiii, 7. Jofh. iii. 4. Vide Mill, Kufter. & Wetften. on Mat. viii. 30. The Sy- riac verfion is, Erat tihra ipfos grex porcorum.. It appears from the hiftory, that no fooner had Jefys landed, than he was met by the demoniac ; and Go* 286 On the Demoniacs Go, Tihen "went the demons out of the men^ and entered into the herd of fwine \ The demoniacs, therefore, were cured upon the fpot, while the fwine continued feeding quietly by themfelves 5 and confequently they had no opportunity of falling upon them and forcing them down a precipice into the fea. Farther, the men, at this time, could have 7io difpofition to make any fuch attempt upon the herd ; for we have feen, that before the latter grew mad, or that on or near the very fame mountain, at the foot of which Jefus flood, the herd of fwine was feeding, at fome diftance, though not fuch as was very confiderable, fo as either to prevent their being it^w by the demoniacs, or the fwineherds from being witnefles of what pafTed. It is no improbable con- je£lure of my worthy friend, that fome of the fwineherds, (for many muft have been employed in looking after fo large a herd) feeing the croud of people, might be drawn by curiofity to the very fpot where Jefus flood, and were hereby enabled with certainty to inform the people of the city, both of the cure of the demoniacs, and of the deftruction of the fwine, which they did immediately. ' Mark v. 13. Mat. viii. 32. Luke viii 33. appeared of the New Teftament. 287 appeared under any diforder, the former were reftored to their right mind ; or, ia other words, the demons had left the men before they took pojjejjion of the fwine. The men, therefore, if the words of the cvangelifts are to be our guide, neither drove, nor attempted to drive, the herd into the fea. Had the fpedators i^Qn them engaged in fuch a mad and mifchievous attempt, they would not have thought the demons had left them, but confidered them ftill as poffeffed madmen. The hiftory, it is certain, doth exprefly aferibe the dc- ftrucftion of the fwine, not to their being drive?! by the de mo niacs^ hut to the entrance ofde77ions into them, or to their being feized with the fame diforder from which the men were relieved, and which was thought to be caufed by demons. The evangelius, even fuppofing them to have adopted the common hypothefis, would not have faid, that the demons had entered the Avine, if the latter had only been purfued by the demoniacs. Nor s88 On the Demoniacs Nor can I fee any room to difpute the teftlmony of the evangelifts in this matter. For, whatever their opinion was with re- fped to the caiife of thefe men's diforder, which \v2l^ fecret and mvifible -, all muft allow, that they were capable judges of the diforder itfelf, of its outward fymptoms and efFeds, which fell under the notice of their fenfes. They, and all who were pre- fent, though they could not fee the de- mons paffing from the men into the fwine, yet could not but fee whether the men were cured of their madnefs, and the fwine infedled with the fame diforder : they could not but fee at what time thefe dif- ferent events happened ; whether the madmen, while they were ftill under the power of their diforder in the higheft de- gree, fell upon the fwine with great vio- lence, and fo caufed them to precipitate themfelves into the fea j or whether, after their cure, (evinced by the compofure of their behaviour) and while they were at fome diftance from the herd, the fwine grew of the New Tejia?ne?2t. 289 grew mad, and, without any other reafon for it, rufl:ied with fury into the water. And therefore, if we believe them to be faithful hiftorians, we mufl: give them credit when they declare the following obvious and fenliblefadt, that juft after the men became compofed, (or, in their own language, juft after the demons left them) the fwine became outrageous, (or the de- mons entered them), and, to the aftonifh- ment of the fpedtators, ruflied upon their own deftrudlion. Behold! the whole herd offwine^ confifting of two thoufand, ran viole?2tly down a Jleep place mto the fea- The fwineherds were of the fame opinion with the evangelifts, with regard to the faift in queftion; for the abfentGadarenes, who received their information from the fwineherds, had no apprehenfion that the madmen were the caufe of the deftrudion of the fwine, but confidered it as a divine judgment: for they wQ,vtfetzed with great feart and prayed Jefus to depart out of their U coafsy 290 On the Demoniacs coajls ^ ; dreading, without doubt, feme new calamity from the exertion of Chrift's power. Nor did our Saviour contradict this opinion ; though he might, without oppofing their prejudices concerning de* ^ Markv, 16, 17. Extraordinary manifeftations of the divine power and prefencc being awful and afFe£ling, (Exod. xx. 19. xxxiii. 20. xxxiv. 30, Judg. vi. 22. ch.xiii, 22. Luke ii,8 — 15. v. 8— 10. Mark. iv. 41. Luke viii. 25. Mat. xvii. 6, 7.) Dr. Lardner afcribes the fear of the Gadarenes to the cure of the demoniacs, as the efFe6ts of a divine power : but he is forced to allow, that they were apprehenfive of fuffering in their worldly interejisy which the miraculous lofs of the fwine alone could occafion. See his Remarks on Ward, p. 19 — 22. Befides, a miracle, whatever awe and dread it may imprefs upon the perfons prefent^ is never faid ta produce this effefl upon the abfent to whom it is re- lated, unlefs when it was punitive and alarming in its very nature. The dread felt upon the fight of a beneficent miracle, arifes from its being a fenfible token of a peculiar exertion of the power of God at the inftant of its performance -, and therefore the great fear with which the whole multitude of the coun- try of the Gadarenes round about vftxQ feized, cannot be accounted for by a bare relation of the cure of the demoniac, mons. of the New TeJIament. 291 mons, have plainly told them, had that been the real truth, that the fwine were frighted into the fea by the demoniacs, and thereby have removed their prejudices againft: him (elf. For thefe reafons, I can- not accede to the opinion of thofe learned writers, who afcribe the deflrudion of the fwine to the madmen. Neither can I fee any jaft ground for afcribing it to the agency of demons. We have before (lie vvn how groundlefs,and how abfurd it is, to attribute to human fpirits fuch a power as poflefilons imply. The arguments urged above againft the fuppofi- tion of their entering the bodies of 77ien, andftimulating them to madnefs, conclude with equal (or nearly equal) force againft their having the like power over the bj^ute creation. Reafon and experience, our only guides in the ftudy of nature, loudly re- claim againft this dodrine. If we fuppofe, (and Vv^e fhall, in the next fedion, endea- vour to prove that it is not a groundlefs fuppolition) that the evangelifts, in recit- U 2 ing 292 On the 'Demoniacs ing the cafe of the demoniacs, have only borrowed an accuflomed mode of fpeech, without defigning to give a fandion to the opinion on which it was at firft found- ed ; all that can be inferred from their faying, that the demons came out of^ the meuy and entered the herd of fwine^ is, that the madnefs of the former was transferred to the latter, in the fame fenfe as the leprofy of Naaman ivas to cleave toGehazi,andto his feed for ever \ We allow what a learned writer ^ How little flrefs fiiould be laid upon its being faid, the demons ca?ne out of the man, may appear from hence, that the leprofy is faid to depart^ or to go from the leper, (aTrJjAOfu oItt aura) when he was cured, Mark i. 42. Luke v. 13. » 2 Kings V. 27. Compare Numb. xi. 16, 17. / will take of the fplr'tt which is upoji thee^ and will put it upon them. Dr. Lardner (Cafe of Demoniacs, p. 17.) will not allow that the lunacy was transferred from the men to the fwlne, becaufe this implies, that the deftru£>ion of the latter was owing to the interpofition of Chrift, whofe miracles, the dodlor apprehends, were all benevolent, except the wither- ing a ufelefs fig-tree. But was not his driving the profane traders out of the court of the Gen- con- of the New Tejlament. 293 contends for, that in the cafe before us, the power of imagination could have noplace"^. It was never faid, that the fwine fancied themfelves pofTeffed ; their dilbrder, 1 ad- mit, was real, but not therefore demoniacal. 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 : Forthzvith Jefus tiles at the Jewifh palTover, a punitive miracle* ? And, in the cafe before us, th^ doctor allows, (p. 18.) that ChriJYs leave was afiedy and granted ; which is making Chrift anfwerable for what was done. Dr. Warburton, p. 223, 224. * Some doubt whether this was any miracle at all ; but whoever confideis, that thofe who uiually came trom all parts to celebrate the pafTover, were not fewer in number than three millions, (Jofeph. Bell. Jud. lib. ii. cap. 14. § 3, See alfo lib. vi. cap. ix. § 3.) and that, in the court cf the Gen* tiles, were expofed to faie, by autliority of the Jewifti rulers, all the animals that were to be otfered up in facrince, (not lefs than 256, 500, according to Jofephu.-, Bel. Jud. lib. vi- cap. 9. § 3. p. 399, ed. Haverc::mp.) and whatever elfe the fervice of the fani5tuary required ; and that neither the mercenary traffickers, nor any of the multitude made any oppofition to Chrill, will perhaps be of opinion, that they were intimidated and overawed by a divine power, and agree with Jerome, (in Matt. torn. ]x. p. 31. ed. Bafil. 1516). that it was the raoft wcnderful of all the miracles of Jefus, U 3 gaV:f 294 ^''^ ^^^^ Dcmomacs gave them (the demons, the reputed caufes of madnefs) leave, andfaici imto them^ Go. Should any inquire into the reafons of this divine difpenfation, I might anfwer, that he who pave life to all, hath a right to refume it, and doth often rcfume it, both from men and beafl:s> and vifit their bodies with dlforders, for reafons un- fearchable by the human underftanding ; but many wife and important purpofes were anfwered by the miraculous deilruaion" of the fwine. I. It was a jufl punifhment of the owners. For though Jofephus calls Ga- dara (near which this miracle was wrought) a Greek city\ and it w^as a part of the pro- vine of Syria ; yet, during the reii^n of Herod, it had belonged to Judea, on which country it bordered, and was, no doubt, " Some think the lofs was inconfiderable to the owners of the fwine, as the Heathens would not fcruple eating the flefn o^ Jlr angled animals. ° Antiq. lib. xvil. cap. ij. § 4. He elfewhcre (Bell. Jud. lib. ii. c. 18. § i.) fpcaks of it as a city o{ the Syrians, of the New Tejlament. 295 in part Inhabited by Jews, who probably owmed the fwine ; for to that people Chrift's perfonal miniftry w^as confined, and on their territory he then ftood. Now, the Jews were prohibited ^ by the laws of Hyrcanus from keeping fwine, and by the lawofMofes from partaking of them as food\ Their breach of the former natu- rally led to the violation of the latter. Our Lord, though he declined ading as a magif- rate, yet, as a prophet, he might be com- miffioned by God, to punifh them either for this or any other crimes. And there See Dr. Doddridge's Fam. Expof, vol. i. p. 428. 2d. edit. Dr. Whitby and Grotius on Mat. viii. 31. *i From this prohibition of Mofes^ fome have inferred, that it is very improbable that the Jews Should breed up fwine. But that the Jews did breed up fwine, is evident from the laws of Hyr- canus againft this praclice. The owners of the fwine here fpoken of, fuppofing them to be Jews, very probably bred them for fale (in part,) having an opportunity of difpofmg of them to the Greeks in Gadara, and other Heathens, in whofe neigh- iK)urhood they lived. U 4 was 296 Oji the 'Demoniacs was the greater propriety in his doing it for their offence, as they were riot fubjeft to the jurifdidlion of the Jewilh Sanhe- drim, living under heathen government. The difpofition they difcovered upon this occafion, in being more imprelTed with the lofs of t^ieir Uibflance than with the miracle wrought for their convidion, fhews how well they deferved correcftion; as the miracle itfelf ferved to manifeft Chrifi*s own regard to the law of God. 2. The deftrudion of the fwine ferved to afcertain the reality^ and to fpread the fame of the miracle performed upon the demoniacs. No miracle is more fufpicious than the fuppofed expuKion of demons, abftradled from the cure of bodily difor^ ders, there being much room left for col^ lufion between the perfon imagined to be pofTefTed and the exorcift. Frauds of this kind, both amongft Jews and Gentiles, were common in that age ; as they have alfo fince been in a very fcandalous degree amongfl: Chriftians. But it is felf-evident, that of the New I'ejlament, 297 that a herd of fwine could not be confede- rates in any fraud. Thofe who were ftrangers to the demoniacs (and fuch the attendants "^ of Chrift probably were) could not doubt of the reality of their diforder or its cure, when they faw it fo wonderfully transferred to the fwine. Hereby Chrift eftabliflied the credit, not only of the miracle performed upon thefe, but upon all other demoniacs, for the con- vicftion and benefit of mankind. That Chrill's intention was benevolent, more efpecially towards the Gadarenes, is cer- tain from his refufing to give the perfons whom he cured leave to accompany him, and ordering them to acquaint their coun- ' Befides his own difciples, and the failors who belonged to the fhip in which Chrift and his dif- ciples had arrived, he was attended by many others, (Mark I. 36.) and all of them it is probable were ftrangers to the demoniacs. Before this time, he was followed with uncommon zeal by multitudes wherever he went. Mark i. 45. Luke iv. 42, 43. Gardner again ft Ward, p. 13. trymen. 