(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "A critical dissertation concerning the words daímon and daimónion : occasion'd by two late enquiries into the meaning of demoniacks in the New Testament"

I 



3 

! 



: 



- 






■ 



■ 



- - 
- 



- 



: 



- 




£ 



FEB 2 

• » 



SCC #10,868 

Swinton, John, 1703-1777 

A critical dissertation 

concerning th* words 



■*o 




a'critical 



D I S S E RTATI ON 



Concerning the Words 



AAi'MON and AAIMO'NION 



Occafion'd by 

Two late Enquiries info the Meaning of De- 
moniacks in the New Teftament. 



In a Letter to a Friend. 



By a Gentleman of Wadham College 

Oxford. 



~\ 



LONDON: 

Printed for J. Crokatt; and Sold by 
J. Roberts in Warwick Lane. 

MDCC XXXVIII. 

( 'Price Six-Pence.) 



The following Errata, occafioned by the Author's 
Diftance from the Prefs, the Reader is defired to 
excufe, and correct thus : 

Page i . Line 1 1 . for O ©EOS To GElON read O 0EO£, 
TO 0F.ION; p. I. 1. 19. for aliqui rofc/aliiq; p. 3. 1. 14. 
put £ Comma after Tj^jj p. 7. line 30. for Plutarch, read 
Plutarch, p. 7. 1. 32. for Dr. read D, p. 14. 1. 16. put a 
fmall Line after @iv ; thus, /3jk— p. 19. 1. 24. put a Com- 
ma after Signification, p. 19. 1. ult. for Jlginar. read JJinar. 
p. 24. 1. 26. for Miracles read Miracle p. 25. 1. 10. put a 
Point of Interrogation after the Word called, thus, called ? p. 25. 
I. 17. put a Point of Interrogation after Sabbath Day ? 



A 

CRITICAL DISSERTATION 

Concerning the Words 

AAI'MHN and AAIMO'NION. 



S I R y 

TH E Word AcctfAcov is ufed in various 
Significations by the Greek Authors 
who preceded the Birth of Christ, 
the principal of which feem to be the three 
following. 

I. Fzrft, It is taken for the Supreme Beings 
the Divinity it/elf] O 0EOZ TO 0EION ; this 
is evident from a Homer, Plato, Arijlotle, and 
others. Hence it comes to pafs, that the b E- 
pithet AocifAcvi^ frequently fignifies, among 



a Horn. Iliad. P. 98, 99, Sec. O. 403, 404, &c. Odyf. B, 
134, 135, ■ &c. Plat.Polit. p. 272. & alibi paffim. Arijiot, 
de Mund. fub init. Eurip. Demojih. pro Cor. &c. 

b Arijlot. ibid. Pind. Pytb. Od. 2. Horn, paffim, aliqui 
multi. 

B the 



(4) 

] ) • : iher be fore or after Death . Plutarch, 

lamblichns, Hierocles, and others, are very ex- 
prejs in this Particular ; but, as I prppofe men- 
tioning only foine of the moft antient Greek 
Authors at prefent, I fhall here omit them. 

II. Tis obfervable, that tho' Hefiod honours 
the Men of the golden Age with the Title of 
Demons after their Deaths, yet he does this 
chiefly by way of Compliment to them, and 
in order to f) incite his Brother Perfes to imitate 
them by performing juft and virtuous Actions ; 
and therefore no certain Conclufion can be 
drawn from hence with regard to his real Opi- 
nion of the Nature of Demons. But whatever 
his Opinion of thefe Beings might be, what- 
ever he might think of them, 'tis certain p he 
makes a Dilfindiion betwixt the Qsg) f^cc}ax^g 
Teat elbdiact, the blejjed and immortal Gods, who 
are * Homers Demons, and the departed Wor- 
thies of the golden Age, who are his Demons. 
He makes them different and diftindt Claries of 
Beings ; and confequently it cannot be inferred 
from him, and much lefs from his Followers, 
that all Demons, or even the Beings to whom 
Word was firft applied, were Ghofts, or 
departed Men. 
. ,er, that Demons in general mould be 
Spirits of Men, who once lived on Earth, 
is nnr at all implied in the Word rtfelf, nor does 



' ibid. I Hljkd. ibid. 

\ } 222, 



this 



(5 ) 

this Notion enter into the Idea which it con- 
veys to us. — This Idea exhibits to our View 
Beings endued with Knowledge only, without 
relation to any other Quality, Circumftance, or 
Perfection ; and therefore rational Beings in this 
View only are fignined by this Word, i. e. Be- 
ings endued with a Degree of Knowledge fu- 
perior to what we enjoy, and who therefore 
by way of Eminence, with refpect to us, may 
be called Knowing Beings. This feems to have 
been the only and genuine Senfe in which the 
Antients underftood the Word Autpcvsg in ge- 
neral. In this Senfe it might be applied not 
only to die fupreme Being, but to all other 
Natures fuperior to Man -, and in this Senfe it 
was applied by them to God and all fuch Na- 
tures. Actipoveg quaji AarfAoveg, fays r Plato : 
Now Actypav fignifies Doffius, Peritus, Set 'ens , 
&c. from whence comes Accr^ca-vvv} Scientia, 
Peritia„ &c, rrr - And this feems to anfwer 
He/tod's Defcription of them ; f for he allures 
us, that they obferve, (/. e. know) every thing 
done on Earth, and that they are Privy-coun- 
cellors to Jupiter. l Laffiantius and Eujiathius 
put this Etymology beyond difpute. 

'Tis proper likew T ife to remark, that v Hefiod 
calls his Demons iS-Xoi xa\ i7ri%6ovioi (good and 
terrejirial) which feems to infinuate, that there 

r Plat, in Cratylo. 

f Hejtod. ubi fupra. 

1 Laaant. II. 14. Euftath. in Iliad. A. ^222. 

* Hefiod, ubi fupra, 

were 



(6) 

were other Demons who were neither good nor 
terrefirial ; and therefore this PaiTage is fo far 
from proving, that all Demons, or Demons- in 
general, were in Hefiod 's Time fuppofed to be 
good and terrcjlrial, or fuch as had once lived 
on Earth, (for that this is the true Signification 
of inxflwoi is evident both from w Hefiod him- 
felf and Homer) that it is an Intimation to the 
contrary, and a prefumptive Argument that 
Hefiod believed there were Demons of a male- 
volent Nature, who had never been Inhabi- 
tants of this Earth ; efpecially, fince this was a 
Notion that prevailed amongft all polite Na- 
tions, even from the remoteft Antiquity, as 
may be proved by one or two exprefs Teftimo- 
nies, which we mall beg leave here to in- 
fert. 

x P hit arch, in his Dio, affirms, <c that there 
was a very antient Opinion, that certain 
wicked and malignant Demons envy good 
Men, and endeavour to hinder them in the 
Purfuit of Virtue, left they mould be at laft 
Partakers of greater Felicity than they en- 
joy ; " which is confirmed by y Iamblichus. 
— The firft Author moreover tells us, " that 
<c the ■ Opinion of an evil Principle, or Being, 
:c was handed down from the antient Mailers 

d. ibid, ft [41. Horn. Iliad. A. ^ 272. & Scboliafl. 
m loc. 

■■it. in Dio. See likcwife Cafaubons Note upon this Paf- 
fage of Plutarch, in his Original of Temporal Evils, Lond. 1615. 

I )>: j 
■ 

< c of 



(7) 



cc 

cc 
cc 



of divine Knowledge, and -Formers of Com- 
monwealths, to the Poets and Philofophers ; 
and of fo great Antiquity, that its firft Au- 
" thor could not be found; and that it was 
<c embraced as Truth by the Generality of the 
" wifeft Heathens." The a Greeks called this 
evil and malicious Being ^Afe, [Hades) as we 
are informed by this fame Author ; the Egyp- 
tians, from whom the others received their 
Idea of him, Typhon -> the Perfians and Chalda- 
ans, Ahdriman ; and from thefe laft it appears, 
that he was created by God, tempted Men to 
all Kinds of Wickednefs, and took the greater!: 
Delight in oppofing the divine Will. The 
Chaldeans and Perfians acknowledged Angels, 
both good and bad, as diftinct from the Souls 
of Men. This is evident from b Damafcius, 
Plutarch, and Shabriftdni in conjunction with 
the Sad-der, or Compendium of the DoEZrines of 
Zerdujht, c which exprefly mentions fuch An- 
gels, the Good ones as guarding and protecting 
Men, the Bad ones as inftigating and tempting 
them to .all Kinds of Wickednefs and Sin, and 
afterwards becoming the Inftruments of their 
Punifhment, agreeably to the Scripture Account 
of the fallen Angels. — - And that the d laft 

a Diogenes Laertius in Proacm. ad Vit. Philof. & "Plutarch. 
This laft Author, in the fame place, calls the good Principle 
QiU and the bad one Aai^cov. 

1 Damafcius y Plutarch, & Shahrijldni apud D. Hyde in Hifl. 
Rel. vet. Per/, c. 22. 

c Lib. Sadder aipud Dr. Hyde Port. I. 2. 5.9. & alibi paf. 

* 3 Lib. Sad-der Port. 1.2. 

Angeh 



/ 



( 8). 