298 On the Demofjiacs try men, how gr^at th'mgs God had do^ie for the?n^ . The lofs of the fvvlne would propagate t\\tfii7ne\ as well as eftablifli the reality of the miracle performed upon thefe de- moniacs. The cure of a demoniac in this obfcure part of the country, might have been little known or remembered, had it not been attended with fome extraordina- ry and affeding circumllances ; fuch as would neceffarily excite the attention of f Mark V. 19. Luke viil. 39. Concerning one of the demoniacs, we are told, that he did ac- cordingly puhltjh in DecapoUs how great things Jefus had done for him. And all men did marvel. Mark V. 20. As the demoniacs were well known in thefe parts, their cure muft have a greater efFeci here, than amongft perfe^ ftrangers. ^ They that fed the fwine fled, and told it in the city, and in the mintry, divulged every where both the lofs of the fwine, and the cure of the demo- niacs, Mat. viii. 33. Mark v. 14. Hereupon the people came in a body to Jefus, faw with aftonifh- ment, the demoniacs reftored to the ufe of their reafon, and received a particular account and full confirmation of what had befallen the fwine. Mark V. 15, 16. Luke viii. 35, 36. man- of the New Tejlamcnt. 299 mankind, and naturally lead them to an inquiry into the charader of Chrift, and thus prepare them to receive the fubfe- quent preaching of his apofties. Mod highly beneficial to them was this mira- cle, if their temporal lofs was the means of their gaining everlafting bleflings. 3, The miracle performed upon the fwine was calculated to corredt the falfe notions, concerning the power of demons, which were entertained in that age, as well by Jews as Gentiles, by both of whom Gadara was inhabited. Very far were either of them from wanting (what feme have fuppofed it was the exprefs defign of Chrift on this occafion to give them) proofs of the great power of de- mons over mankind. The belief of their power was already too deeply rooted in the minds of men, and was the ground of much idolatry and fuperllition. Let us examine then the nature of the miracle in queftlon, and fee whether it contains any proof of the povv-er of de- mons. 30O On the T)e?noniacs mons. The outward and fenfihle effeB, which was all that could be defigned for the convidticn of mankind, confifled in transferring the diforder of the demoniacs to the fwine ; or rather in the fwine be- coming mad, immediately after the men were cured. Now, upon what ground do you aflirm that this efFed: was pro- duced by demons ? If they had any con- cern in it, it was by foliciting the inter- pofal of Chrift; which looks like an ac- knowledgement of their own impotence. It took place at the command of Chrifl : to him therefore, and to that divine power by which he afted, it is moft natural to refer it. You allow that God was the au- thor of the miracles performed upon the demoniacs. The hiftory afcribes them to him in the mofl exprefs terms ", calling them, (as we have juft now feen) great things which God had done for the demo- 7iiacs ; not things which he permitted the devil to do for them. Now, the hiftory : P. 298, note '. will of the New Tejiament. 301 will no more allow you to doubt of God's • being the author of the dlforder of the fwine, than of the cure of the demoniacs; for, by the fame fovereign word, GO, both thefe miracles were accompliflied. You cannot therefore afcribe them to dif- ferent caufes. That the madnefs of the fvvinc was not owing to a demoniacal agency, is farther evident from hence, that their diforder terminated in their de- ilrudlion ; an event which it was the in- tereft of the demons to ufe all poflible means to prevent ; becaufe, according to (what is deemed) their own conceptions of things, it expofed them to fome terri- ble punifhment % Now, fince it clearly appears, that the madnefs oithefwine was not owing to the agency of demons, is it not a natural inference from hence, that the madnefs of the demoniacs was not ow- ing to that caufej that the requeft in particular made in the name of the de- mons to enter the herd of fwine, and confequently all the other parts of their " ?. 262, 263, 265. con- 30 2 On the Demoniacs converfation with Chrift, did not proceed from a demoniacal influence ? We fliall hereafter have occafion to confider the language in which the evangelifts defcribe the cure of the demoniacs, and thedifor- der of the fwine^ weonlyobferve here,that the fads themfelves are referred to God. If the foregoing obfervations are juft, the hiftory before us does not exhibit a fingle inftance of the power and interpo- fition of demons 3 though here, where we have famples of the higheft degrees of infanity, proofs of their agency were mod to be expected. At the fame time, it re- prefents God as the only being in the univerfe, who inflidts and removes difcafes at his pleafure, not excepting thcfe which fuperftition afcribed to evil fpirits. On iDOth thefe accounts, this hiftory, on which fo much ftrefs is laid by the advocates of real poffeffions, feems to me to difcredit, rather than confirm the extravagant no- tions which the Heathens, and (from them) of the NewTeftament. 303 them) the Jews, entertained of the mira- culous power of demons. 4. This miracle prevented feveral great inconveniences that would otherwife have attended the miniftry of Chrifl:. As he was fent only to the Jews % fo he never went out of their country ^ and feemed backward to work miracles for the be- nefit of the Gentiles ^ in order to avoid giving unfeafonable offence to the Jews, before the Gofpel was offered them in its briehtefl evidence. Now, the lofs which the Gadarenes fuftained, prevented both Jews and Gentiles in thofe parts from ap- plying to Chrift merely for the temporal benefit of his miracles, which was not their proper intention, and could not be difpenfed to the Gentiles without increaf- ^ Mat. XV. 24. chap. x. 6. ' In Mat. XV. 21. ws read, that Chrift de- farted into the coafts of Tyre and Sidon, eI; tx i^^^n Tu^« >^ SiJ^v©^. 2!? hie eft vrrjus, ut tranftulit Syrus. Nam sh ra ^i^o^ix inquit Marcus, ad confinia Tyrl ^ Sldonis, Grot, in loc. ^ Mat. XV. 21. 27. 304 On the Demoniacs ing the prejudices of the Jews. At the fame time, the behaviour of the Gada- renes, in intreatingChrift to depart out of their coafls, ferves to fliew how ill dif- pofed they were at that time to receive ih^ fpiritual blejjings of the Gofpel ; which is a farther vindication of the conduct of Chrift in declining all familiarity with them. With refpedl to the Jews, this miracle, which was performed during the moft public part of Chrift's miniftry, and while his popularity was at its greateft height, was ufeful or neceflary to ftrike an awe upon their minds, to prevent their raifing tumults in his favour, (as they were inclined to do) and their following him merely from worldly motives. The intention of this work in fome degree correfponded to the miraculous punish- ment of Ananias and Sapphira, which created a mighty reverence of the apoftles, and prevented unbelievers from joining them* of the New Te/iament, 505 theitifelves to the ChrifHan churchj in or- der to (hare in its charitable donations^. Laflly, though the Gofpel, confidered as a difpenfation of mercy, was, with great propriety, confirmed chiefly hy miracles of mercy; yet it was necefiary there fhould be fome examples of feverity,to check the prelumption of mankind in all ages, and to warn them of the danger of rejecting a divineprophet, who, though he eminently appeared as the meffenger of God's love, was alfo the appointed minifier of his juftice. Indeed, the deftrudlioti of the fwine, in fo very extraordinary a manner, could fcarce fail of roufing the fpecftators of this miracle, and the numerous fufFerers by it, into thought and reflection, however lofl they might be to more ingenuous motives. The fadt was of fuch a nature, as to alarm the attention of the very ene- mies of Chrifl:, and to provoke their inquiry into the evidence of it; for it I Aa. V. II, 13. • X parried 306 On the Demonmj^ carried with it the face of injury and in-* juftice towards the owners of the fwinci and confequently furniflied them with a. feeming objedion againft J.efus. A ftridi inquiry muft foon convince them of the fad: ; and the fad" itfelf, when maturely refleded upon, pointed out its author,, God, who hath a right to difpofe of the lives of his creatures '. The life of the fwine was of no importance compared with the convidion, and fpiritual in- =* Some have thought, that the dellrudion of the fwine was a juft ground for accufing Chrifl before the civil magiftrate. But fuch an accufatlon. muft have been formed upon the fuppofition of the truth of the miracle, and confequently muft have admitted, that Chrift adled hy an immediate com- miiliun from God, (whofe juftice, notwithftand- ing the lofs fuftained, can no more be arraigned >. when brute-creatures are dcftroyed in a miraculous manner, than when they perifh by natural diftem- pers.) The enemies of Chrift were too wife to- proceed upon fuch grounds ; and the immediate fuffcrers, inftead of impeaching Thrift's moral cha- racler, dreaded the continuance of fo great a pro- phet amongft them, led they ftiould fufter fome far- ther teftimony of the divine difpleafurc, ftrudions of the New TeftamenL 36^ - firudion of mankind: the great objed which Chrift had in view^ SECT. III. TH E moft popular argument in fa- vour of real poffeflions, is drawn from the language of Chrift and his apoftles, in perfc-rming and recording the cure of demoniacs, or in defcribing the cafe of thefe unhappy perfons. The facred hiftorians, it is alledged, affirm, that they brought to Jejus thofe that were popjftd with demojis" ^ and ia like manner, that to the apoftles they brought them that were vexed with unclean fpirits^. Sti.Luke defcribes the damfel at Philippi, by faying, that Jl:)e was pof- ^ Non quod concefferit Salvator djpmonibus quod petebant, dixit, Ite : fed ut per intenetStio- nem porcorum hominibus falutis occafio prseberetur, Hieron. in Matt. torn. iv. p. 29. m. I Matt. iv. 24. Mark i. 32. "^ Ads v. 16. X 2 JJeJ 3o3 On the Demoniacs fejfed with a fpirit of divination ' (of "Python or Apollo.) — Demoniacs, it is farther urg- ed, are diftinguifhed from the difeafed : T^hey brought unto him all that were difeaf- ed, and them that were pojfeffed with de- mons\ Poffefiions are mentioned as dif- * A6ls xvi. 1 6. See alfo ch. xix. 13. 16. ^ Mark i. 32. The words may, however, as well be rendered. They brought unto him all that were difeafed^ even ihent that were pojfejfed with demons, (Compare v, 34.) Sometimes demoniacs are comprehended under the difeafed, as was (hewn above, p. 65, which feems to juftify the verfion here given of the paffage in queftion. The fol- lowing pafiage in Luke alfo, (ch. vi. 17, 18.) may be thus rendered : J great multitude came to be- healed of their dijeajes^ even they that were vexed with unclean fpirit s. But /hould it be allowed, that re- puted demoniacs are in the New Teftament contra- diftinguiflied from the difeafed ; this would only be one proof, amongfl: feveral others, of its adopt- ing the popular language on this fubjciSl. With regard to Chrift*s commiffion to his apoflles, which runs thus : Heal the fick, cleayfe the lepers^ raife the dead, caji out demons. Matt. x. 8. fomc think that cafting out demons is as much comprehended un- der healing the Tick, as cleanfing lepers is. PoiTibly however, neither of them is comprehended under tin(ft of the New Tejlament^ 309 tindt cafes even from lunacies ^. — The demons, it is faid, knew Jefus to be the Meffiah, and were forbidden to proclaim him under that charader \ — In perform- ing cures upon the demoniacs, Jefus re- bilked the demons \ and coinmanded them to come out ^. St. Paul faid to the fpirit of Apollo, / command thee in the nafne of ye/us Chrift to come cut of her ^ (the dam- fel at Philippi.) And he came out of her the fame hour. In the cafe of the epi- leptic youth, Chrift charged the foul fpirit to come out of him, and to enter no 7nore healing the fick, any more than raifing the dead is ; and the feveral particulars here fpecified, are fpoken of as fo many diftini5l fpecies of miracles, ^ Mat, iv. 24. On what grounds the evangelical hiftory diftinguifhes po(reflions from other difcafes, and from lunacies in particular, was fhewn above, p. 118. ^ See above, ch. II. fe£t. i. p, 242. 249. ^ Matt. xvii. 18. Mark ix. 25. Luke ix 42. Mark i. 25. Luke iv. 35, ^ Mark i. 25. Luke iv. 35, Matt. 17. 