Angels in particular, according to the Perfian 
and Chaldcean Do&rine, were diftinft from the 
Souls of Men, is undeniable \ for Zerdujht makes 
all the wicked Souls to be thrown into Hell, 
or Gehevina, from the Bridge l'chinavar, and 
to be there confined, in the ftridteft Manner, 
till the Day of Judgment ; e whereas his evil 
Angels are left at liberty to rove about, to trou- 

ble'and iflfeft Mankind. And that this was 

the Sentiment of the Magi in the earlieft Times, 
long before the Age of Zerdujht, is plain from 
hence, that Zerdujht made no f Alterations in 
the doclrinal and fundamental Points of their 
Religion, but only abolifhed fome fuperftitious 
Rites and Practices that had crept in amongft 
them ; and that they were never guilty of Ido- 
latry, as the neighbouring Nations were, but 
conftantly adhered to the Worfhip of the one 
only and true God, as they received it from 
their great Anceftors Shem and E/am, who muft 
undoubtedly have been acquainted with the 
Fall of the Angels : So that we may fairly con- 
clude, that the s Belzebub, Satan, and Sam- 
mael of the Jews j the Ahdriman of the Chal- 

c Ibid. Port. 9. 1 6. & alibi paf. In fhort, according to Dr. 

. the antieni Pcrfians and People of the Eajl had the fame 

Notion of the Devil and his Angels that Chrijlians have always 

had. See likewifc Stilling Jleet\ Orig. Sacr. lib. iii. c. 3. and 

the C , in the Uni<verf. Hi/I. vol. I. p. 15, &c. 

1 Dr, HM in Hill. Rel. vet. Per/. See likewife the Unhierfal 
vol. 2. p. 71 . The Authors of which render this Point 
ngly clear. 

■ vol . i . p. 5 1 . 

dceans 



(9) 

dcean and Perfians-, and the Hades of the Greeks , 
were one and the fame Being, even the Leader, 
or Prince of the fallen Angels , and that thefe 
fallen Angels themfelves were what the Greeks. 
understood by their evil Demons. h Theodoras 
in Photius directly afferts, that Ahdriman is the 
Devil, or Satan, and ' Dr. Hyde clearly evinces 
the fame thing. Again, that the Egyptians and 
Phoenicians likewife acknowledge fuch wicked 
inferior Beings, as well as Typhon their Chief, 
is plain from the genuine Remains of their great 
Lawgiver and Philofopher k Hermes Trifme- 
giftuSy or Thoyth , who therein affirms, c c that 
u Demons are the Enemies of Men, and vex 
" them;" and he moreover, in the very Lan- 
guage of Scripture, calls them evil Angels ; 
which Aflertion is more fully illuftrated and 
explain' d by Cafaubon, Stillingfleet, and other 
learned Men. Now that the Greeks bor- 
rowed both their firft Syftem of Religion and 
their Notions of intelligent Beings from the Egyp- 
tians and Phoenicians \ is allowed by their own 
Writers. Many more Arguments and Teftimo- 
nies might be offered, to prove, that a Belief of 
evil Demons, diftindl from the Souls of Men, pre- 
vailed amongfl all polite Nations, from the re- 

b Tbecdor. apud Phot in. Bibliothec. p. IC9. 

1 Dr. Hyde. in ftiit. Kef. vet. Per/, c. 22' 

k Hermes tfrifmegift. apud Laflant. in Jib. 2. de fall*. Relig. 
Het'mes here likewife calls the evil Principle abovemention'd thi 
Demonarcb, or Prince of Demons, which is likewife Scripur.e 
Language. 

1 Herodot. in Enter?, Diodor. Siculus in Bibl. Hilt 1. 1. 

C moteft 



( io ) , ; 

nioteft Times ; but what has been already pro- 
duced is, we conceive, abundantly fufficient to 
convince all reasonable and unprejudiced Minds. 
* Philo, indeed, tells us, that Angels, Souls, and 
Demons (both good and bad) were the fame 
Beings : but this muft be underftood of their 
intelligent Nature and good or bad Difpofitions, 
/. e. the Angels of the Holy Scripture, the De- 
mons of the Greeks, and the Souls of departed 
Men agree in this, that they are immaterial in- 
telligent Beings, fome of them good and fome 
bad ; and agreeably to this our blejfed Saviour 
declares, that n after the Refurrec~lion Men are 
as the Angels which are in Heaven. — And, that 
c all who know the Scriptures and the Power of 
God are Satisfied of this Truth. Philo, I fay y 
mull: be thus underftood, otherwife he is in- 
coniiftent with himfelf ; for in another Place 
F he obierves, " that there were many intel- 
" leclual Powers (i. e. Angels) with God be- 
t£ fore the Creation of the World — i that 
tc thofe Beings which the Scripture calls Angels r 

and Philofopliers Demons, arc the immediate 
" Minillers of the Almighty, are as it were the 

Ears and Eyes of the great King, do vaftly 
11 excel in Wifdom, Purity, and Excellency of 

Nature, thofe Spirits who were once invefted 

with Body, inhabit much more noble and 

//. J ud. de Gigant. 
Mar. xii. 25. ° Mar, xii. 24. 

P Phil. Jud. de Confuf Ling. p. 345. Lutet. Parif. 1640* 
■ 1. p. 5&S, 586, &c. 

cc fublime 



** fublime Regions than they do •" — in fhort, 
he ufes the Word r tyv%ij fometimes as fynony- 

mous to , z<rvsv t u<z, dcrutxoirov, cl&uvoirov, or Xoy@^>, 
i. e. a Spirit, incorporeal Being, an immortal 
Subjiance, a rational Power, or Principle, &c. 
And this Obfervation is fufficient to reconcile 
all the feeming Contradictions to be found in 
him on this Head. Befides, Philo, being a 
yew, muff, have been very well acquainted 
with the Scriptures of the Old Teftament ; and 
that thefe treat Angels as Beings different from, 
and fuperior to the Souls of Men, is univerfally 
allowed. 

III. This laft Signification of the Word 
Aatpav is what at prefent I muft infill chiefly 
upon, viz. a created intelligent Being fuperior 
to Man -, (for f that He/iod's Demons were made, 
or created, by the Gods, he plainly afferts) and 
1 all fuch Beings as thefe were, from the re- 
moter! Antiquity, thrown into two different 
Claries. The one were reckon'd of a good and 
beneficent Nature, and Friends to Mankind $ 
the other the reverfe — Beings that (as we 
have above obferved) were implacable, had an 
invincible Averfion to Men, and made it their 
Bufineis to defeat them in all their eood Pur- 

fuits to influence and perfwade them to 

what was wrong, and, in fhort, to draw them 

r Phil. Jud. de Somn. p. 584, &c. 

f Hefiod. lib. 1. y no. 

: Plut. Dr. Hyde, Stillingfieet ; Cafauhon, &c. ubi fupra. 

C 2 tO 



( " ) 

to Deftrudtion. That the Notion of evil De- 
mons (in this laft Senfe of the Word Aui'pav) 
was coeval with that of good ones, is evident 
from Homer, who is as early an Author as any, 
if not the firft, amongft the Greeks that men- 
tions either of them, and v who mentions both 
of them. To the evil Demon he joins the E- 
pithets m ytctitog, x q-vyeocg, and ? %<Lki7rl<;, and 
even the Word z Aaipav itfelf, without any of 
thefe, he ufes in a bad Signification. a He more 
than intimates, that thefe Demons precipitate 
Men into bad, pernicious, and even fatal A- 
clions : — and that thefe Actions are not only 
unfortunate and phyfically evil, but likewife in- 
clude b morel Turpitude in them, may be col- 
lected from Pindar, c who feems to allude to 
the Places of Homer here hinted at: — Which 
Paffage, becaufe it is very remarkable, throws 
great Light upon the prefent Subject, and has 
not been taken notice of by any Writer en- 
gaged in the prefent Controverfy concerning the 
Nature of Demons and their Operations upon 
Men, I mall produce at length with the Sch- 
liafis Note upon it. 

• tiom, Uiad. 0. 1 66. O. 405. p. gS, 104, &c 
' Qty. K. 64. 

1 'fT- E. 396. 
J Odltf. T. 201. 

z Vid. Horn. Iliad. 0. 166. 8c Scboliaji. in lac. 
' In lac. jjun laudat. 
1 Pind. HT0. Od. 3. ScScboHaJt. in Joe. 

c X ' ' - ^- Delj dan. not. in Pind. HT0. Od. t. 

p. 118. Ed. Schurpr. 1616. 



Aufyuv 5* erepog, ig Desman vero alter, (malus 

MAQV rt&cuc idu^u- fclL) ad malum qui impulerat, 

* «rtf wv. P erdidit eam « 

c O 'Azxoxoik ug *po\ By the hs?& Acti^v is to be 

?jy JiyeAtMQifo 'O Sf underftood the *w7, or «//'<■&</, 

uJ, £/ 5 T* T* p**** oppofcs the good one. (Either A-£ 

r**i »■> * t~ a, * Coromss own vitious Difpofi-'--*?--*' 

jc«K8 P y/«v rps** JW tionj or h e r evil Demon &&*** 

Kop«v**«, M*i avcupsBvpm tempted her to commit the Sin^ ? 

«utviv x«T£«rKcU*ir6 KaA- of Adultery, and was theCaufe/ 7y ' 



*/^*%o; £s <})^<nv, 8 Trav- of her Deftrucliory Callima^^ 
T££, «AA' xq t(T%ev £T£pog chus alfo ufes this Expreflion, 
Auiixuv. Not all, but fetch as were pofe- 

Jefsd by the evil Demon. 

Pindar lived about 470 Years before Chri/i, 
near a Generation before Herodotus y and Calli- 
machus about 270. Hence 'tis apparent, that 
the Opinion of evil "Demons prevailed amongft 
the Greeks in very early Ages, and that they 
took the Office of thefe wicked Beings to be 
intirely of the fame Nature with that afligned 
to the Devil and his Angels in Scripture ; and 
confequently 'tis highly probable, that they 
were the fame implacable and malicious Be- 
in^. 

But this will receive a farther Acceflion of 
Strength if we confider, that the Aaipuv of the 
Greeks (in the Senfe of the Word at prefenr 
under Confideration) anfv/ered to the Genius of 
the Latins - y and therefore the uyuSog Aalpuv 
(or the h^iog Aatpuv as he is called by d Calli- 

a Callimach. Hymn, in Ccr. 1. 36. 

machus) 



chus) of the Greeks was the bonus Genius, of the 
Latins ', and the Kctxog Aotipcov (or erfg©* Aatp&ov, 
as c Pindar and Callimachus ftile him) of the 
former, the ma&u Genius of the latter. Many 
Authors concur to evince this Point. The Paf- 
(age of Pindar above mentioned, with the &rfe- 
UafYs Note, is full and exprefs in favour of it ; 
f Callimachus adds his Teftimony to fupport it ; 
Pindar, in another Place, applies to the Word 
Aulfjutiv the Epithet s fyiGxi®-, which anfwers 
to the Notion the Latins entertained of their 
Genius, viz. that he attended the Man he was 
allotted to, from his firft Entrance into Life. 
Menander, as cited by Plutarch, fays, ccTavJi- 

tivi^J. AclifJLOVCt (TVfJL7rCLPcL<?CCTitV iV$Vg fyjG{AeV(*) fJLV- 

^■ccyctifcv tx (ilx; and Empedocles, as cited by the 
fame Author, Sirjoti ring qpav was-ov 'zxrupotXctfji- 
Gavatri '/.at i v.ot\<ip^\) poison xat Aotipovsg • 

which intirely correfponds with what h Servius 

has laid down concerning the Genii, Cum 

najcimur, fays he, Genios duos fortimur-, unus 
qui hortatur ad bona, alter qui depravat ad 
mala, nee incongrue dicuntur Genii, quod cum 
unujquifque genitus fuerit, ei Jlatim objervatores 
deputantur ; ' Plautus and Plutarch put it be- 
yond all doubt, that the Romans had in very 

* Pi ml ubi fbpra, Callimach. fragm. Bentleii 91. 
' Callimach. ibid. Sc Bentleii not. in loc. 
' find. OATMn. Od. 13. 1. 148. 
r Serxius in firg- JEn. 1. 6. it 743. 

I onf Tint, in Bruto cum Plaut. Metuccbm. Aft. r. Sc. t. 

■ & F>;J. Taubm, commend in loc. Ed, Scbttr. 1621. 

early 



( 15 ) 

early Times a Notion of good and evil Genii ; 
the Author of Onomafiicon vetus Latino-Gr cecum 
renders the Latin Word Genius by the Greek 
Actipav ; and laftly, the Platonic PhUofopher 
k Apuleius frequently tranflates the Word Aat- 
(jl&v by Genius. Many other Teftimonies and 
Arguments might be produced in favour of our 
AfTertion, but the Truth of it is fo apparent, 
that they are intirely fuperfluous. 

But to come nearer the Point we have in 
View, the Word Genius cannot, with any to- 
lerable Propriety, be deduced a gignendo, as 
J fome of the Antients, particularly Varro, have 
fondly imagined : - — this Etymology is too far 
fetch'd and unnatural, and 'tis well known that 
nothing can be more ridiculous than many of 
Farro's Derivations , — 'tis, in all Probability, 
to be fought for in the Eaft, as a great Part of 
the Latin Words are ; efpecially thofe that the 
Latins m borrowed from the Etrufcans. This 
will be clear, almoft to Demon ftration, when 
we confider, that the n Arabic Gin y or Gen, is 
taken for a Being of the fame kind with the 

Latin Genii ^ Aft. xii. 15. that it fignifies a 

Demon, in the Scripture Senfe of the Word, 

I/a. xiii. 21. Matt. xvii. 15, &c. and that 

the p JEthiopic Genn denotes a Spectre, or Ap- 

k Apuleius de Deo Socrat. & de Mundo. 

1 VarrOy Feftus, Cenforin. &c. v 

m Vid. Differt. de Ling. Etrur. reg. vern. Oxon. 1738. 

f Cajiel. Lex. 

Cajiel. Lex. & Schind. Lex. pent, 

P Vid. Bibl. Polyglot, in loc. 

parition. 



C I* ) 

parition, Mar. vi. 49. and the JD^y/7 himfelf, 
i Aict£o\&, i Joh. iii. 8, &c. In fhort, that 
Gen both in the Arabic and Ethiopic Lan- 
guages, when ufed in a bad Senfe, exactly an- 
fwers both to the Aoupovig, or Aaipovia, and 
Aioc£o\@^ of Scripture ; from whence we may, 
with no fmall Appearance of Reafon, infer, 
that thefe Words are all of the fame Import ; 
and that a Demon, or Genius, in the bad Ac- 
ceptation of the Word, is a Devil, or evil Spi- 
rit, ftrictly and properly fo called. But of this 
more hereafter. 

Before I difmifs this Point, it may not be 
improper to obferve, that Herodotus, the Fa- 
ther of Hiftory, ufes the Word Auluav both in 
the firft and laft Significations we have taken 
notice of. Aocl^m equivalent to Qeog may be 
feen in his Clio, c. 87. and for a tutelary infe- 
rior rational Being (fynonymous to dyad eg 
AuifJLav, or bonus Genius) ibid. c. 86. Which 
laft Paflage I take to be very valuable ; fince 
the Office of a good Demon, or Genius, is there 
defcribed, and exactly agrees with that affigned 
to good Angels in Scripture, viz. to guard and 
protect the righteous and religious Man from 
all impending Evils and Dangers; and iince 
from hence we learn, with Certainty, that this 
Opinion did not only prevail amongft the 
Greeks when Herodotus wrote his Hiftory, 
(about 450 Years before the Commencement of 
the Chrtjlian /Era) but likewife amongft the 
Perfian$ 4 when Cyrus conquered the Kingdom 

of 



(i7 ) 

of Lydia (near 560 Years before that Period, 
and even before the Time oi Zerdafht) — two 
Confederations of very great Moment in the 
prefent Enquiry. That Herodotus believd the 
Exiftence of toil Demons , or Genii, is likewife 
evident from the Word 1 Kuao^cti^ovtyj, which 
may be found in the ufual Senfe in his Wri- 
tings. 

What has been faid of the Word Aalpw is 
likewife to be underfliood of its fynonymous 
Term r Aoupivw -, it may however be obferv'd, 
that this laft is moft frequently ufed by the 
facred Writers, as the other is by the profane. 
I might eafily prove this by an Induction of 
Particulars, were it, in any manner, neceifarys 
but as it is not, I mall only remark, that the 
Word Aaipoviov is properly an Adjective in the 
neuter Gender, and that according to the ge- 
nius of the Greek Language, fuch Adjectives 
are very frequently equivalent to Subftantives of 
the fame Original. 

From the Authorities produced it appears 
highly probable, 

Firfi, That the Greek Authors who preceded 
the Birth of Chrift did not always underftand 
by the Words Axipovsg and Ampina, the Spirits, 
or Ghojis, of departed Men, even when thefe 
Words were applied to finite Beings, 

c i Herodot. in Clio, c. 87. k alibi. 

x Pro ipfo Numine paflim fumitur apud Xenopbontem, De- 
tnoflh. Athen. Sec. — Item pro Damone bono & malo. Vid. 
Stepk. Thefaur, Ling. Gr#c, 

D Secondly, 



( 18 ) 

Secondly, That when they were taken in a 
bad Senfe, they were generally fuppofed to 
mean fuch Beings as the apojlate Angels are re- 
prefented to be in Scripture ; lince the Office 
and Difpofition of the apojlate Angels are attri- 
buted to thefe Beings. And 

Ubirdly^ That the Egyptians, 'Chaldeans , 
Phoenicians, Perfiafis, Greeks, &c. did all firmly 
believe the Exigence of one particular evil Be- 
ing, under whofe Conduct and Direction were 
many others ; and that, from what we find 
delivered by the moil antient Writers of all 
thefe Nations, thefe f evil Beings did, in Nature, 
Office and Difpofition, agree with the Devil 
and his Aigels, as the focred Writers defcribe 
them. 

IV. I {hall now proceed to confider the Senfe 
in which the Words Aaipoveg and Acupoviu • are 
ufed in the New Tejiament ; but before this can 
be done, it will be neceflary to enquire into the 
true Import and Meaning of the Words Zajoivccg 
and AidEoX@*. 