18, Mark ix. 25. ; Aa xvi. 18. X 3 into 3IO On the Demoniacs into him "". — The cure of demoniacs is delcribed by the expidfion or departure of the demon or demons^ by which they were faid to be poffeffed, ]f 1 by the finder of God caf out demons'", 'The demon came out of him, a7id hurt him not \ Unclean fpirits, a'wig out with a loud voice ^ came out of many that '-doere pojjefed^, 'The demons came out, and ivcnt into the herd offwinc^. Out of Mary Magdalene went feven detiions % . — The ejedion of demons or cure of de- moniacs is diftinguiflied from the healing of difeafes : fefus cured many of their infirmities i and plagues ^ andofevilfpirits^ Behold! (fays Chrifl:,) / caft out demons^ "" Mark ix. 25. " Matt. xii. 28. Luke xi. 20. ^ Luke iv. 35, ^ Act. viii. 7. Sec alfo ch. xix. 11, 12. ^ Matt. viii. 32. Luke viii. 2. compare Mark xvi. 9. ^ Luke vii. 2 I. In the original it is, Jefus cur€ti piany of itifirmiticsy and plagues , and evil fpirits. In Luke viii. 2, we read of luomen ivhich had been healed of evil fpirits and it?fir?nities, and of the New Tejla7nent. ^ 1 1 ^wtd I do cures \ The evangelical hiftory affirms, Jefus caft out the fpirits with his wordy and healed all that were fick "" He gave the Twelve power againjl unclean fpi^ rits to cajl them outy and to heal all irianner ofjicknefsy and all manner of dijeaje "" Ac- cordingly they caft out many de?72onsy and healed thefick ^\ — When the feventy, with ,great exultation, faid to their Lord^E^'^/xZ/zf demons are ftihje5i to its through thy Jiame, Jefus, with a feeming reference to this event, replied, 1 beheld Satan as lightning, fall from heaven. He adds. Behold I I give you power to tread on ferpents and fcorpionsy ajid over all the power of the ene- my ', and nothing Jhall by any means hurt you, Notwithftanding in this rejoice 7iot, that the fpirits are fiihjeS unto you"^. — That I « Luke xiii. 32. " Matt. viii. 16. fee alio Mark i. 34. ^ Mat, X. I, 8. In like manner after his refur- redlion, he faid, In my name fiall .they caft out de^ mom y'-'^they Jhall lay their hands on the fick^ and they pall recover^ A'lark xvL 17, 18. ^ Mark vi. 13. ^ Luke x. ij, 20c X 4 .may 31 2 On the Demcniacs may not omit any thing on which the advocates for real poflefiion hy any ftrefs, I add, tliat they farther plead, that there are pajQages in the New Teflament, where demons can not denote difeafes of any kind. St. Mark calls the Gadarene de- moniac, him that had the legion^. And our Lord reprefents the unclean fpirit as taking to him f even other fpirit Sy more wick- ed than himjelf^ , Now, how, we are afk- ed, can one man have a legion of difeafes ? or, can one difeafe, with deliberation and dcfign, take along with it feven others of a more grievous kind than itfelf? From the feveral foregoing paiTages of the New Teftament, it hath been infer- red, that both Chrift and his apoflles en- tertained and countenanced the doctrine of real pofleffions. And if it was an er- ror, '* theinfpired teachers of theGofpel", we are told, *' muft needs be free from an error fo fatally affcdling the religion -they were entrufled to propagate; and ^ Mark V. 15. I Luke xi. 26. ought of the New Tejlamenf. 3 1 3 ought therefore rather to have rectified that error, than knowingly confirmed the people in it." In order to anfvver this objedlon, it is not necefTary to endeavour (as ibme have done) to explain away the language of the New Teftament concerning demoniacs, or to force an unnatural conftrudlion upon it. However poffible it may be, by great learning and ingenuity, to ilrain fome of the paffages cited above, into a different meaning; yet, whoever candidly confi- fiders them all, muft allow; at leaft, I do freely allow, that both our Saviour and his apoftles made ufe of the common po- pular language of the age and country in which they lived on the fubjedt before us; and that this language was originally founded on the fuppofition of the reality of demoniacal poffeffions. But the quef- tion ftill to be decided, is, whether merely by ufing this language, they gc.ve their fandion to the opinion, to which u owes its rife. We -'54 O// the Demonidc^ We have already feen, that neither Chrift nor his apoftles firfl: introduced into the world, the dodlrine of poffe(rions,or the langtiagethatexpreffed it. If they are liable to cenfure, therefore, it is only for not •departing from the accuflomed modes of fpeaking on this fubjed, for not forming a new language concerning it. We have likewife feen, that they never affert the ^odlrine of paiTeflions, but on the con- trary, entirely fubvert it, when they are profefledly ftating thofe dodrines which they were immediately commiffioned and inftruded to teach the world. They con- tradid themfelves, therefore, if by ufing the common language VN^ith refped to de- moniacs, they meaned to countenance the opinion on which it was at firil grounded. This alone might fatisfy us, that they did i^Gt, and could not, defign to give their fandion to that opinion. Neverthelefs, great ftrefs being laid by many upon the argument, in favour of pofleffions, drawn from the language of the New TefLament Z concerning of the New T^ejlament, 3 1 ^ concerning them, I will offer fome farther obfervations upon this fubjedl; by which, I hope, it will appear to impartial perfons, that merely from the manner in which they fpeak of reputed demoniacs, it can- not be inferred, that they intended to afiert the reality of demoniacal pofTeffion. . I. It is cuftomary with all forts of per- fons, with the facred writers in particu- lar, and our Saviour himfelf, to fpeak on many fubjedls in the language of the vul- gar, though known and admitted to have been originally grounded on a falfe phi- Jofophy. This obfervationhath been often made, and well illuftrated by others*'; t)ut is too important to be here omitted. We call a certain diflemper/jz/^^^j, with- out enquiring what influence the moo?t bath in caufing or increafing it; nay, though we fliould believe, as many do, that the moon hath no influence upon it. Jn like manner we ftill fpeak of St. An* "" By none better than hy Dr. Sykes, in his In- q.v^iry and Farther Inquiry. thony^s 316 071 the 'Demoniacs tho7iys Jirey and of /S/. Vitus^s dance \ with- out acknowledging the power or exigence cf thefe faints. When we complain of the hag or night -mare, which is the name of a real diforder, refembling the preiTure of fome weight on the breaft, imputed to a hag or incubus; do we not follow cuftom, without approving the hypothefis? Philofo- phers fpeak of the motion and path of the fun, though they know it never changes it's place : they fay, that it is in the fpring in the conftellation of the Ram^ (where it was in the time of Hipparchus, upwards of two thoufand years ago,) not- withftanding their allowing, that the conftellations have all changed the places affigned them by the ancient aftronomers; and that now, the fun is in the fpring in that part of the heavens where the con- ftellation of the Bull is fituated. So dif- ficult is it to recede from thofe ways of fpeaking which were introduced by the ancients, even after the reafon of them ceafes. They are retained, notwithftand«» ing of the New Heftament. 317 Ing their acknowledged impropriety. Our beft philofophers ftill ufe the common language concerning the rif.ng 2,ndi Jetting of the fun 5 though they know that it is founded in error and prejudice. They call that aneclipfe of \\\^Juny which they are very fenlible, is properly an eclipfe of the earth. The prophets of God alfo, as well as the profeffors of fcience, when they fpeak upon points of philofophy, adopt the common language, though grounded upon opinions univerfally allowed to be erro- neous. Our Saviour fays, ** God maketh his fun to rife^ \ and the Pfalmift repre- fents this luminary, which is fixed in the centre of our fyftem, as running a race"". When we read in Scripture, that the fun knoweth his going down % and that God ** Matt. V. 45. • Pr. xix. 5, 6. *■ Pf. civ. 19. See Pf. 1. i. The language of Jofhua alfo, ^unjiand thou Jiill upon Gibeon^ (JoOi. X. 13.) alludes to a popular notion, now allo'.ved to be falfe. laid 3i8 On the Demoniacs laid the Joundation of the earth ^ ; we know that the expreflions are popular only, and far from being agreeable to true philofo- phy. Calvin makes the fame obferva- tion on that paiTage of the Pfalmift, He hathjoundedit (the earth or world) upon the Jeasy and ejiabliped it upon the jioods ^. Nor are thefe the only inftances that may be mentioned. The dew was thought by the ancients always to defcend from the Iky; and the language of Scripture correfponds to this opinion : for it is called, ■the^dew of heaven'\ and reprefented zs fall- ing on the ground^, as dropping from the cloiidsy and the heavejis * 5 neverthelefs, it hath been proved by plain experi- iDents, that dew will afcend from the « Pf. civ. 3. ^ pf. xxiv. 2. Non (Ilfputat philofophlcc David de terrae fitu, ubi dicit, fuper maria fundatam, fed populariter loquens ad rudium captum fe ae- commodat. Calvin, in loc. * Gen. xxvii. 28. Dan. iv. ^5* * 2 Sam. xvii. 1 2. J Prov. iii. 20. Deut. xxxii, 28, earth, of the New Tejtament. o po earth, and the plants. The manna with which the Ifraelites were fed in the wil- dernefs, though attended with feveral miraculous circumflances, doth not ap- pear to have been of a different nature, from our modern manna, which is only an exudation from plants and trees. But as manna was till of late thought^ like the dew, to fall from above, the Scripture fays> When. the dew fell in the flighty the manna fell ufon'if^. So that even in relating mi^ racks 9 the facred writers make ufe of po- pular expreffions, on whatever hypcthefis they were built. In illujirating their doc-' trine- alfo, their expreflions are accommo- dated to the general apprehenfions of men, and appearances of things. Except a corn of wheat fall into the: groundy and D IE» fays pur Saviour,. // ahideth alone y hut if it die^ it hringeth forth miichfrui^^^^Bt, Paul likewife ufes fimilar language % "^ Numb. xl. 9. ■ ^ "^^ ^ John xii. 24. * I Cor. XV. 36. That ^20 On the Demo7iiacs That "which thou foweft, is not quickened except it DIE. Stridlly fpeaking, the feed of the corn fown, which is the en- tire future fruit, and is a minute infenfi^ ble principle, contained within the out^ ward grain, doth not die. When this is killed by any accident, it never rifes. Neverthelefs, the outward part or body of the grain is corrupted and diflblved in the earth : and this corruption or death (as it was called) of the outward part of the grain is neceffary to make way for the production of the new corn from the fe- minal principle within. In this view only is it true, that the feed dies, in or- der to its being quickened, and bringing forth fruit. And this ferved to illuftrate the refpedive arguments of our Saviour and St. Paul. Other examples might be added p. P When St. Paul prays for the ThelTalonians^ (l Theff. V. 23 ) that their whole frame^ the fpirii^ and the fouly and the body {okcKkn^oy u/xwv, ro z^^vevfXK^ 9^ i 4^u)(rif >c) TO ffw/xa) might be preferred blamelefs unto of the New Tejlament. 321 But tliofe already produced, are fuffi- cient to fliew, that the prophets of God make frequent ufe of the vulgar phrafeo- ^^ logy, though originally grounded on a miftaken hypothefis. Nor do they hereby countenance that hypothefis, or make themfelves at all anfwerable for its truth or falfehood ; any more than the natura- lifl doth, whenever he adopts vulgar ex- preffions, and fays, the dew falls, the fun rfesy fets^y or is eclipfcd. The mod ac- curate authors, it is univerfally known, unto the coming of the Lord 'J ejus Chriji ; doth he not analife human nature, in conformity to the dotStrine of the Jewifii rabbis and Gentile philofophers, v/ho fuppofed man to be compounded of three diilin^l fubftances, the rational yJ^/nVj the animal or fenil- tive foul^ and the body ? See Nemefius de Natura hominis, p. 2. Oxon. 1671. Vitringa Obferv, facr. lib. III. ch. iv. v, 1. p. 5491. St. P^ul irt Col. i. 16, fpeaksof /Z^rc«^j-, dominiofis^ principalities^ end powers -i concerning which, H. Zanchius in loc. fays, Crediderim apoflolos per conceflionem potius has voces, quibus Hebraei varies gradus inter angelos fignihcabant, pofuifle, quam quod ccrto noverint, rem ita fe habere. Concerning the deaf 3dder mentioned Pf. Iviii. 4., fee Hammond in loc, Y " do 322 On the Demoniacs do not either in their writings, or ordi- nary converfation, always fpeak accord- ing to ftricl philofophical truth. NoWy if there are Joms undeniable inliances in phyiics, in which the prophets of God, without incurring any kind of blame, employ the common language, though built on a falfe opinion ; this may be the cafe in other inftances. Nay, this, moft probably, is the cafe iiniverjally^ when they fpeak on fubjeds of natural know- lege. It doth not appear, that they did on any occafion frame a new lan- guage, in order to exprefs themfelves in perfed conformity to true philofophy. Why then might they not adopt the com- mon language with refped: to pojfejfioriy coniidered as the caufe of a bodily dif- order? Whyfliouldit be takenfor granted, that they exprefs themfelves with a philo- fophical exadnefs on this fubjed, when they negleut it on others ? You can no more infer their belief of poffeffions, from their faying, that foms had demons^ or a fpirif of the New Tejiament. '^23 fpirit of Apollo ; than you can learn a man*s fyftem of philofophy, from his faying, that his friend hath St. Anthony^ fircy or from his affirming that the fun rifes and fets every day. To come (till nearer to the point, we add, II. That the foregoing general obferva- tion, viz. that it is no unufual thing with all forts of perfons, and particularly with the divinely commiffioned inftrudlors of mankind, to adopt the popular language, without defigning to countenance the opinion on u^hich that language was ori- ginally founded, holds true in the cafe before us ; for they all fpeak in the fame manner, on the very fubjedl in queftion. That this might ^^the cafe, was flievva under the former head, and appears high- ly probable in itfelf. Had hiltory been lilent, yet it might have been prefumed, that many amongft the Heathens, being governed by fober reafon, rather than vulgar prejudices; and that ftill more amongft the Jews, hearkening to the Y 2 voice 324 On the Demoniacs voice of their infpired prophets; would defpife and rejed: the entire fyftem of the heathen dcmonology, and confequently the dodrine of pofieffions which was founded upon it. It rriighthave been pre- fumed farther, that thofe who rejeded the dodrine of poffeffions, would never- thelefs dill continue to ufe the vulgar lan- guage, in defcribing the cafe of thofe who were thought to be poiTeiTed. For thus it is in all other inftances, and particularly, in thofe mentioned under the former head. From them it appears, that improvements in philofophy do not immediately alter the common modes of fpeech. The latter remain even for ages, after the opinions which gave rife to them are exploded. What is fo probable in fpeculation, ap- pears upon examination to be true in fad. Several pafTages cited above % ferve to fliew, that the Greeks by pojfejjion by de- mofis^ often meaned no more than a na^ turd diforder. The word amongft the q P. 82. note ", Romans, of the New Tejlajnent, . 