The firft of thefe is of Hebrew, the fecond 
of Greek Extraction. Sctjams is only the He- 
drew yov Satan with a Greek Termination ; 
it jignifies Akerfarins, Inimicus, Hcjlis, &c. 
from the Verb pltf Satan acherjatus eft, hofiis 

it, impedvvit, &c. The infpired Writers of 
he Old Tefiament often underftand by it the 

Plutarch, in Sympofiac. 

Devil 3 



( 19) 

Devil \ or Chief of the fallen Angels, that grand 
Enemy of Mankind. In this Senfe it muft 
certainly be taken, fob i. 6, 7, 8, 9, 12. 
Zech. iii. 1, 2, &c. where it is rendered by the 
Septuagint AwSoA^. And the Juftnefs of this 
Verfion is confirmed by St. Matthew, who 
makes Zctjav&g and Aid£oh@*> to be the felf- 
fame Being, i. e. the Chief of the fallen A?i- 

gels, ch. iv. 1, 5, 8, 10. by St. Mark, 

ch. i. 13. by St. Luke, ch. iv. 2, 3, 5, 6, 

8. and laftly, by St. John, the Author of 

the Apocalypfe, ch. xx. 2, Gfc. Let this fuffice 
for an Explanation of the Word Jtottf Satan, or 
JZeflavcts Satanas. 

As for the Word A.^SoA^, I remember not 
to have feen it in any Greek Author before the 
Birth of Chrif, except the Septuagint, who, 
as I have juft obferved, ufe it to denote the 
fame implacable and malicious Being that the. 
Hebrews underftand by the Word pi*> Satan 
above mentioned -, and fo do the Writers of the 
New c Tefia?nent, as has been clearly proved. 
The Word 2^Qc\vj, indeed, is to be found as 
equivalent, in Signification to the Latin Ca- 
lumnia, Criminatio, Obtreclatio, &c. in various 
Authors, preceding (not only the Chrijlian /Era, 
but even) the Age of the Septuagint them- 
felves, particularly c Herodotus, Plato, &c. And 
that even the Word Aid£c\@^ itfelf was known 
to the antient Greeks is evident from v Plautus y 

1 Hero dot. in Polymn. Plat, in Apol. &C. 
I Phut. Aginar* A&. 3 . Sc. 3 . 

D 2 who 



( 1° ) 

who ules it as a proper Name in a Scene where 
all the proper Names are Greek, as this ma- 
nifeftly is ; as likewife from the Superlative &*- 
€cxdrai& in * Anftopbanes, and the Adverb 
StaCoXag in x Thucydides, both apparently Deri- 
vatives from AictcoxgH and agreeing in Signifi- 
cation with oictQcXr, above mentioned : and 

that Aict£oA@- in the New Tejlament, is deduced 
from the Verb SiuQdxXa calumnior, obtreclor, 
criminor, &c.- plainly appears from Rev. xii. 
9, ic. where the Office of this Author of Evil 
is defcribed, and the true Reafon of his Name 
Atd^o?,®* affign'd. y Athenceus likewife gives us 
to under ftand, that this Word was not un- 
known to Pagan Writers in the Senfe wherein 
'tis applied to the Prince of fallen Angels in 
Scripture, when he fays " many of Plato's 
" Followers were tvqclwuo) xcti SidSoXoi, ingenio 
cc tyrannico & calumniator e$r The Verb z &&- 
idhXtt) fometimes anfwers to the Latin invi- 
diam conflo, odiofwn % inimicum, ,&c. reddo ; and 
if we fuppofe Axa'SoA(^, as applied to the 
grand Adveriary and Envier of the Happinefs 
of Mankind, to flow from this Signification of 
the faid Verb, it will not only agree with the 
known Nature and Difpofition of this wicked 
Being, but will likewife very well correfpond 
with the Hebrew Word ycV Satan. The 

w Aifi^h. in Equit. 
* Vbutydid. p. 202. 
y Jit hen. Deipiujcpb. lib. n. fub finern 
Thcfaur. Ling. Cr.-. 

Word 



in} 

Word therefore Aidco\(& is expreffive of {q 
many wicked Offices and Qualities of the De- 
vi/, that a more appofite Name in the Greek 
Language could not have been given him. 

Having thus confidered the true Import and 
Meaning of the Words Z,<x]avu,$ and AidGo\@* 
in the New Tejlament, it will not be difficult 
to determine the proper and undoubted Signi- 
fication of the Words Aai^cov and Aoupcviov in 
that facred Book, particularly the Go/pels ; and 
this, of courfe, will enable us to form a right 
Judgment of thofe Perfons therein faid to have 
been Demoniacks, or Perfons poffeffed with 
Demons, and of the Diftempers they were af- 
flicted with, as well as the. Caufes of thofe Di- 
ftempers. For, if we can demonftrate, that 
Satan himfelf is a Demon, and the Prince of 
Demons ; that to caft out Demons is to caft out 
Satan -, that for Satan to caft out Demons is for 
him to caft out himfelf ; that to caft out De- 
mons by Belzebab the Prince of Demons is to 
caft out Demons by Satan, &c. I fay, if all 
this can be demonftrated, it will, it muft ap- 
pear, that Belzebub is a Demon, (which is 
allowed by all Parties engaged in the prefent 
Controversy concerning the meaning of Demo- 
niacks in the New Tejlament) and at the fame 
time Satan, or the Devil-, that this Belzebub 
who is Satan, or the Devil, is ;iot to be di- 
ftinguifhed in any other manner from the other 
Demons than as a Prince, or Chief, from thofe 
who act under his Command 5 that therefore 

Demons 



( *• j 

Demons are exactly of the fame Nature and 
Complexion and Difpofition with Satan, or the 
Devil, who is their Prince ; and in fhort, that 
the Demons of the New Tejla?nent are Devils 
ftridtly and properly fo called. Now that all 
this is true, may, in the ftrongeft Manner, and 
with the ftricT:eft JufKce, be inferrd from the 
following Paffages of the Evangelijls. 

Then was brought unto Him one pofjefled with 
a Demon, bli?idand dumb : and He healed him, 
infomuch that the Blind and Dumb both /pake 
and Jaw. 

And all the People were amazed, and f aid, Is 
not this the Son of David ? 

But when the Pharifees heard it, they [aid, 
This Fellow doth not cajl out Demons, but by 
Belzebub the Prince of the Demons. 

And Jesus knew their Thoughts, and faid 
unto them, Every Kingdom divided againjl it/elf 
is brought to Defolation, and every City or Houfe 
divided againjl itjelfjhall not jl and. 

And if Satan cajl out Satan, he is divided a- 
gainjl himfelf\ howjhall then his Kingdom jl and'? 

And if 1 \ by Belzebub cajl out Demons, by 

)fn do your Children cajl them out? Therefore 
they Jl: all be your fudges. 

But if I cafl out Demons by the Spirit of 
God, then the Kingdom of God is come unto you. 

Ok elfe how can one enter into a Jlrong Mans 
Houfe, and Jpoil his Goods, except he firjl bind 
jlrong Man ? and then he will Jpoil his 
Jlcu/e, 

He 



(*3) 

He that is not with me is againji me, and he 
that gathereth not with me fcattereth abroad. 

Wherefore 1 fay unto you, All manner of Sin 
and Blajphemy Jhall be forgiven unto Men ; but 
the Blajphemy againji the* Holy Ghoft Jhall not 
be forgiven unto Men. 

And whofoever fpeaketh a Word againji the 
Son of Man, it Jhall be forgiven him : but 
whofoever fpeaketh again/l the Holy Ghoft, // 
Jhall not be forgiven him, neither in this Worlds 
neither in the World to come a . Again, 

And He was cajling out a Demon, and it 
was dumb. And it came to pafs, when the De- 
mon was gone out, the Dumb fpake : and the 
People wondered. 

But fome of them [aid, He cafteth out Demons 
through Belzebub the Chief of the Demons. 

And others tempting him, fought of him a 
Sign from Heaven. 

But he knowing their Thoughts, [aid unto 
them, Every Kingdom divided againji it/elf is 
brought to Deflation : and a Houje divided a- 
gainfl a Houje, falleth. 

If Satan aljb be divided againji himfelf how 
Jhall his Kingdom f and? Because ye say, 

THAT I CAST OUtDeMONS THROUGH BeL- 
ZEBUB. 

And if I by Belzebub cafl out Demons, by 
whom do your Sons cajl them out ? Therefore Jhall 
they be your 'Judges. 

. \ Matt, xii, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 ', 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 

But 



( H ) 

But if I with the Finger of God caft out 
Demons, no doubt the Kingdom of God is come 
upon you. 

When ajlrong Man armed keepeth his Palace \ 
his Goods are in Peace. 

But when a Jlronger than he Jhall come upon 
him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all 
his Armour wherein he trufted, and divideth his 
Spoils. 

He that is not with me, is againjl me : and 
he that gather eth not with me, fcattereth. 

When the Unclean Spirit is gone out 
of a Man, he walketh through dry Places, feek- 
ing Reft : and finding none, he faith, I will re- 
turn unto my Houfe whence I came out. 

And when he cometh, he findeth it Jwept and 
gar?iijl:ed. 

"Then goeth he, and taketh to him [even other 
Spirits more wicked than himfelf and they 
enter in, and dwell there : and the laft State of 
that Man is wor/e than the firft b . 

Is it poflible for the greateft Sceptic, after 
reading theie Paffages, to deny, that the Power 
here oppofed to the divine Pcnver, is the Power 

of Satan, i. e. Diabolical Power, that the 

yews here attributed the Miracles which our 
bleffed Saviour wrought by the Divine Pon.ve?\ 
to Diabolical Power ; and that 'twas this Cir- 
cumftance which rendered their Sin fo exceed- 

1 Ink. xi. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 

26. See Mar, iii. zz ■■ 31, which is a parallel Place. 

ingly 



( 2 5 ) 

ingly heinous and malignant, as he intimates it 
to be in His Reply to them, — that Belzebub, 
Satan, and the Devil, are different Names of 
the fame Being, — — that this Being is a Demon, 
and differs from the other Demons only as a 
Ruler, or Governor, from thofe over whom 

he prefides, that the Demons of the New 

Tejlament are unclean Spirits c , wicked Spirits, 
&c. - — In fhort, that they are apojlate Angels, 
or Devils, ftriclily and properly fo called. 

To thefe moft clear, evident, and remark- 
able Texts may be added another as appofite 
and full to our prefent Purpofe as any of thofe 
hitherto produced ; And ought not this Woman, 
being a Daughter 0/* Abraham, d whom Satan hath 
bound, lo thefe eighteen Tears , be loofedfrom this 
Bond on the Sabbath Day, Here it muft be 
obferved, that our blejjed Saviour Himfelf a- 
cribes this chronical Diforder, not to a No* 
thing, a fictitious Being, an imaginary Ghojl 
that had no Exijience, nor even to a natural 
Caufe, but to the Devil himfelf-, and as He 
moft certainly afferted what was true, fo He 
undoubtedly delivered here the real Opinion of 
the Jews, who attributed a Variety of Dif- 
eafes to the Influence of evil Beings, which in 
many other Places of the New Tejiament are 
called Demons, but here Satan, or the Devil; 
fo that this Paffage may be looked upon as an 

c See Mar. iii. 29. and Luk. viii. 2. where Demons are ex- 
prefly called unclean and ivkhd Spirits. 
* Luk. xiii. 16. 

3 addi- 



( *6 ) • 

additional Proof, that, according to the Senti- 
ments of our ble[]ed Saviour ', and the jfewi/h 
Nation, and in truth and reality, Demons, De- 
vils, fallen, or apoftate, Angels, &c. were the 
iame Beings. And that thefe Demons, thefe 
accuried- Spirits of the fame Nature with that 
grand Rebel, by way of Eminence called the 
Devil (and under his Command) were his 
Angels, /'. e. thole Spirits that fell from Heaven 
with him (and not the departed Souls of wick- 
ed Men) is farther confirmed by our blefled 
•Saviour; who makes an evident Diftinclion be- 
twixt jhefe Beings, when He declares, . that at 
the Lift Day the Son of Man mall fay to the 
Wicked on the Left Hand, e Depart from me, 
ye Cur/'ed, into everlajling Fire, prepared (not 
originally for yoii who were Men, and defigned 
for a better Place, but) for the Devil and his 
Angels . This, in conjunction with the Texts 
above cited, feems beyond Contradiction, to 
imply, that the Demoniacks mentioned in the 
■New Tef anient were really and actually poffeiTed 

with. Devils, or fallen Angel's, and that this 

was well known to our blefjed Saviour, and 
firmly believed by the Evangelijls, and even ac- 
knowledged by the Jews themfelves. 

From what has been advanced under this laft 
Head, are naturally deducible the following 
Observations. 

i . The antient Greek Authors who preceded 

.'.'i/V. XXV. 41, 

the 



( 2 7 ) 

the Birth of Chrijt, feem to have annexed the 
fame Idea to the Word Aa/^n, or Aaipovw^ 
when taken in a bad Senfe, as the Evangelijls 
did in the New Tejlament. 

2. If it could be proved, that two different 
Ideas were annexed to this Word by facred and 
profane Authors -, yet this would not affect the 
prefent Controverfy concerning the Meaning of 
Demoniacks in the New Teftament, which mufl 
be determined by the true Senfe and Meaning 
of the Word AaJpuv, or Aaipoviov, m the JE- 
vangelijls. 

3. In the Evangelifts the Word Aatpuv, or 
GQtifMm, always denotes an intelligent Being 
of a moll malignant, noxious, and accurfed 
Nature. 

- 4. The Devil himfelf is here placed at the 
Head of thefe Beings ; they are here reprefented 
to be iatirely of his Nature and Difpofition, to 
have in common with him the Name Aaiy.cov^ 
or Aatpiviov, to act in fubferviency to him -, and 
fuch Beings as thefe are moreover in Scripture 
called his Angels , i, e. fallen Angels. The De- 
mons therefore of the New T^eft anient are fallen 
Angels. 

5. Though. we could not demonstratively 
prove (as we have done) that the Demons of 
the New left anient were fallen Angels _; yet, as 
they are Beings that really exift, as they are 
wicked and unclean Spirits, as they are of the 
fame Nature with the Devil himfelf and the 
other fallen Angels, and laftly, as they aft under 

his 



(18) 

his Command and Direction as the fallen Angeh 
do, they would be to all Intents and Purpofes, 
with regard to the Letter of the New Tejla- 
mentj the fame as if they had been fallen An* 
gels. 

6. Thofe unfortunate Wretches who are 
called Demoniacks by the Evangelijls were really 
and truly poffefTed by thefe accurfed Spirits, who 
brought upon them thofe Difeafes which in 
the Gojpels they are faid to have been afflicted 
with. And therefore 

7. The learned and ingenious Author of 
two late Enquiries into the Meaning ^/'Demo- 
nicks in the New Tejlament determines with too 
much Precipitation, when he condemns St* 
Aujlin for obferving, " that wherefoever the 
" Name of Demons occurs in the New Te/la~ 

tc ment y nothing but evil Spirits are meant, 

when he afferts, that A/etSoA©* and Aaipw 

denote different Things, that the facred 

Writers make a Difference betwixt Demons 

end evil Spirit Sy that Belzebub and all other 

Demons , nreGho/iSy VanitieSy Nothings, &c. — * 
Jn fhort, when he denies that Demons had any 
Power over the Bodies of Men, and that any 
bodily Diibrders were caufed by their Influ- 
ence. 

I have not Time at prefent to enquire into 
the Nature and Extent of that Power which 
God has granted thefe mifchievous Beings over 
Mankind, nor to coniider thofe Operations up- 
on Men attributed to them both in the Old 

and 



( 2 9 ) 

and New Tejlament; and which, I am per- 
fuaded, upon Examination, will be found to 
be as confonant to right Reafon, true Philofb- 
phy, and the general Senfe of Mankind in all 
Ages, as they are to Scripture : Thefe there- 
fore may poffibly be the Subject of fome future 
Letter from, 



S IR, 



Your humble Servant, 



Wadham College, Oxford, 
Qgeber io. 1738. 



Philalethbs, 




A N 
i 



ENQUIRY 

Into the Meaning of 

D E MO NIACKS 

I N T H E 

New Teftament. 



TicwTis 01 Sioi rav IQvqv SaifiovKt. 

Pfalm xcv. 5. 



By T,P.A.P.O.A.B.I.T.CO.S. 




The Second Edition, £orrecled and Amended. 

'J 

LONDON: 

Printed for J. R o b e r t s in Warwick Lam, 
MDCCXXXVII.' 

( Price One Shilling.) 



TO THE 

READER. 

TH E Defign of the following Enquiry is to 
clear up a Difficulty which naturally arifes 
in moft Men's Minds, upon reading the Cures done 
by our Saviour upon Perfons that were pofeJJ'ed by 
Devils. There are but few thinking People, I 
imagine, who do not experience in themfelves, 
what the pious and profoundly learned Mr. Jofeph 
Mede declares that he had experienced to mar- 
vel how thefe Demoniacks Jhould fo abound in and 
about that Nation which was the People of God y 
{whereas in other Nations and their Writings we 
hear of 720 fuch,) and that too, as it Jloould feem, 
about the 'Time of our Saviour's being on Earth on- 
ly, becaufe in the Time before we find no mention of 

them in Scripture. The Wonder is yet the greater, 

not to have been accounted then by the People of the 
Jews any firange or extraordinary Thing, but as 
a Matter ufual. Vid. Mr. Mede's Difcourfe ont 
John x. 20. The true Solution of this Difficulty 
js attempted to be (hewn in the following Papers. 
Whether the Reafons ufually affigned by Men 
of Learning will prove, that Perfons were ftria> 
ly and properly pofefed with the Devil, viz. 
That Devils fpake out of the poffeffed Perfons ; 
that they were fent out of them, and they entered 
into the Herd of Swine ; that perfonal Adtions 
as well as Speeches are afcribed to them, which 
can never be afcribed to meer Phrenfy and 
^Madnefs, &c." muft be left to the Judgment 
©f the Reader, If he is defirous of feeing that 

Side 



<c 
ec 

<u 



To the Reader. 

Side of the Queftion fet in the ftrongeft Light, I 
know of none that has treated it with greater 
Accuracy, than Dr. Whitby, in his General Pre- 
faces to his Annotations, Vid. Vol. I. p. xviii. and 
Vol. II. p. xxvi — xxxi. 