32 c Romans, which originally fignified a man aduated by furies ', afterwards denoted any madman. The Jews exprelled dif- ferent diforders by the names of different demons ^ : and fpeak of thofe cispoffefjed by demons, whom they regarded merely as being mad ^ they do this, even in cafes where they exprefly refer the madnefs to a different caufe from demoniacal poffef- flon. This is done by Jofephus, in the age of the Gofpel ^ The prophets of God under the Old Teftament, never exprefly fpeak of de- moniacal poffeffions ; but we are certain, that had their occafions led them to do it, they v/ould not have fcrupled to defcribe reputed demoniacs, in the fame manner that all other perfons did, without the leaft apprehenfion of being thought on that account to countenance the doLirine of real poffeffions. For they give all the objecis of Pagan woifiiip, the fame titles ' Furiofus. ! p. 85. ' p. 84. Y3 as 326 Qn the Demoniacs as the Pagans themfelves d\i, gods, lords ^-^ and call the kveral forts of diviners by names that imply a communication with demons, by the very names that were afr fumed by the pretenders themfelves, to enable them more iuccefsfully to carry on their impoftures, or were conferred on them by the fuperftition of the people'', This they did merely to characterize, not to allow, the pretenfions, either of the heathen diviners, or of the objedls of hea- then vvorfhip. Now, if both Jews and Heathens, and even the ancient prophets, when fpeak- ing of pofTefiionr, or on fimilar fubjeds,, adopt the common phrafeology, when " Differt. on Mir. p. 253. " Id, p. 272. 416. Saul afked counfel of one that had a familiar fpirit^ I Chron. x. 13. Manaffeh dealt with a familiar fpir it ^ 2 Chron. xxxiii. 6. hi like manner under the New Teftament, when St« John fays, (l John iv. i.) Believe not every fpirity hut tj-y the fpirits ; hy fpirits we are to underftand^ not thofe who were under a divine afflatus^ but tbofe who pretended to be fo. they of the New Tejiament. ^ ' 7 they did not defign to countenance the opinion on which it was originally ground- ed ; why might not this be the cafe with regard to Chrift and his apoftles ? Why might not they as well as others fpeak of thofe as demoniacs, who were reputed or appeared as fuch, without defigning thereby to give their fandion to the doc- trine of poffcffions ? Nay, it is certain in fad:, and generally allowed by the mod judicious advocates of real pofleffions, that our Saviour and his apoftles do, on fome occaficns, at leaf!:, ufe fuch expref- fions on the fubjedl before us, as they could not defign to have underftood in a literal fenfe, or in their fullefl: import. When the facred hiftorians tell us, that one perfon was pofleffed hyjeven demons ^, and another, by a legion ^ : is it not more natural to fuppofe, that they adopted the y Luke viii. 2. "^ Mark v, 15. Him that had the legion. This may poffibly fignlfy no more, than him that f aid he had a kglon, Y 4 phra- 328 On the Demoniacs phrafeology cf the Jews, and ufed it in the fame general fenfe they did ; than that they determined, by immediate infpiration, the exadt number of demons by which each, of them was poffeffcd ? Is it not the more reafonable to believe this is to be the cafe, as Chrift commanded no more than one '^ demon to come out of the man, in whom there was a leeion ? Underftand * He had commanded the unclean fpirit to come out of him^ Luke viii. 29. Mark v. 8. How Jitde the evangelifts defigned to make themfelves anfwer- able for the language of their country, and to fpeak with philofophical precifion in defcribing demo- niacs ; appears from their reprefenting the Gada- rene demoniac fometimes as having one, and fomc- times as having m.ore demons. Mark calls him a man %vith an unclean fpirit^ ch, v, 2. and yet at v. 12, he fays, All the demons befought Jcfus ; and at V. 13, the unclean fp'nits went out; and at v. 15, he calls the perfou here fpoken of, the demoniac that had the legion. Luke fays, he had demons^ ch. viii, 27, that the unclean fpirit caught him, and that he u'as driven of the demon^ v. 29, and that the demons went out of him, 33, 38 ; ufmg inditFerently either the fingular or plural number. this of the New Tejlame?it. 329 this according to the letter, and what fervice was done the demoniac, who was flill poflcfled by more than fix thoufand demons ? It was a very common opinion among the Jews, though not peculiar to them", that evil fpirits frequent defolate places. St. John alludes to this opinion^; and fo doth our Saviour himfelf, in faying. When the unclean fpirit is gene out of a man, he walketh through dry places \ But fhall we ^ See Ode de Angelis, p. 691. and Sir Norton Knatchbull on Mat. xii. 43. *^ Bahylonn becomethehabitationof demons^ Rev.xviii. 2, that is, " Eabylon is htcome a defert**. Com- pare the Septuagint verfion of If. xiii. 21. Vitrin- ga on Rev. xviii. 2, obferves, Eftque Ula. popularis opinio, antiquis jam populis recepta, in vaftis de- fertifque Jocis regnare daemones. Mat. xii. 43.—— a qua populari fententia, at f ape alias fit, defumi potuit locutio, qua id folummodo intendit fpiritus f. ut plenariam & prascifam doceat vaftationem illis efTe inferendam locis. ^ It is added, feeking reft^ and findeth none, Then hs faith ^ I will return into jny houfe from whence J came out ; and when he is come^ he findeth it empty-j fwept and garnifhed* Then goeth he^ and iakeih ivith re- 33^ 0;; the Demoniacs reprefent himy in whom dwell all the trea- fures of wifdom and knowledge, as enter- hi mf elf f even other fpir its more wicked than hlmfclf and they enter In and dwell there : and the lajl Jiate of that man is worfe than the fir Ji, Even fo Jhall it be alfo wjto this wicked generation^ Mat. xii. 43. Luke xi. 24. That is, " It is commonly faid, that if evil fpirits, after having left a man for a while, return to him again, he generally fuffers more violent fymptoms than he did at firfl:, and his cafe becomes more de- plorable. Now this cafe is a juft reprefentation of your's : for notwithftanding fome appearances of amendment under the preaching of the Baptiil, (iVIat, iii. 7. John v. 35.) and the miniftry of the Mefliah ; your vices, Vi^hich were curbed for a time, will return with double violence, and bring down upon you heavier judgment than any the nation hath hitherto fufFered". Confult Lardner's Cafe, p. 139. Grotius on Mat. xii. 43. and compare I Pet. ii. 20—22. The following remark was communicated to me by a very ingenious and learned friend. " Our Saviour did not introduce this comparifon abruptly^ but made ufe of it foon after curing a demoniac, who was perhaps then ftanding before him, and •when the Jews charged him with cafting out de- mons by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, Thefe circumftances feem to evince the propriety of ufing this comparifon". taining of the New "Tejlameiit. 3 3 1 talning this vulgar notion,only becaufehe alludes to it, and illuftrates his argument by it, in his addrefs to the Jews ? Do not the moft intelligent and judicious writers borrow comparifons from fabulous ani- mals and monfters % as the griffon, the centaur, and the phoenix? Again, when Chrift fays on one occafion. Come out, thou unclean fprit' y and on another, T:hou dumb and deaf fpirit, I charge thee come cut of him"" : rtiall we from hence infer, that he believed fpirits to be dunnb, deaf, and unclean ? When he is reafoning con- cerning Beelzebub', in a manner that feems to imply a belief of his power ; he is only reafoning with his enemies upon their own principles ' 5 he knew that Bcel- e Compare the ancient Univerfal Hiftory 8v^o. vol. iii. p. 491. f Mark v. 8. ^ Ch. ix. 25. ^ Mat. xii. 26, 27. If Satan caft out Satan, &c. On this paiTage, fee Diiiert. on Mir. p. 388. i It was not unufual with our Saviour, to ar- gue with others on their own principles, though evidently falfe and groundlefs. In proof of this I zebub 332 On the Demoniacs zebub was a fiditious ^ deity ^ and no more defigned to admit his power, than he did to admit the power of Mammon, whom the Pagans acknowleged as the god of wealth, when he faid, Te can not ferve God and Mammon^, Laftly, Is it not un- appeal to Mat. xi. 12, 13, (I came not to call the righteous^ but firmer s to repentance ; j where Chrift doth not grant that the Scribes and Pharifees were ri^^hteous, (for he was no ftranger to their hypo- crify and wiclcednefs;) but vindicates his condu£l:, even upon their own fuppofition, that they really were as righteous as they afFe£led to appear. Com- pare Luke XV. 29. (iee alfo Mat. xi. 25, where Chrift calls them wife and prudent^ without allov/- ing them to be really fuch.) — To Mat. xxv. 24, 25, where Chrifl argues with the llothful fervant, who reproached his lord with being ?iV\hord ?nan^ upon his own principles, merely to fhew him, that they con- cluded againft himfelf. To Mat. xii. 27. fee Dif- fert. on Mir. p. 392.' — To Lukexxiv. 37, 38, 39. explained, ib. p. 166. — And to Luke xviii. i — 7. ^ See above, p. 31. and 2 Kings i. 6. ^ Mat. vi. 24. I acknowledge that Mammon may fignify indlfFerently, either riches^ or the god of riches, juft as Ceres denotes corn or the goddefs of corn: but Mammon being ufed here in oppofi- tion to the true God, there mud be a reference to reafonable of the New T!ejlament. 333 reafonable in the advocates of demonifm, tounderftand our Lord literally \n that de- claration, I beheld Satan as lightnings fall fj'oni heaven " ? Do they not contend, that Satan had been cafi: out of heaven, many- ages before the miffion of the feventy dif- ciples ? From heaven therefore he could not, on their own principles, be feen to fall at this period. If by heaven, they chufe to underftand the air y why do they maintain, that the air is fill the refidence of Satan, and the feat of his empire? Without contradidling their ovv^n princi- ples therefore, they cannot explain thefe words literally, or concerning any fudden precipitation of Satan himfelf", either from the air, or from the celeftial regions. If you fay, that this language doth however imply, that Satan had formerly been one this falfe god ; and he is put for thofe riches, over which he is thought to prefide. "^ Luke X. 18. " Bifhop Warburton, p. 216. explains Luke x. 18. Of ^ fudden precipitation of the prince of the ah'y where he had fo long held his empire, of 334 ^^ ^^^^ Demo7iiacs of the inhabitants and princes of heaven 2 I anfwer, that then the like language will prove the fame concerning the king of Babylon ; for of him it is faid. How art thou fallen from heaven " I When Cicero reproaches Antony with pulling his col- league down from heaven '' ; was more meaned, than that Antony had deprived him of all his authority ? To fall from heaven, is a mode of expreffion familiar to all languages, the eaftern efpecially ; and denotes the lofs of dignity and domi- nion '^. And our Saviour here tells us, that he had a prophetic view of the fudden overthrow of fuperilition and idolatry, (ufually defcribed as the kingdom of fatan^ or an adverfary ;) or of the fpeedy preva- lence of true religion over every oppofing power \ ° If. xiv. I 2. p De coelo detraxifti, Cicer. Phil. ii. ^ If. xiv. 13, 14, 15. Luke x. 15. Rev. xii, 7—9. ' ^atan properly denotes an adverfary^ ( fee above, p» 16, 1 7.) and more efpQcially an adyerfary of true To of the New Tejlament. 335 To the foregoing examples, I will add ' one from the writings of St. Paul. When he afks the Gaiatians, Who hath bewitch- ed you ^ ? did he mean more than to ex- prefs the great abfurdity of their condudl, without having the leafl: intention of af- cribing it to fafcination ? St. Jerome % religion. 2 Thef. ii. 4, 9. Rev. xii. 9. It is here explained by the enemy, Luke x. 19, Behold, I give you authority over all the power of the enemy ^ plainly meaning by the enemy, not one particular perfon, but all oppofitlon. It was common with the Jews to ufe the fmgular number in the manner it is in this psflage, in order to exprefs the meaning of the plural, Where is the luife F TVhere is the fcribe f That there can be no reference here to fallen angels, is evident from what was proved above, (ch. I. fe6l. I, 2.) that thefpirits v;ho were thought to pofTefs men were human fpirits. ^ Gal. iii. I, Ufus fermone fit trivii, Sc ut in cateris, ita in hoc quoque loco verbum quotidianae fermocinationis aflumferit. Ex opinione vulgi fumptum putamus exemplum. — Quod fi aliquis contradicit, exponat quomodo de communi opinione fit fumptum, vallis Titanorum in Regum libris, Syrense & onocentauri in Efaia : Ar£turus & Pleiades in Job, & cxtera his fimilia, quae utique vocabula gentilium fabula- on 336 On ihe 'Demofiiacs on this place, freely admits, that here, as in other places of Scripture, the expref- fion is popular only, and accommodated to the opinion of the vulgar. And a mo- dern writer", as greatly diftinguifhed by his candour, as by his learning, and one of the ableft defenders of the demoniac fyf- tem, obferves, that the Greek wordj which we render bewitchedy '* ftrongly ex- preffes the unreafonable turn their minds had taken, fo that one would imagine, they had been deprived of the regular iife^ even of their natural faculties/' NoWj if the prophets of God, when fpeaking on the very fubjeft in queftion^ did, in the feveral forementioned inftances, or in any of them, adopt popular expref- fions, without intending to give their fandtion to thofe opinions on which they were originally founded; why might not they do fo in ^// other inftances relative to rum & caufas & origines habent, Hieron. in Gal. iii. I. " Dr. Doddridge on Gal. iii. i, the of the New Tejiament, 3^7 the fame fubjed: ? Why might not they affirm that fome perfons w^vq po^ffeffed, m a fenfe fimilar to that in which they af- firmed others to be bewitched? Though they did not believe the exiftence and in- fluence of Mammon, the reputed god of wealth, yet they fcruple not to call wealth by his name; and they might therefore with equal propriety ufe demons for thofe dire difeafes, of which they were the re- puted authors. Merely from their defcrib- ing demoniacs in the common popular language, you cannot certainly conclude, that either Chrift or his apoftles "" enter- Dr. Lardner is of opinion, that the euangeViJis^ at the time of writing their hiftories, believed real poffejjions^ Cafe of the Demoniacs, p. 122. But this can no more be inferred concerning //j^;;?, from their mode of recording, than it can be inferred con- cerning Chrifl^ from his manner of performing, the cure of demoniacs. The language of both was the very fame ; and the argument drawn from it, if it be inconclufive with refpedl: to the one, muft be equally fo with refpe(St to the other. The apoftles, in- deed, might early imbibe the prejudices of their countrymen with regard to real poiTeffions ; they might not be able to dete(5t the error by a fuperior Z tained '^38 On the Demoniacs tained the opinion to which that language owed its rife. I do not remember, that any perfons contend for the apoflles believing the power oi the inoon over the diforder called lunacyy merely becaufe they, in common v.'ith others, defcribe it by this name. Nay, fome of the moft zealous advocates for poffeffions, exprefsly declare, that thofe called lunatics were not really fuch, but are fo denominated in conformity to the opinion of the vulgar \ Neverthelefs, force of genius and penetration, (which would have ferved only to obfcure the evidences of their divine miflionj) and confidcred as an error of philofophy, it might not be corre6i:ed by Immediate revelation : neverthelefs, they have effedlually confuted it by their dodrine concerning demons j as was fhewn above. y Hieron. in Mat. Iv. 24. fays, Non vere luna- tlcos, fed qui putabantur lunatic! ob da^monum fal- laciam. And Cacfarlus, quseft. 112, i\ y-riilv U tUV olfPUV BUEPyST^VTOCl Tfi OC^iKHVTOH 01 CCVgooOTTOl, ZUOO^ TO VH^A TO C^l'riAOTf^Ol/* the of the New Tejiainenf. 219 the evangelifls affirm in exprefs terms, that the people brought to Jelus thofe which were lunatic^ as well as thofe which were pojfejjed with demons'". From this language, it may with as much reafon be inferred, that they believed in the power of the moon, as in that of demons. And a lunar influence over difeafes might with as much propriety, be made an arti- cle of faith, upon the authority of the apoflles, as a demoniacal one. It is equally evident, that with refpedl to both, they only adopt the common language of the age and country in which they lived. III. Chrift and his apoftles had fuffi- clent reafon for adopting the common phrafeology with refpe they muft judgeof it folely by the exercife of their reafon. Accordingly we find, that natural reafon is the only principle to which Chrifl appeals, when h« is argu- ing with the unbelieving Jews, who re- proached him with being a confederate with Eeelzebub, the prince of demons : If 1 caft out de77ions by the fpirit of God, then the kingdo?n of God is come unto you ^. This paffage i^ quoted by a learned writer^ to prove, that Chrift had informed them (the hiftorians of his life) that this (the cafting out cf devils) was one of the ejfen- tial operations in, the ereclion of his fpiri- I Cor. xlv. 22. * Mat. xii. 28. ^ Dr. VVarburton, p. 219* tual 366 On the JbemoJttacs tiial kmgdom. The pafiage under confi- deration was addreffed to the Scrihes and Pharifees % who afcribed Chrift's expul- . lion of demo7is (of devils there is no men- tion) to the afliftance of the prince of demons. And our Saviour is fo far from aflerting the necejjity of this miracle, ac- cording to the view which this writer had of it, that he doth not particularly explain the nature of it, nor interpofe his own judgment concerning it; (his revilers, he knew, were not likely to be determined by it :) he only tells them, that in cafe his cjedion of demons (fo he calls his cure of demoniacs, in conformity to the accuf- tomed modes of fpeaking) was a real miracle or divine work -, then he was the Mefliah. At the fame time he entirely refers it to them to judge of the miracle itfelf, and whether God was the author of it. Scarce can we commit a greater mif- tafle, than to urge the authority of the \ Mat. xii. 25. Mark iii. 23. infpired of the New Tejlamen f. 367 infpired teachers^ Chriftianity in fupporc of the dodrine of poffcflions. For the queftion concerning it, confidered as a quellion of philofophy, they neither have decided, nor indeed could decide by their own authority, for the reafon here al- ledged. V/ith regard to thofe who have hither- to oppofed the common hypothefis con- cerning poffeffions, it may be doubted whether they have fufficiently accounted for the condudt of Chrift and his apoftles in always ufing language conformable to that hypothecs. They have pleaded, *'that an exprefs and authoritative decilion of this queftion would have done great in- jury to the Gofpel, the prejudices of man- kind in favour of the power of demons being too violent and inveterate to yield to evidence; and that to have begun with attacking thefe prejudices, muft have pre- vented the converiicn of multitudes, and led them to conceive of thefe firft pub- lifhers of the Gofpel as infidels and Saddu- cees.'' 263 On the Demoniacs cees". We may allow, that never were any public inllrudlors more fenfible than thefe\ that prejudices are often inflamed by a diredl and formal attack ; and that offenfive truths can fcarce be propofed with too much caution and referve. Ne- verthelefs, there are inftances in which they began with attacking the ftrongeft prejudices of mankind, their favourite, but fatal idolatries and fuperftitions*. Nor did they a6t with any referve with refpedl to demons, (as we have fliewn above) fo far as the fubjedl fell within the limits of their commiffion. Such prudential con- fiderations therefore as fome have fug- gefted, are not fufficient to account for the condu(ft of Chrift and his apoftles, in always ufing the popular language con- cerning demoniacs, and never determin- ing their cafe, by an explicit declaration. For if it were a matter of pru(ience, not immediately to alarm the prejudices of unbelievers ; yet might not believers have ^ Luke V. 36, 37. John xvi. 12, 25. been of the New Teftarnenf, 369 been better inftruded ? The tr-ue reafon, as I apprehend, why neither our Saviour in performing, nor the evangelifts after- wards in recording, the cure of deinoniacs, never exprefsly interpofed their judgment concerning them, is, that their inftruc* tions did not diredlly extend to this cafe, nor could properly extend to it ; the cure of demoniacs being a part of that evidence of the Gofpe], which mufl: for ev-er be judged of by natural rsafon alone. With regard to the advocates of real poiTeQions, when they plead, '' that if their opinion be an error, Chrift and his apoftles ought to have corrected it ; inaf- much as it was a very dangej'ous error, the fupport of much fuperftition and ido- latry;" they not only overlook the pro- priety and neceility of that condud: which divine wifdom obferved in the cafe before us ; but prefume to dictate to that wif- dom. If Vv'e negledt to ufe the reafon which God hath given us, and will adopt opinions without difcerning any B b evidence 370 On the 'Demoniacs evidence to fupport them; it will be difficult to prove, that God muft necef- farily reward our negligence and pre- fumption by working miracles for our convidion ; and work new miracles, for the cure of every new error. It is much to be lamented, that a creature of fuch limited faculties as man, inrtead of mo» deftly inquiring what God hath done for his fpiritual inftrudtion, fhould prefump- ,tuoufly prefcribe to him what he ought to do. If the imagined expediency or ne- ceffity of any particular plan would prove, that it was purfued by divine providence 5 then the Pope is a divinely appointed and infallible judge of controverfy, and an everlafting bulwark to the Chriftian church againft all error : which neverthelefs doth not appear to be the cafe. In full folu- tion of this objedion, wc may obferve, VL That the firft publifhers of the Gofpel, though they did not dirediy un- dertake to explain the natural caufes of difeafes, or any other point of philofophy, have of the New Tejiame?it, 371 have, however, in the mod proper manner> rectified the dangerous errors mankind were under with regard to demons, and thereby fufficicntly fecured the interefls of true piety. They corredled the fahe opinion which the world entertained of demons, both by their dodrine, and their miracles; They did not, for the reafons explained above, fpeak particularly to the cafe of poffefiionSj but they reftored demoniacs to a ftate of permanent fanity, and thereby led men to reflecft on the great improba- bility of their being liable to the incur- fion of demons i. They proceeded far- ther : for a thoufand idolatrous and fu- perftitious practices being grounded on a belief of the power of demons, the prophets of God under the New Tefta- ment, as well as thofe under the Old, openly taught, what their miracles inti- mated, the utter inability of thefe fpirits to do any good or evil to mankind *. This * See above, p. 187. * P. 224. B b 2 point 372 On the Demoniacs point IS not only aflerted, but fully prov- ed *, and fliewn to be an obvious and ne- ceflary inference from the fundamental principles of the Chriftian revelation. The language employed in Scripture on this fubjedl, is fo very clear and deter- minate, that the argument drawn from it againft the power of demons cannot poffibly 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 wor- fhipped, but fome other fpirits whom they did not know, much lefs acknow- ledge and worfliip. If fuch a method of explaining Scripture be allowed, lan- guage can be of no ufe. According to this rule of interpretation, the moft ex- plicit declaration from the apoflles, that demons do not pofiefs mankind, could have anfwered no end; for it might have have been flill faid, that by poffeffing de- mons, they meaned a different order of Ipirits from what all other perfons did, * P. 232. qf the New Tejiament. 373 There are prejudices too ftubborn to yield to any evidenced But, whether we will ^ Many are ready to imagine, that an ex- plicit declaration of Jefus or his apoftles concern- ing polTeffions, would have neceflarily determined the judgment of Chriftians, (See bifhop Warbur- ton, p. 244.) But fuch a declaration, we have feen, might have been as ineiFe6tual as it was improper. While the e\'e of the mind is clofed by prejudice, the brighteft evidence fhines before it in vain. The plaineft language in which Chrift taught, that a man could contra6l no mo- ral defilement by v/hat only pafTed through his body ; and the cleareft prophecies concerning his ov/n death and refurredion, were not underftood hy the apoftles, becaufe repugnant to their pre- ■conceived opinions. Though St. Paul declared, that he knew and was perfuaded by the Lord Jefus ChriJIy that there is nothing unclean of itfelf^ (Rom, xiv. 14.) many Jewifli Chriftians did not regu- late their condud by his opinion, but pradifed themfelves, and even inforced upon others, the rites of Judaifm, from a previous perfuafion of their perpetual obligation. The very corruptions of the Gofpel which were forefeen by the pub- lifiiers of it, and which they have in exprefs terms guarded us againll, (till prevail amongft thofe Chriftians, whofe minds are blinded by prejudice. Thus it is in the cafe before us ; B b 3 hearken 374 0;; tlie 'Demoniacs hearken to them or not, it is, neverthe* lefs, an undoubted fad:, that God's infpir- ed n^effengers do conftantly reprefent all demons without diftincftion as mere fic- tions of the human imagination, and clear- ly demonftrate their inability to produce any fingle effedl. Was it poflible then for them to be- lieve, that Beelzebub or Apollo, or any other demon, poflefTed mankind ? So far were they from entertaining and counte- nancing this opinion, that they have fub- verted the foundation on which it was built. This method of proceeding, which was didated by divine wifdom, feems to be (as we have reafon to exped it would be) the wifeft that could be taken. To explain the phyfical caufes of thofe dif- tempers which were imputed topofleflion, did not lie within the province of the many being previoufly perfuaded, that demons are powerful fpirits, cannot receive the do(SlrIne of St. Paul, confirmed as it is by all the ancient prophets, that demons are nothing in the world. gee above, p. 192, &c. apoftles : of the New Tejiament, 27S apoftles : and to defcribe the cafe of the demoniacs in new language, was need- lefs and improper. But to redify the miftaken conceptions mankind had enter- tained of demons, and hereby to deftroy, not one error only, but the whole fabric of Gentile idolatry and fuperftition ; this fell within the limits of their commiffion, and was indeed one principal intention of it. They propofed and eftablifhed their opinion of demons, when they were inftrudting mankind in the dodlrines of the Gofpel, or confirming Chriftians in the belief of them. Indeed, the argu- ments in proof of the nullity of demons, drawn from their authority as the divine- ly appointed teachers of Chriftianity, and from thofe fundamental principles of it, there being but one God, and one me- diator between God and man, are fuch as can be offered only for the convic- tion of believers. Thefe arguments pro- duced their effedl on thofe whofe minds B b 4 were 2y6 On the Demoniacs were in any meafure open to con- vidlion K Let us now lay together the feveral foregoing particulars, which have been urged in anfwer to the capital objedlion 2gainft our explication of the Gofpel de- moniacs. It is urged, *' that if reputed pofleflions were altogether natural dif- tempers, Jefus and his apoftles, inftead of redtifying, have rivetted in the minds of men, a very dangerous error and fu- perflition, by the manner in which they defcribed the cafe of the demoniacs, and performed their cures upon them/* In anfwer to this objefrion it hath been ob- ferved, that in fpeaking of thefe perfons, though they made ufe of the com- mon popular language of the age and country in which they lived, yet they did not hereby give their fandion to the opi- nion to which it owed its rife. For it was cuftomary with all forts of perfons, J See above, p. 229 — 232. with 6 of the New Tejlamenf. 