Whether the Solution which I maintain, or that 
of Others, be judged to be true, the Caufe of 
Clirift is not affected. For in both Cafes a real 
Miracle is done ; the Perfon affected is cured ; 
and the Evidence arifing from Miracle for the 
Truth of Chriftianity, is equally ftrong. The 
Miracle is the fame, if the Perfon be cured, 
whatever is the Caufe of his Diftemper, whe- 
ther it proceeds from unclean Spirits, and their 
Operations upon Human Bodies; or from any 
Defect, or from any preternatural and extraordi- 
nary Motions in them. 

My prefent Defign carries me no further than 
to confider the Cafes of Demoniacks in the New 
Teftament, and to produce fuch Authorities as 
were neceffary to make them underftood. Per- 
haps I may proceed to explain what the Firjl 
Chrijlians meant by their Demoniacks ; and then I 
(hall diftin&ly confider what Jujlin, Origen, 
'Tbeophilus, c fertullian, Cyprian, Minutius Felix, 
Lac7antius, &c. have faid upon this Subjeft. And 
it is for this Reafon that I have faid nothing here 
about the Expulfion of Demons from Altars, or 
of the Cojifejpons made by them, when exorcifed by 
Chriftians; This being the proper Subject of a 
diftindt Enquiry into the Meaning of Demoniacks 
ki the firft Ages after Chrift, 



to 

A N 

ENQUIRY 

Into the Meaning of 

DEMO N 1 AC K S 

I N T H E 

New Teftament. 



THERE is not any one Inftance of 
Miracle in the New Teftament, 
which more excites the Curiofity of 
People, than the Cure of thofe who were pof- 
feffed by Devils. Every one is apt to enquire 

« What thefe Poffeffions were ? How comes 

it to pafs that we read of fo many Perfons, juji 
at that particular Time, under the Power of De- 
vils ? Whence is it, that we feem fo rarely to 
meet with Accounts of the fame Diforders a- 
mongft Men, either before or after the Times of 
efus Chrift ? Whence was it that God permitted 

B fo 



( *> 

fo much Power to fuch unclean Spirits, who 
delight in doing Mifchief ? Thefe are reafona* 
ble Enquiries, and deferve a ferious Anfwer ; 
and therefore I fhall attempt impartially to 
confider them. 

In order to this, it will be neceflary to ob- 
ferve 

Firjl y That the general Notion of Demons 
amongft the ancient Greeks, was not the No- 
tion which Chriflians have ufually now adays 
to the Word Devils , but They meant by it in 
general, the Souls of departed Men. Hejiod 
tells us, that in * the " Golden Age, when 
Saturn reigned in Heaven, Men lived like 
Gods, free from Evils, and died juft as if 
they had fallen afleep : Thefe were made 
Demons, Good Beings, the Guards of 
mortal Men , They obferve the Good and 
Evil done here ; and cloathed with Air, 
they are every where on Earth, number- 
lefs," &c. Thefe were Good Beings, and 
the Authors of Good to Mankind. The Souls 

'A9oC*XT0l TTOHKTOt,* — — — — — • 

Oi fOfi tV« Kpoyx vtcruv or xpxvu i[/*Geuritevtv 

When this Race died, 
To* fjj$i Axtfxtotii; ii<rt } A* 05 ^sy*A8 2^ /3*A#$, 



a 
U 

(i 
(C 
CI 

<c 
cc 
cc 




Again, f 
Tp»\ y> pvfiu iV»» far] xfion ffHXvGoTttpy 

"Oj* Qv^dorvw, &Q t Hrjlod. Oper. I. 

of 



(3 ) 

of thefe Men, after they were removed from 
this earthly Life, were made the Infpe&ors 
of Human Affairs, and as they di/penjed good 
Things to Men, they were called Demons. O- 
ther Writers have made Demons the Difpenfers 
of b evil Things as well as good ; the Plagues 
and Terrors of Mankind, and the Authors of 
much Evil to them. 

Secondly, Homer makes Minerva, after fhe 
had advifed Achilles to lay afide his Anger 

againft Agamemnon, —He makes Minerva, I 

fay, retire to Heaven to the Palace of 'Jupi- 
ter c to the other Demons, or Gods. And who 
they were is plain, viz. Apollo, Vulcan, &c. 
The Scholiajl fays, that d he calls the Gods, 
Demons, either as knowing all Things, or dif 
tributing all Things [both good and bad] to 
Men-, and he like wife obferves, that Hejiod 
calls thofe Demons (as Proclus likewife e had 
obferved) ts$ Ik t& £jm ^eTccr&Weis, Such as 
are removed from this Life. 

** Ho&pac, to abtweit ret ttxvtx, »j uttpifyw tu ccyciGc^ xj kuxo, to^ «v- 
dpawroi;. Proclus in Hefiod. ov 7rufoc to JW^ovac iim> ••• uX>.(* 
^xfa, to foif/tumiv, o7Tip t?t QoSiT&cii xj ix<po£tiv, o^Uiyjoictc, r^ac, 
7rpo<r<pva>c, ovoa,et£i&ctt. Eufeb. Pise. Ev. 1. 2. c. c. 

Iliad. I. v. 222. 
Ipfi putatis eos effe Deos quos nos daemonas fcimus. 

Tertul. ad Scapu!. 

'** &Ctlf//OVCC$ KClXi? TVS ©SS$, VlTOl fatoUWmc* \uj~i>C,0k «VU £ i^ftii^ 

xpiVTuv etuToi aery, m oti, j^itt^tcci u<ri Xj alotxnrctt, tcov otvtyuTrcsv.. 
e Proclus his Words are, Tele, fjui9^u[juiv^ tv ty t I'vTecc &. 



(4) 

Thirdly, Though Hefiod reckoned his De~ 
mons to be fuch only as lived on Earth in the 
Golden Age, in Saturn's Time, yet Minerva, 
Apollo, Vulcan, &c. were reckoned likewife 
Demons by Homer, though they were born 
fomewhat later. For Apollo was the Son of 
Jupiter and Latona, and therefore two Ge- 
nerations later than Saturn. Vulcan was Ju~> 
f 'iter's Son by Juno, Minerva was the Daugh- 
ter, fome fay, of Jupiter ; Others of Nep- 
tune. Mars was the Son of Jupiter : and 
Hebe his Daughter. And thus we may 
trace the Origin of others who are called 
Demons. 

Fourthly, This Notion of Demons, that 
they were the Souls of fuch as once had lived 
upon Earth, is fo univerfally allowed by Jews 
and Chriftians as well as by Heathens, that 
fcarce will any one difpute it. Jujlin Martyr 
fays f The Gods of the Heathen are Demons : 
and more expreffly ftill he calls them % The 
Souls of the deceafed. And defining what he 
meant by Demoniacks, he fays, h They, who 
are fixed by the Souls of deceafed Perfons, 
are fuch as all Men agree in calling Demoni- 

f Aca/AGvicc uTiv 01 do) ruv stay. Juftin Mar. c. Tryph. 
p. 310. 

8 ^tvyjx.1 ctTraQct'iMTWJ. Apol. 2. 

rry^. , .r.a/.5rt 7r*>r*$. Ibid. 

aCivS* 



(5 ) 

acks. Jofephus calls them i the Souls of wick- 
ed Men. 

We find it thus a common Notion that 
Demons, and the Souls of departed Men, were 
imagined to be the fame : But whether they 
had any Powers committed to them over 
Mankind, notwithftanding it is fo frequently 
afferted, yet I do not find it any where fatif- 
fa&orily proved ; Nor do I think that any one 
could prove y that Jupiter, or Apollo, or Nep- 
tune, or any of the Good Men of the Golden 
Age, after they were departed this Life, ( and 
much lefs wicked Men,) had any ftridl and 
proper Powers over the Race of Mankind. 
It is one Thing to afj'ert fuch a Notion -, it is 
another to make it good : and they that at- 
tempt it, muft prove with Certainty, that 
the Heathen Gods and Goddeffes, Neptune, 
Hecate, Ceres, Apollo, &c. were the real Au- 
thors of fuch Adlions as were imputed to 
them. 

However, Whether Demons were the 
Souls of Good or Bad Men, or whether it 
can or cannot be proved that they had Power 
over Mankind, yet 

Fifthly, The Notion generally, if not 
univerfally, prevailed, that thofe who were 
called Gods and Demons, were the Authors 

1 Axif&ovix, rxZrcc vetwam i^iv owhunw wJu*cct». Tofeph. dc 
Hello Jud. 1. 7 . c. 23, 

and 



( M 

and true Caufes of extraordinary Diftempers 
amongft Mankind. Thus Homer, in a very 
remarkable Manner imputes to a Demon, the 
Cafe of a Man who lay k under a Dijiemper, 
in great Pain, for a long while wafting -, a 
hateful Demon having entered him. And 
it was l Apollo that fent the Plague upon the 
Grecian Army. And hence Celjus very 
juftly obferves, that m in thoje T'imes they at- 
tributed Difeaies to the Anger of the immortal 
Gods, and were wont to defre their AJjiftance 
to cure them. It muft be obferved in the 

Lajl Place, That when any particular 
Dijiemper had extraordinary and out of the 
way Symptoms attending it ; fuch as violent 
Diftortions, or Agitations, or fuch Sort of 

Affe&ions as they could not account for, 

They imputed fuch Difeafes dire&ly to their 
Demons. E. g. The Epilepjy, or Falling Sick- 
nefs^ (which JE/culapius fays, was conceived juji 
betwixt the Time of the Old and New Moon^ 
as Serenus Samonicus tells us, 

k ..,,.. 'JEv vua-ii) xurxt Kpxnf t^Xyiec xuym 

&ryo\> t)jjco/^£/©-' ) 5-yyipcc; Jj el t%pcct 0Ui/Auv. Odyf. E. 