2^77 with the facred writers in particular, and our Saviour himfelf, to fpeak in the lan- guage of the vulgar, though known to have been originally grounded on a falfe philofophy. Our Lord and his apoftles, when fpeaking on the very fubjedt before us, do certainly on fome occafions ufe the vulgar language, as their cotempora- ries alfo do, when they did not defign to countenance the vulgar opinion; and therefore they may have done fo on other occafions. Confequently their fentiments concerning demoniacs can never be in- ferred from the bare expreffions they have ufed to defcribe them. There could be no impropriety in their adopting the common phrafeology, becaufe it was uni- verfally applied to outward and fenfible effeds, to ihQjymptoms of the demoniacs and their cure, and often to thefe only, though originally borrowed from the ap- prehended caufe of their diforders. They were not commiflioned by God to in^ ftru6l mankind in the nature of thofe dif. 378 On the Demoniacs diftempers which they were empowered to cure, or to redify any phyfical niiftakes concerning them : and therefore could not deliver any inftru^ions on this head without exceeding their commiflicn. Nay, the queftion concerning pofleffions could not be diredly and immediately deter- mined by the authority of Chrift and his apoftles without great impropriety ; the miracles performed upon the poffeffed being a part of that evidence of the Gofpel, which muft for ever be judged of by na- tural reafon alone. The firft publishers of the Gofpel, however, though they did not enter into any philofophical difquifi- tions concerning the nature of difeafcs, yet did efFedlually fubvert the entire fyf- tem of fuperftition which then prevailed, by aflerting the nullity of demons, and clearly fhewing, that to allov/ their power, was to contradidt the firfl principles of the Gofpel. This they did on the moft pro- per occafion, viz. when inflruding nxtn in the doftrines of Chriftianity. Now, as of the New Tcjlamenf. 379 as you learn a man's fyftem of aftronomy or phyfic from the account he profelTedly gives of it, not from his defcribing cer- tain celeftial appearances or bodily dif- eafes in the language of the vulgar; fo the real fentiments of the apoftles con- cerning demons are to be gathered from their profeffed dodrine concerning them, not from their defcriptlon of demoniacs, in which they employed, as it was fit they fhould, the language which then pre- vailed. CHAP. III. IT ftill remains, that we point out the inconveniencies attending the com- mom explication of the Gofpel demo- niacs, and the advantages which refult from the account given of them in the two preceding chapters. Some may be ready to afk, •* Whence this zeal to fhew^ that revelation doth not 3 So 0?i the Demo72iacs not countenance the dodrlne of real pofiefiions? What prejudice can theGofpel fuiter from this doftrirxC ? And what advan- tage can it derive from the contrary one ? The very adverfaries "" of real pofleffions allow, that it was a matter of indifference with refped: to the evidence of Chrifli- anity, whether thofe efteemed demoniacs were really fuch, or only laboured under a natural difeafe ; inafmuch as in either cafe a real miracle was performed, when their cure was effeded. But what can be more evident, than that the ejedion of devils from the bodies of men is a greater miracle than the cure of natural diforders ? What a luftre doth it refled on the charader of Cbrift, to fee him firft compelling them to confefs his name, and then condemning them to filence ? Was it not a wife difpenlation, to permit the devil, about this time, to give fome un- ufual proofs of his exiftence, power, and malice, in attacking men's bodies, in or- "■ Dr. Sykes's Inquiry, preface p. 2. der of the New Tefta?ne?it. 3 8 1 der to convince them what a dangerous enemy he was to their foub ? Above all, was it not fit, and even neceffary, that he who came into the world as the great antagonift of the prince of darknefs, ihould give zfenjibk and public fpecimen and proof of his power over him and his confederates by difpofleffing them " ; and hereby raife our hopes of his perfect triumph over them at the end of the world ? In a word, the more carefully we examine the miracles of Jefus relating to the pofiefled, the more clearly fhall we perceive their flridi: connexion with the great end of the whole Chriftian dif- penfation, the redemption of mankind. Scarce therefore can \\c injure Chrifti- anity more than by denying the reality of diabolical poffeffions °." In anfwer to this reafoning, I obferve, " See Dr. Warburton's Serm. vol. iii. p. 218. and Dr. Doddricfge's Fam. Expof. vol. i. p. 211. 2d ed. ° I take no notice here of w^hat is fometimes urged in favour of the common hypothefis, viz. I. That 382 0/2 the Demoniacs I. That it is not fupported by the tef- timony of Scripture. Neither our Saviour <« That the clifpofTefllon of devils by Chrifl:, and the compulfive teftimony they bore him, ferved to clear him froni all fufpicion of a confederacy with thefe infernal fpirits." For we have already had occafion to obfervc, that though our Saviour fpeaks of the eje-flion of demons as an a6l of hoftility againft them, fuch as it was not natural to refer to the prince of the demons ; yet this hath no relation to the devil, (fee above, p. 16.) and was fpoken to his adverfaries, merely upon their own principles, the only principles upon which he could argue with them. DifTert, on Mir. p. 388. With regard to the teflimony Vv'hich, it is faid, the demons were compelled to bear to Chrift, it hath been fhewn, that it is not only groundlefs, but highly unreafonable, to fuppofe, that God fhould compel the devil to bear teftimony to Chrift, and then di- rect Chrift to rejeil it, and even to work a miracle upon that lying fpirit, that he might not difcredic the truth he had publiflied. See above^ p. 25B. The abettors of the common hypothecs would do well to confider, whether it be a good way of char- ing Chrift from all fufpicion of ading in conce't with devils, to afHrm, that thc-fe wicked fpirits were by him, or on his account, introduced intio Judea, and that they were the firft who proclaimed his divine character, though afterwards he en- nor of the New Tejlament. 383 nor his apoftles did ever affert or intimate, that the devil enjoyed an extraordinary liberty at the time of Chrift's coming into the world ; much lefs did they at- tempt to account for his having fuch li- berty then allowed him, or fliew that it w^as fit that it fliould be granted. Not one of the reafons affigned for the devil's giving fome unufual proofs of his power at this period, are taken notice of in the New Teftament. The more weighty and important thofe reafons are fuppofed to be, fo much the more difficult is it to account for this filence. If it was even neceflary, that Chrift fiiould exhibit a fpecimen of his triumph over the devil, by difpofleffing him from the bodies of men, how comes it to pafs, that dif- joined them filence. On the other hsnd, under*- .ftand the ejection of demons as, I apprehend, it ought to be underftood, concerning the miraculous cure of a difeafe, and there will at once appear no more ground for afcribing to the devil this, than any other miracle of the Gofpel. poffefiions 384 On the Demojiiacs pofleffions are never fpoken of in this view, by thofe who certainly beft under- flood their intention ? Whenever God commiffions his meffengers to perform miracles for the conviction of mankind, he inftruds them to explain to the world the great ends propofcd by them. This was the cafe with regard to all the pro- phets both of the Old 'and New Tefta- ment. They never left it, nor could they fitly leave it, to human conje6tu.re to de- termine for what purpofes their miracles were wrought. Nor can we learn what thofe purpofes were in any other method, than by the declarations of a prophet, or by the nature of the works themfelves; and the latter will give us very little aflif- tance without the former. The filence of Scripture therefore concerning what is fuppofed to 'have been the grand and pe- culiar defign of the cure of demoniacs, is a fufficient reafon for rejeding it; unlefs it can be clearly and certainly inferred from the nature of the work itfelf, which no of the Neis) Tefiament. 385 no one will affirm, that underdands it aright. 2. The entire reafoning we are now examining, is built upon this falfe hypo- thefis, viz. that the fpirits, who were thought to take poffefTion of mankind, were devils ov fallen angels. Eut we have fhewn, that pofleffions were always re- ferred to fiich human fpirits, as were fuppofed to be converted into demons ; that there is only one devil, and that he is never mentioned in Scripture in any connexion with the fubjedl before us. All the arguments therefore Urged to prove the propriety and neceffity of his extraordinary agency in the age of the Gofpel, and of Chrifl's public triumph t>ver him, by expelling him from human bodies, militate againft the Chriftiaa difpenfation ; and if they proved any thing, would prove, that God ought to have allowed the devil a power, and afforded Ghrift a triumph, which were not granted. Co 3. The 386 Ofi the Demoniacs 3. The reafoning flated above proceeds upon another falle fuppofition, viz. that pofl'eflions were more frequent in the age of the Gofpel than at any other tinie : a fuppofition contradided by all the monu* ments of antiquity. So that had it been true, that the Scripture had referred pof- fcffions to the devil, it would not have followed even from hence, that the devil gave any luiufual proofs of his power at the commencement of the Chrillian aera, 4. Were it true, not only that the devil was the fpirit who pofTelled men's bodies, and that pofleffions were more frequent in the age of the Gofpel than any other; yet the cafes of reputed pof- feffions defcribed in the Gofpel do not contain any convincing^r^Jg/'of the power and interpofition either of the devil or any evil fpirit. The agency of demons, (whatever fpirits you underftand hereby) it not an objedl of fight \ their entrance into the human body falls not under the notice of any of our fenfes. There is not therefore of the New Tejlament. 387 therefore the fame evidence to be had of it, as there is of a perfon's being difeafed or dead. Accordingly the writers on de- monology find it neceffary to lay down rules for diftinguifliing*' true from pre- tended poffeffions, and to appeal to cer- tain outward fupernatural fymptoms, (fuch as the gifts of tongues and pro- phecy **,) as proofs of an immediate infpi- ration : thus making one miracle necef- fary to atteft the reality of another. It feems then to be the general fenfe of mankind, what is indeed felf-evident, that we cannot yield a rational affent to ^ See above, p. 148. *i Several ill attefted inftances of perfons mfpir- ed by demons with thefe gifts, are recited by the learned Dr. Macknight, in his Eflay on the De- moniacs, p. I 79, I 80. The Chriftian revelation, however, in agreement with right reafon, ever fuppofes the gifts of tongues and prophecy to be the effects ©f a divine agency. Why then do the advocates of that revelation ailign them an infernal origin ? A zeal for demonifm hath led Chriftians, in many other inftances, to obfcure the brighteft evidences of the Gofpel. C c 2 the 388 On the Demwiiacs the reality of pofleffions, without fomc proof of it diftind: from the fadt itfelf ; becaufe it is not fubjedt to the notice of our fenfes. Apply thefe obfervations to the Gofpel demoniacs. What evidence is there of their being really polTefied ? We have feen that their outward fymptoms are lb far from neceflarily arguing the prefence and operation of demons in the human body, that they are apparently the fame with thofe in natural diforders; and that there is not a fingle circumftance attend- ing their cafe, which furniflies an inrlancc or proof of any fupernatural agency. Nor hath the Gofpel laid down any fuch rules as thofe juft now mentioned, in order to enable us to diftinguifli true from pre- tended poffefilons; or offered any proof at all of the reality of poffeflions, though fome fuch proof was apparently neceflary, and even univerfally allowed to be fo in all other cafes. Nay, the moft flrenuous affert- ers of Gofpel demonianifm are forced at lafl: of the New Tejiament, 3^9 laft to build their faith in it, upon the fuppofed teftimony of Chrift': which is giving up the very point they undertook to eftablifh, viz. that the deiiions them- felves gave evident proof of their power in the demoniacs fpoken of in the New Teftament. If the foregoing obfervations are juft, the very foundation of the reafoning ftated at the beginning of this fedlon is not folid. It is buiit upon this principle, that the devil gave unufual proofs of his power when the Gofpel was firfl: pubiiihed, by more frequently pofTefling mankind at tha?