1 ■ <!><>?£©- 'AjtoAA^/ ■ 

tZlT t7FtlT UXOtVlV&t Via)*, ttp $* ?ov zyxt 

VvpMs yip TTpeurov i~{t)r.iTo, Kj Kwctq etpyXc 

BccXX , uiu at 7rvp*i pskvmv tutiovro S-cCfjuticti. Iliad. A, 

m Morbos turn ad iram dcorum immortalium relatos effe, et 
jib iifdem opem pofci folitam, Ce/fut Prof. 

Ipfc 



( 7 ) 

Ipfe Deus memorat dubias per tempora Lunae 
Conceptum) 

The Epilepjy, I fay, was looked upon as a 
Sacred Dijeaje, and was fuppofed to have its 
Origin immediately from fome or other of 
the Gods, according as its Symptoms were 
ftronger, or lefs fo ; and thence it was called 
Lues deifica, and Morbus facer. 

Hippocrates has treated at large of this Dif- 
temper, and has endeavoured to mew, that 
there was nothing in it that n peculiarly impli- 
ed that any divine Being was the Cauje of it ; 
or that there was any Thing elfe in it but what 
was natural to Man. In the Introduction to 
the Treatife upon this Difeafe, he tells us 
what it was that induced him to write upon 
this Subject : viz. That there were a Pack of 
Empiricks and Quacks and f rolling Fellows, 
who pretended to have a more than ordinary 
Regard for the Gods, and who, covering their 
cwn Ignorance with the Veil of Deity, decla- 
red this Difeaje to proceed from That as the 
Caufe ; and therefore pretended to make ufe of 
Expiations, Charms, and magick Tricks to 
cure it. The divine Old man could not bear 
the Thought of fuch Cheats and Impoftors ; 

n Of* y*r,KfTi re $uei otiTw kuta, *lM# t* ei*8pcivrwot, HippOC. 

de Morbo kcro. 



and 



(8) 

and therefore wrote his Book to (hew, that 
really and in the Truth of Things, Their 
■ Notions ami Practice was impious and wick- 
ed^ however fpecious it might Jeem, or full of 
Honour to the Gods : nay, though they pretended 
Jo much Piety and Regard for them, yet their 
very Piety was Wickednefs, and even Atheifm, 
He then proceeds to fhew that This was a 
mere natural Diforder, and to be refolved into 
the natural Courfe of. Things, as other Dif- 
tempers were ; and that it ought by no means 
to be imputed to any Gods, or GoddeJJes, or 
Heroes, 

Thofe artful Cheats, who made fuch Pre- 
tences purely to get a Lively hood, afcribed to 
fome God or other this Diftemper, according 
as the Symptoms were, t If fay they, the 
di (ordered Perfons imitate a Goat, if they 
grind their Teeth, if their 7'ight Sides are con- 
vuljed, then The Mother of the Gods is the 
Cauje of the Diforder. If the Patient Jpeaks 

° 'Eyjoiyz « xtpi IvTioiiut, obyJtHTi Xoyw; 7roisii&ut, aqciovrcti, ctX^at, 
sr if i d~vositiictc, usc&hXov, >c cdq 01 $£ol chc iur{. Ta n ivtriGts *? StTev 
avTav, £crsc<s vt uvo<riov ifiv. Ibid. 

P Aiytc fJuiyjavTui, kv,v fipv%av^), my rot o%%icc <r7r&)vj> Mqrtipi* 
Sicov <pu(ri uiTiyv tlrtU' H» oe oyjTtp6v y k, ivrovtinpov (pBtyfiiTou, MXm 
Hxuc^ovari, x : <pzci Uotri^aiycc eUTio* aval, w di k+ ty\c, xottocv Tt xx- 
pi>j, o xohX-J.rAc, tktI ylvij xzzo t»55 yotrtt {ZwfyfBpoia-iv, *E»w5Va irpatr- 
xnj i> TTpacruvounT)- vy Oi teTrrorsptv y^ TrvKvoncov ciov cpvidtq, 'AjtoA- 
>.uv Nolo*©-- van eft u<t>co* <v/. X ^cluccto^ ktoln. x) tovfi 7re<rt AaxW&j. 
Apr.c, tw c4>Tiri* t%a Oko<tcc at dtifJt/ctTiz, vvktoc, TTctpis-c&j, Xj (pohoh 
Kj 7rupct*oiXi, y^ ecvuTrr.Dvcrns os/. tv)c, jcAjvhs, k) <pc£>jTpcf, >£ (piufyic, 'i%a, 
'Ekxtk <ptt<Tt> wv«» foifotifai xj 'Hpuuv tyooSx. Ibid. 

JI:arper 



( 9 ) 

Jharper and jlronger than ordinary, they com- 
pare him to a Horfe, and fay that Neptune is 
the Caufe. If he does not retain his Excre- 
ments, which often happens to thofe who are vi- 
olently affcffed with this Difeafe, they derive 
this Cafe from Hecate Enodia. If the Party 
fpeaks flirilly and quick, as Birds, then Apollo 
Nomius is the Caufe : If he foams at his 
Mouth, and kicks with his Feet, Mars is the 
,Caufe. And indeed, wherever there is excefjive 
Dread and Fear of Night, and People are be- 
fide themfelves, and jump out of Bed, and are 
vehemently terrified, and are for running out 
of Doors, they fay thefe are Snares which He- 
cate lays for them, and that the Heroes have 
taken PofJ'efJion of them. 

But though Hippocrates fpeaks with great 
Indignation againft thefe Fellows, who made 
ufe of Charms and jugli?tg ^Tricks to impofe 
on People, and to drive out thefe Demons, I 
find Aretteus fpeaks more mildly, i Some 
think, fays he, that this Difeafe comes upon 
thofe who are Sinners againfl The Moon, and 
therefore they call it The Sacred Difeafe. Ci- 
thers think, that it has its Name from other 
Pretences -, either the Greatnefs of the Evil, 
for whatever is great, is called Sacred ; or elfe 

ysKtv izpw x.ix.Xy}crx.%(ri Tyi rruCyv . ' Atci$ y$ o\' u)\>m$ xqcQctG-iac,- >j 
jjjiyi6^ tS KUKiSt lean *f> to fblycf >j ivi<rt'& J C8"K #vfyw/r;.js, «AA<* 

C becaufe 



( io ) 

becaufe it cannot be cured by Man, but by fome 
divine Power ; or clfe, becaufe it is believed that 
ibme Demon has taken Pojfejjion of the Man. 

Now, If the Mother of the Gods, if Nep- 
tune y Mars, Apollo, Hecate, and the Heroes, 
were Demons, in the Senfe of the Antients ; 
I. e. Souls of departed Men ; if the pretended 
Authors of the Epilepfy were Perfons who 
once had lived upon Earth, and whom the 
Heathen World had foolifhly or ignorantly 
r Deified -, if Areta?us 7 s faying that the Epi- 
lepfy was called Sacred by fome, from a Sup- 
poiition that a Demon had entered, and taken 

PofTeflion of, the difeafed Perfon If this 

be a good Comment to explain Hippocrates, 

■ We have a plain Reafon why Epileptic 

Perfons fhould be called Demoniacks. For if 
the f Souls of departed Men were ufually called 
Demons, and by that Word was meant, Such 
Beings as were no more t mortal, u being 
translated out of this Life ; and if Diftempers 
were conceived to ipring from Theje Beings, 

then the Perfons who had fuch Difeafes, 

might very properly derive a Name from the 
iuppofed Caufe of them, and be ftiled Demo- 

" &ctiy,3nu nV; t>» Ssol tui idvw. Juft. Mart. c. Trypho. 
pjio. 

' ^v^cti uxoQxioiTav. Jufi. Mart. Apol. 2. Toj xxxbfv/ju $ct*- 
y*o»tx rrotJipa* iV»» wOpaxur 7?vw[Axtx. Jofeph. de Bcllo Jud. I. 7. 
C. 23. 

1 Koricci u9«tr»Tos, B-tei */U/£Jiot©", cvx i« ^nTC? Pyth. Ail- 
re.i Cirm. 

9 Mihsd i^oi gfjfr, Proclus in Hcfiod. 

macks* 



( ») 

macks. We fhall meet with Inftances here- 
after, of Perfons who were thus named from 
the fuppofed Caufe of their Diftempers. 