- period than at any other : and this principle is thought to be fupported by the ca{e of the Gofpel demoniacs. But neither were reputed pofiefiions mo-e fre- quent in the firft age of the Gofpel than in the preceding and following ag^s, nor are thofe related in the New Teflament ^ TFe Frotefumis iirge^ the tejl'unon, of the Gofpel^ to prove the truth of demoniacal polfe Ujris. Warburton's Serm. vol. iii. p. 2365 et palTim. C c 3 ever 39^ 0/2 the Demoniacs ever referred to the devil, nor do they contain any proof of any fupernatural agency. From hence it follows, 5. That the ends faid to be propofed by Providence in permitting thedevil about the time of Chrift to exercife an extraor- dinary power over mankind, and in ex- pelling him from their bodies, are fuch as could not be anfwered by the cure of the Gofpel demoniacs. Thefe ends are, the convincing mankind how dangerous an enemy he is to the fouls of men, and the affording Chrift an opportunity of gaining a ^//MV vidlory and triumph over him, or of giving the world a fenjible fpecimen and proof of his own fuperior power. But even vvere we to admit, that thofe called demoniacs were really pof- fefled by demons, yet the expulfion of demons would be a proof only of Chrift's power over human ghofts, not over the devil, who is totally unconcerned in the prefent queftion. Nay, were we to grant farther, that by demons we are not to un- derftand of the New Tejiament. 3 9 1 derftand human fpirits, but the devil and fallen angels, and that they did really poflefs mankind, yet their difpofleffion could not anfwer the ends which, it is pretended, were propofed by them, be- caufe it did not contain a public and con- fpicuousy or indeed any clear and certain, pr-oof of Chrift's power over the devil and his confederates. What was ob- ferved above with refpedl to the entrance of demons iiuo the human body, is equally true with refpedl to their ejection from it s it is not an obje(5i: of fight, nor doth it fall within the notice of any of our bodily fenfes. You may know when a difeafe is cured, or a dead man reftored to life 'y but what evidence is there that a demon is expelled^ arifing from the work itfelf? We find, that thofe who undertook this work, thought it necef- fary to offer fome externa! proof of the fuccefs of their enterprize. The Jewifh exorcifl: fpoken of by Jofcphus, ordered the demon as he went out, to overthrow C c 4 a cup '392 On the Demoniacs a cup of i^ater, placed at a fmall diftance ', as a proof of his expulfion. And of ApoUonlus Tyansus it is related, that with the fame view he made the demon whom he caft out, throw down a Jiatue\ Thefe impoftors, void of (hame as they were in many refpeds, had not fufficient affiirance to expecfl the world would be- lieve they had a power of expelling de- mons, without producing fome evidence of the fadt. We find nothing fimilar to this in the condudl of Chrift: a plain proof, that by the d'.fpoffeliion of deQ:ions, he meaned nothing more than (what was obvious to all) the cure of a difeafe. If you fay, th \t though the reality of difpoffefiions cannot be demonftrated from the works themfelves, yet that it may be eflablifhed by the teftimony of revelation'': I anfwer, that by reding t Jofeph. Antiq. lib. VIII. ch, ii. § 5. "^ Philoiirat. de vit. Apol. lib, IV. ch. xx. p. 157, 158. ed, Olcar. ^ Thofe who build their faith in pojfejjions upon the fuppofcd tedimony of revelation, muft al- Iw, that difpojfcjftons can have no other fupporc. of the New Tejlament. 393 the reality of difpofleflions on revelation, you make make it merely an objed of faithy not of fe?ife ', and confequently the ejedion of demons could not, in this cafe, furnifh a fenjible and public proof of Chrift's power over them, nor indeed furnifli any proof of it at all to unbe- lievers. For the proof would not arife from the miracle, but from the declara- tion of Chriil: concerning it j and confe- quently the miracle vs^ould pre-Juppofe faith, inftead of begetting it, and be ufe- lefs to thofe for whofe convidtion it v^as 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 teilimony of the performer ? To pro- pofe invijible miracles as means of convic- tion, is not to enlighten, but to infult our underftanding. Well may unbelievers alk, ** Are fuch works as are totally hid from human view, the augud proots by which 394 ^^ ^^^^ Demoniacs which the wifdom of God faw fit to feal the divine miffion of the great Redeemer ? As reafonably might we be commanded to fee in the dark, as to believe without evidence, or, which is the fame thing, with fuch evidence only, as we are not able to perceive ?'* But in this, as in a multitude of other inftances, the objec- tions of infidelity are not founded upon genuine Chriftianity, but upon grofs mif- reprefentations of it by Chriftians. Agree- ably to the wifdom that (hone forth in his whole behaviour, Chrift performed fuch miracles as were open to the view of all men, and left all men to judge of them, as it was highly neceffary he fhould, by the nature of the works themfelves, not by any explanation of his concerning them. Inftead of teaching men to credit the reality of his miracles, on account of his teftimony, he demanded their aflent to his teftimony, on account of the reality of his miracles, which were fubjeded to the of the New Tejiamenf. ^9$ the examination of their fenfes and natu- ral reafon, the competent and fole judges concerning them. Now, if the difpofleffion of demons, even fuppofing the fa I omitted to take notice, in the beginning of this fe£lion, of an advantage, which a learned perfon fuppofes that Chriftianity derives from the common docStrine ; becaufe, it hath not hitherto, I believe, received the fandion of any other vi^riter. It is not fit, however, that it fhould be quite over- looked. He pleads, that the expulfion of evil de- mons by Chrift, cuts off that fubterfuge againft his miraculous cures, which fuppofes them to be the efFeft o{ a Jlrong imagination^ by which the devil, (according to his conception of him) could not be afFe£led. Warburton's Serm. vol. iii, p. 238 — 241. I do not undertake to determine, how great the force of imagination may be in demons, in the fenfe in 7. On of the New 'Tejla?nenf, 399 7. On the contrary, this dodrine doth Cbriftianity the greateft prejudice in many refpeds. With feme, perhaps, it may weigh but little to obferve, that the common explication of the Scripture demoniacs which this word is ufed by this writer, nor how- far it may be objected againft his own hypothecs, that demons had fuch a ftrong previous perfuafiofi of Chrift's power, that they fcarce left room for the exertion of it in their expulfion. I would only obferve, that if any one be capable oi believing, that Chrift's cures of all the various kinds of dif- eafes to which mankind are liable, performed in an inftant, without the ufeofany natural means, on the abfent 9s well as on thofe who were prefent, ^fpecially when confidered in their connection with his, other miracles, fuch as his giving limbs to the maimed, and life to the dead, and his controlling the elements ; if any one can believe, that all thefe things are the efFecls of fancy, he will hardly fail to afcribe pofielTions, (the fymptoms of which aie at beft fo difputable) to the fame caufe. Nor, in- deed, will it be an eafy matter, to afford him evi- dence to his fatisfad:ion. The ancient prophets, though they performed miraculous cures, are never faid to have confirmed the divinity of thofe works by calling out demons. gives 400 On the Demoniacs gives occafion to numberlefs fuperftitloris*'; particularly to thofe fliamelefs impoftures^ the pofleffions and exorcifms of the Ro- man church ^ ', and thus diicredits the wonderful cures performed by Chrift upon demoniacs, and brings difgrace upon the Chriftian name. If you chufe to call this only an abufe of that explication ; it is neverthelefs fuch an abufe as every Chriftian fhould wifli to fee prevented or removed ; efpecially as it hath occa- fioned a vaft efFufion of human blood. But in truth, to reprefent the Gofpel as authorizing the dodlrine of pofleffions, hath ^ natural and necejfary teiidency to rivet this fuperftition in the minds of Chriftians, which in every age hath been produdive of the greateil mifchief. A learned v^riter% of whom wc have had frequent occalion to take notice, affirms, *" See above, ch. i. fed. ix. p. i68. and Diflert. on Mir. p. loi, ^ Mead's Preface to his Medic, Sacr. p, 4. ^ Dr. Warburton's Serm. vol. iii, p. 241. that of the New Te/lament. 401 that it is an unqtieJlionablefaBi that the evan- gelic hijlory of the demoniacs hath given occa-- Jion to the moji fcandahus frauds^ andfottifh fjperjiitions, throughout almoj} every age of the church 3 the whole trade ofexorcifms, Gccom- panied with all the mummery of frantic and fanatic agitations y having arifenfroin hence. And this celebrated writer would willingly perfuade the world, that thefe evils are the confequence of the anti-demoniac fyflem^; felf-evident as it is, that they wholly arife from his own. But his ar- gument proceeds on a fuppofition neither true in itfelf, nor admitted by thofe againft whom he is difputing, that Jefus and his apojiles, infiead of reBifying the peo^ pies follies and fuperflitions on this headj chafe rather to inflame them^ by ajfuring cer- tain of the diflempered that they were really poffejfed hy evil fpir its ^. After what hath been already offered on this fubje(fl, I will not fay any thing in vindication of Chrift and the evangelic hiftory from the ^ p. 24;. « Page 242. D d falfs 402 On the Demo?itacs falfe imputation of afferting the doftrine of demoniacal poflfcffions. Nor will I af- front the reader's underftanding, by prov- ing that thofe who deny this dodtrine, arc not anfwerable for it's abufe. What thofe have to anfwer for, both to God and to mankind, who too haftily repre- fent the Gofpel as afferting and fupport- ing this dodrine, when they themfelves are fenfible of it's pernicious tendency and cffeds, I leave them to confider. This dodrine prejudices Chriftianity ia another view. It hath been fhewn, that all the fymptoms afcribed to the Gofpei demoniacs, are fuch as belong to natural diforders. And therefore, by afferting that revelation afcribes thefe diforders to a fupernatural caufe, we do revelation the moft material injury; we fet it at variance with reafon and experience, and fix an in- delible reproach on thofe who profeffed to be commiffioned by God to publiih it to the world. Again, the common dodrine concern- icg poffcffions, affeds the very founda- 6 tioa of the New ^ejiament. 403 tion on which the gofpel is built, the evidence of miracles in general, and the miraculous inflidion and cure of difeafes in particular. If demons can inflia grievous difeafes, deprive men of their reafon and fenfes, render them dumb and blind, and caufe them to fufFer the moft exquifite tor- ments; they can work miracles: for the inflid:ion of a difeafe by the agency of any fpiritual being, anfwers to the juft de- finition of a miracle, as an effed: produced in the fyftem of nature, contrary to the general rules by which ii: is governed. All difeafes {o inflidled are ever repre- fented in Scripture as genuine miraclesy and as full and futficient teds of a di- vine interpofition. When Zacharias was flruck dumb, and Elymas blind, ought we not, according to the New Teflamenty to conceive of thefe effects as real mira- cles, and to refer them to God alone? Now if evil fpirits are capable of producing the very fame effects, how can they mark the immediate hand and agency of God ? D d 2 Let 404 On the Demoniacs Let us next confider how the dodrinc of demoniacal pofleffions afteds another fpecies of miracles, the cure of demoniacs. If you underftand the ejedion of demons in the literal fenle, abftraded from the cure of bodily diforders, the miracle in this cafe is not only fecret and infenfible, and therefore not adapted to the convic- tion of mankind, (as vvasobferved above ^) but is evidently fuch as lies within the compafs of a demoniacal power. For if demons can enter^ they can certainly quit, the bodies of mankind. Thus you abfolutely deftroy the validity of one of the moft illuftrious atteftations to Chrift's divine commiffion, his expelling demons, or reftoring demoniacs to the regular ex- ercife of their rational faculties. If you underftand the ejcdion of demons, as in- cluding in it the cure of fuch diforders as are fuppofed to proceed from the influence of demons, you (lill deftroy the credit of Chrift's cure of demoniacs. For if de- mons can injlicl difeafes-, why may not they as eafily remove t/ie?n ? The Fa- thers of the New Tejlament. 405 thers exprefsly taught, that demons con- trived to cure the horrible difeafes they had infJBed, by Jirji prefcribi?ig remedies, and afterwards ceafmg to affUEi the patient"". This obfervation is not without founda- tion. If, for example, demons, by mak- ing fome alteration (a very flight one would fuffice) in the organ of vifion, or by placing fome external obftacle before it, can deprive men of their fight, what can prevent them from reftoring it ? Ne- verthelefs, neither reafon nor revelation allows them this power. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind' ? is the language of common fenfe. This miracle is men- tioned both by the ancient prophets ^ and ^ Lasdunt primo, dehinc remedia prascipiunt ad miraculum nova, five contraria, poft quse defmunt lasdere, & curafle creduntur. Tertull. Apcl, c. 22. Vid. Cyprian de Idol. Van. p. 206. — Mi- nucli P'elicis odav. cap. 27. The learned bifhop Stilllngfleet, notwithftanding his zeal to maintain the reality of pofTelTions, doubted whether they did not difparage the miracles of our Saviour, fee above, ^. 130. ' John X. 21. ^ U. XXXV. 5, 6. D d 3 by 4o6 On the Demoniacs by our Saviour himfelf ' as one of the pe- culiar glories of the Mefilah. The dodrine of real poffeffions deftroys the authority of miracles in general, and the ufe which the Scripture makes of them, as in themfelves authentic evidences of a divine miffion. If demons 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 the organs of it; if they can deprive men of their fight, and fpeech, and reafon, and then reflore them to the ufe of thefc faculties ; they can rival the glory of the prophets of God, Can there be a more liupendous miracle than that performed upon the herd of fvvine, in number two thoufand, w^ho were all in the fame inftant feizcd with madnefs, and ruilied violently into the fea ? Novv^ if demons are able to perform fuch great miracles as this, and the other here fpe- cified, and can alfo impart the gifts of tongues and prophecy, (a power many afcribe to them "" ,) to what other miracles ^ Mat. xi. 5. ^ See above, p, 387. are of the New Tejlame?2t. 407 are they not equal ? Unlefs men can (hew with certainty how far the power of the devil extends, and enable us to diftinguifli between diabolical and divine miracles, in a very different manner from what they have hitherto done, (which hath chiefly been by calling them by different names";) they utterly deflroy the authority and true " See an Examination of Mr, Le Moine's Treatife on Miracles, Seel. I. II. Le Moine, after Fleetwood and feveral ingeni^ ous foreigners, undertook to fhew that none but God can perform true miracles ; thefe works, in his opinion, requiring an infinite and incommuni- cable power. At the fame time this learned writer, and thofe whom he copies allow the devil a power of imitating what they call true miracles, or, at leaft, of producing effects contrary to the fixed order of events, which perfe6lly anfwer to a juft definition of miracles. But it is in words only that thefe writers difter from thofe who afcribe true miracles to the devil. And it is the mod: egregious trifiine, to appropriate thefe works to God, unlefs they point out the difference between diabolical and divine operations, and enable us clearly to diftinguifh the one from the other; which they have not attempted to do, bat contented themfelves with refolvinpr to give the name of miracles to the one, and to call the other only great and ajioni/hing things , D d J, ufe 40 8 On the Demotiiacs ufe of miracles, and thereby fubvert the foundation on which Chriftianity is built. 8. On the other hand, the true explica- tion of the Gofpel demoniacs eftabliflies the certainty, and difplays the full glory, of the miracles performed upon them. Thefe m.iracles are always fpoken of, in the New Teftament, with fingular em- phafis and' diftindtion. Scarce are any other miracles more frequently and cir- cumftantially defcribed \ It required an extraordinary degree of faith to under- take them, efpecially when the diflemper was violent and inveterate : for in refe- ° Witnefs the following cafes : i. The demo- niac in the fynagogue of Capernaum, Mark i. 23. Luke iv. '23. 2. T Iv- Gadarene demoniac, or de- moniacs, Mat. viii. i8. Mark v. i. Luke viii. 26. 3. The dumb demoniac, Mat. ix. 32. Luke xi. 14. 4. A demoniac blind and dumb, Mat. xii. 22. 5. The Canaanitc's daughter. Mat. xv. 21. 6. The demoniac who was lunatic, dumb, and deaf. Mat. xvii. 14. Mark ix. 17. Luke ix. 38. — Out of Mary Magdalene Chrift ejeded (^v^n demons, Luke viii. 2. But of this, and many other cafes, we have only a general account, rence of the New Tejlament. 409 rence to a cafe of this nature, in which the faith of the apoftles had failed them, our Saviour fays, This kind goeth not outy but by prayer and fajling^ : ** Such dif- ficult miracles are not efFedled, without fuch a full dependence upon the divine power, as is not to be acquired but by continued devotion, fuch as is ufaally ac- companied with abflinence." The Se- venty were filled with exultation and tri- umph, when they found themfelves en- abled to cure demoniacs ; Lord^ even the demons (the diforders afcribed to the pof-^ feffion of demons) are fiihjeSi to us through thy name "". Whenever Chrift performed thefe miracles, the fpedlators were filled with religious aftoniihment and awe ; Thiy were amazed, infomuch that they quejlioned amongH themfelves, faying, What ■ P Mat. xvii. 21. Mark ix. 29. Compare Luke ii. 37. Afts X. 32, where prayer and fafling are joined together. See Dr. Lardner's Cafe, p, 144. Dr Sykes's explication of this pafTagc is well re- futed in the excellent Dr. Doddridge's Expof. vol, ii. p. 13. 2d. edit, ^ Luke X. 17. 4TO On the Demoniacs thing is this? What NEIV doBrine is tliis? iDith authority commandeth he the unclean fpirits, and they obey him ', In order to underftand this language, we mufl: recolleft, that in our Saviour's time there were, amongft the Jews as well as amongft the Pagans, many impoftors who pretended to the power of expelling demons '. Some undertook to draw evil fpirits cut at the noftrlls ' ; others en- gaged only in general to drive them away from the perfons whpm they poffeiTed. To ejffeft their expulfion, they not only made ufe of adjuration and charms % but alfo of ftrong fmells ^, and other natural ' Mark i. 27. See alfo ch. v. 20. Luke iv. 36. ch. xi. 14. Compare Mark \\i , 41, Luke viii. 25. * Mat. xii. 27. DifTert. on Mir, p. 393. ' Jofcph. Antiq. lib. viii. lap, 2. § 5, " See Whitby and Grotius on Mat. xii. 27. Their adjurations in the name of the God of Abra- ham were ufed as a charm, Origen, contr. Celf. lib. i. p. 1 7. and lib. iv. p. 184 Jofeph. Antiq. lib. viii. c, 2. § 5. and Middleton's Free Inquiry, p. 84. ^ Hence it hath been faid, that demons were rather fufFocatcd ^i Jiunk out^ than cajf out of the bodies of remc- of the New Tejlament. 411 remedies ''. This was a branch of the magic art (which was founded upon the idolatry and fuperftition of the Heathens); and v/hat credit it had was fupported in part by the efficacy of drugs adminiftered to the patient, but principally by fraud. The proof of the expullion of demon§ was, not the perfed:andfupernatural cure of the demoniac ^ but the compelling the men. See Wefton's Rejedion of Chriflian Mi- racles, p. 231. ^ See what occurs In Jofephus (Antlq. lib. viii. cap. 2, § 5.) concerning the antidemoniac art, taught by Solomon, and the application of a ring with a root In it to the noftrils of the patient ; and alfo what the fame author fays concerning the plant Baaras, and its virtue in driving away demons, Bell. Jud. lib. vii. cap. 6. § 3. Compare Tobit, cap. vi. Juftin obferves, (cont. Trypho, p. 311.) >?% \fh rot ol l^ 'Ofj.u^u Ir^ui^xifxii t>? T£p/vw,wo-7rf^ xa) ra eSvt), ^puvTon. Concerning the effedls of mufic in- driving away demons, fee Jofcph. Antiq. lib. vi. cap. 8. § 2. cap. 11. § 2. y In the cafes referred toby Jofephus, (Antiq. lib. viii. cap. 2. § 5.) which (according to Dr. Sykes, in his Inquiry, p. 33.) were the fame with the Cer- ritU3 of Cerenus Samonicus, the demoniac m.ight be relieved by ftrong fmells, or other natural remedies. demon. 412 0;z the Demoniacs demon, as he went out, to overturn a ftatue or veflel of water at fome diftance^. Now, though Chrift took no pains to efta- blifli the reality of thofe miracles which he performed upon demoniacs, yet the people, at the fight of them, (deluded as they had hitherto been by the artifices of their countrymen) are filled with the greateft aflonifhment, and freely ac- But it is a thing utterly incredible In itfelf, as well as deftjtute of all manner of proof, that the power of fuperior fpirlts fhould give way to that of men ; or that God fhould fucceed the attempts of fuper- ftition and impofture. A remarkable inftance of the failure of fuch attempts, is related Ads xix. 19. See fome other proofs of the inefEcacy of the Jewifh exorcifms, Diflert. on Mir. p. 394. jiote '. Nor is this inconfifi-ent with Mat. xii. 26, 27, as is fhewn p. 388, &c. The Chriftian exorcifls alfo, who fwarmed in the primitive church, and v/ere too much countenanced by the Fathers of it, had as little fuccefs as their predccefTors amongft the Jews and Pagans. The cure of the demoniac, if it ever took place, was a work of time. See Middleton's Free Inquiry, p. 92, Dr. Jortin's conceffions, in his Re- marks on Ecclefiaftical Hifi:. vol, I. p. 242. and Mr. Jof. Mede, p. 30. ^ 5ec above, p. 391, What of the New Teflament. 413 knowlege. It was never fofeen in Ifrael^. What was it that occafioned this extraor- dinary furprize, and was efleemed quite without example till this time ? It could not be the bare expulfion of demons; both becaufe this, abftradedly confidered, is no outward and fenfible effed:; and becaufe it was no more than what they thought their own exorcifts were able to accomplifli. What then was it, or could it be, that they had never {t^n before, and could not now fee, without the ftrongeft emotions of mind, but the outward and vifible miracle^ the cure of thofe terrible diforders which were anciently afcribed to the poffeffion of demons, together with the fovereign manner in which this mi- racle was performed by Chrill:, without the ufe of any natural means ? If you confider more particularly the true nature of this miracle, you will fee the reafon, both of the great flrefs laid upon it in the New Teftament, and of the powerful efFeft produced by it upon the * Mat. ix. 33, Compare Mark ii. 12. fpec- 414 0^ ^^^^ Demoniacs fpedators. The gofpel demoniacs were afflided with madnefs, in all its moft vio- lent degrees; and their madnefs was, in fome cafes, attended with confirmed epi- lepiies. Thefe terrible maladies (the fymp* toms of which are obvious to all) affedt the mind as well as the body, and were thought by the ancients greatly to exceed the power of natural caufes. Under thefe diforders, fome were known to have la- boured for a great number of years, others from their very childhood. Some at the inftant of their being cured by Chrift fuffered the moft violent paroxyfms of thefe diforders. To heal fuch maladies, and reflore thofe afflidled with them to perfed: foundnefs both of body and mind, in an inftant, without the ufe of natural remedies, and with the fame voice of au- thority, as when Chrift rebuked the winds and the fea, or called forth the dead, is one of the greateft of miracles, not only an out- 'ward ^v\di fenfible ^ but a moft illujirious and ajiofiijhingi difplay of the power and pre- fence of God. No- of the New Tejiamenf. 4 1 5 No wonder therefore, that whenChrift healed the epileptic youth, who was luna^ tiCy znAfore vexed v/iih a demon, (that is, both an epileptic and a maniac,) we are told, that the fpedlators uo ere all amazed at the mighty power of God^, When he re- ftored the demoniac, who was blind and dumbi to his fight and fpeech, the people regarded the miracle as the very charader- iftic of their Meffiah, crying out. Is not this the fon of David" ? language which implies, that, to their apprehenfion, the Meffiah himfelf could not perform a greater miracle. So bright an impreffion of the divinity did it bear uponitfelf, that our Saviour, (in anfwer to his enemies, who, from mere malice, difparaged it 3) inftead of entering upon a vindication of it, which was needlefs; only expofes the abfurdity of their cenftTrc of it, upon their ovvn principles ^ Like one who knew what convidion it was fitted to carry to Luke ix. 43. * Mat. xii. 23. Compare John vii. 31. * Diflert. on xMir. p. 392. the 41 6 On the Demoniacs^ 6cc, the human mind, he draws the following conclufion from it. If 1 cajl out demons by the fpirit oj God, then is the kingdom of God come unto you^ : ** If I rcflore demoniacs to their right mind by a div.ine power, the kingdom of the Meffiah is certainly ered- inp-amongit you.*' Chriftians need not be alhamed to acknowlegc, that they regard theejeBion of demons /if truly explained, as one of thofe auguft proofs of the miffion of their Redeemer, which were defigned to recommend him to the reverence of mankind in all ages. It is well adapted to anfwer the fame benevolent end with all the other miracles of the Gofpel, which were both performed and recorded, that we might believe thatjefus is the Chrijl, the Son of God i and that believing we might have life through his name ^ •Mat. xii. 28. [ Johaxx. 31. THE END.