It is not the Defign of this Enquiry, to 
enter into an Examination, whether the Souls 
of departed Men (be they good or bad) have 
any real Power to inflift Difeafes upon us ; or 
whether they are in Fa£l appointed as Guards 
to us ; or whether they can do us either good 
or evil Offices. My Bufinefs is only to confider 
what the Notions of the Antients were : and 
it plainly appears that they imagined (but never 
proved,) thefe Demons to be invilible Beings, en- 
dued with fpiritual Powers, and living in the Air, 
and attending conftantly upon particular Perfons, 
and doing them much Good or Evil. w 'They 
infliB, fays Tertullian, upon Men's Boc 
Difeafes ; and are the peculiar Authors of Jbmt 
Sorts of very grievous Mifchances ; but as to 
the Soul, they are the Authors of Mens going 
fuddenly and extraordinarily befides them/elves. 
The Subtlety and Finenefs of their Make ena- 
bles them to enter into both the Body and Soul of 
Men. By Means of their being Spirits, they 

w Corporibus quidem et vaiemdines infiigunt, et aliquos cafus 
acerbos; animae vero repentinos et* extraordinarios per vim cx- 
ceffus. Suppetit illis ad utramque Subfb.ntiam hominis adeun- 
dam fubtilitas et tenuitas fua. Mul mm fpiritaKbus viribus licet 
ut invifibiles et infenfibiles in efreclu potias «ju*m in acla fuo 
appareant. TertuI, Jpolog. c. 22, 

C 2 h&vt 



( Mj> 

have great Powers, Jo that they can a5l i though 
they are invifible and uncapable of being felt ; 
and you mujl judge by the Effect upon Men, 
rather than by their Act, which is i?tfcnjible. 

Having now a clear Account of what was 
meant by Demons, We may advance a Step 
further in our Enquiry ; and if it appears to 
be impoffible to be proved, that Neptune, or 
Mars, or Hecate, &c. have fuch Powers as 
were ufually imputed to them ; or if it can 
be proved, that many of the Heathen Deities 
to whom Diflempers were attributed, were 
nothing but mere imaginary Beings, who 
never did in Fact exifl at all) then it 
follows, that in the former Cafe, no Evi- 
dence can be given, that thofe Demons to 
whom a Difeafe was imputed were really the 
Caufe of it 5 and in the latter Cafe, that that 
Being to whom the Diflemper was attributedj 
was abfolutely not the Caufe. In both Cafes, 
a mere Hypothefis is maintained ; and therefore 
if we meet with any Diflemper imputed to 
Demons, or to the Gods, among the Antients, 
we have nothing to do but to examine what 
fuch Diflemper is, what the Symptoms of it 
were, and how the Perfons under it were af- 
fected ; fince we know that whatever was 
the Caufe, it was but an Hypothefis that 2>- 
mons were the Caufe of it. And if we find 
that there is nothing in it but what may be 
the Effect of mere natural Diforder in an hu- 
man 



( «3 ) 

man Body, it is abfurd to introduce * a Deity 
into the Affair. Thus, e. g. 

The Epilep/y was imputed, as is evident 
from the Citation from Hippocrates, to Ceres y 
or Apollo, or Mars, or Neptune, or Hecate y 
&c. Hippocrates does not indeed attempt to 
prove that there were no Jiich Beings as thefe ; 
but he (hews very judicioufly, that in that 
Diftemper, there was nothing but what might 
arife from natural Caufes, without the Inter- 
pofition of the Gods. And fo if any one 
were now to confute the Notion of the God 
Apollo 's caufing the Epilepjy, he would fhew 
with Eafe, that Apollo was no God ; that his 
pretended Power was what could not be pro- 
ved • and confequently that He, who could 
not be proved t/> have Power, could not be 
proved to be the Cauje of fuch or fuch Difor- 
ders. For though any one fhould contend that 
the Soul of Apollo, &c. didexijl after his Death, 
yet it will not follow, that He had any Power 
over Mankind, or that He was the Caufe of 
any Diforder Upon Earth. Call therefore the 
Epilepfy the Sacred Difeafe, or the Lues dei- 
jica ; yet thefe Names imply no more than 
the Hypothecs by which fome attempted to 
account for the Diforder, and not the true and 

x 'Q.<rs f^vjKiri to BsTov cciriov uuoti, oit&x rl oL'/fy&7nvov t Hippo- 
srates de Morbo facro. 

Nee Deus interfk, niH dignus vindice nodus. Horat. 

proper 



( M-) 

proper Caufe of it, which was no more than 
t! cLvOpa-TTiw, fomething that was the Effect of 
mere natural Diforder in human Bodies, as 
Hippocrates has fhewn. 

If from the Greeks we turn to the Romans , we 
fhall find that They too imputed to certain Spi- 
rits certain Diforders. But then the Names of 
fuch Diforders only implied their Philofophy, or 
Hypothefis ; not the true Caufes of the Diftem- 
pers meant by thofe Names, e. g. Their Cerri- 
ti and Larvati had certain Diforders which 
they fuppojed to come from Ceres, or their 
Lares, or Larva. But yet if Ceres could not 
be proved to be the Caufe ; or if there be no 
Larva ; or if there be, yet that they have no 
Power, or cannot be proved to have any; 
we may be fure that the Name implied no 
more than their Hypothefis, and not the true 
Caufe of the Diftemper. 

But fince it was cuftomary to impute cer- 
tain Diftempers to the Gods or Demons, it will 
be worth while to examine what particular 
Dijeafes thefe were -, becaufe it is poflible that 
hence we may gain fome Light to the Subject 
we are enquiring into. The Epilep/y, as we 
have feen, was one Cafe which was deemed 
to owe its Rife to Them. The Accounts we 
have of the Cerriti and Larvati will likewife 
help us to another Sort of Difeafe, where 
the Gods were deemed concerned. To un- 
deiftund their Cafe, we need only to confi- 

der 



( *5 ) 

der what Plautus has faid in two or three 
Places. 

Mencechmus, in the Comedy fo called, pre- 
tends himfelf to be difordered in his Senies, 
and falls a reaving very violently. Upon this, 
The Old man goes for a Phyfitian, and meet- 
ing with him, the Phyfitian afks him, 

Quid effet illi morbi dixeras ? narra Senex. 
Num larvatus aut cerritus ? fac fciam. 

Prefently they fee Mencechmus -, and the Phy- 

Jitian puts certain Queftions to him : Upon 

which the Old man obferves that Mencechmus? 

begins to be mad he talks like one befides 

himfelf '; and afks the Phyfitian, why he 
would not inftantly prefcribe, or give himjbme 
Potion, before he was fi ark faring mad. The 
Phyfitian then afks Mencechmus, z are your 'Eyes 

wont to be ftiff or hard ? do you fleep all 

Night? can you fleep lying along? Prefently 
after, Mencechmus begins to fcold at the Old 

man-, Upon which, a Don't you fe y 

fays the Old man, that the Man is mad ? 
And the Phyfitian b tells him, Til make you 

y Occaeptat infanire ddiramenta loquitur. 

Quid cefTas dare potionis aliquid priufquam percipit Infanta. 

* Solent tibi unquam oculi duri fieri? Unquam inteftina 

tibi ctspaat ? Perdormifciti ufque ad lucem? facilen* tu 

dor ?nit cubam. 

a Non vides hominem infanire ? 

? EUeborum potabis faxo aliquos viginti dies, 

drink 



( i6 ) 

drink I lellcbore for jo we twenty Days. Before 
this Pbyfitian was called, whilfl the Old man 
and his Daughter were talking of Mencechmus, 
Hie defcribes him thus, c Dont you fee how his 
Eyes glare? How he looks yellow about his 
"Temples and Forehead ! How his Eyes jparkle ! 
Here then we have the Symptoms and Cafe 
of a Perfon whom the Latins call Cerritus or 
Larvatus ; and thefe Effects they imputed to 
Ceres, or to the Larvce, which they imagined 
to be mifchievous and wicked Spirits : where- 
as in Truth the diforder'd Perfon had nothing 
elfe but fuch a Species of Madnefs, as had the 
Symptoms abovementioned, and which the 
Phyfitian propofed to cure by Hellebore. 

You have another Inftance of the like Kind 
in Plautus's Amphitruo. Amphitruo, after a 
long Abfence, comes Home to his Wife, and 
Sofia his Servant with him. "Jupiter in the 
mean time had put himfelf in the exact 
Shape of Amphitruo, and had lain with Ale* 
mena. At length, Amphitruo coming Home 
to his Wife, a Difcourfe arifes, and me fays 
to him, d Do you deny that you went from 

c Viden' tu illi oculos virerc! ut viridis colos 

Ex temporibus atquc fronte ! ut oculi fcintillant ! ■ 

Plant. Menaecb. Aft. II. Sc. 2, 4, 5, 
d Ah Tun' te abifle hodie hinc nega.s ? 
Am Ntgo enimvero, et me advenire nunc primum aio ad 

(c domum. 
Ah Obfccro, ctiamnc hoc ncgabis, te auream pateram mihi 

Dcdifle dono hodic,— — — - - 
Am. Nctjuc jedipol dedi. . . 

hence 



(*7 



hence this Day ? Am. I do deny it, and fay that 
this is the very Jirji Injlant that I came to you. 
Ale. And will you deny that you gave me this 
very Day a golden Bowl? Am. No 3 I never 

gave you one. Alcmena perfifting in what 

(he faid, Sofia advifes Amphitruo, e Pray order 
her to be luftrated, as (i. e. to be treated as 
they were wont to treat) a Mad woman. 
Amphitruo replies, Indeed it ought to be do?ie, 
for in good Truth Jhe is full of the Larvce. 
i. e. She is entirely poffefTed by the Larvae. 

It may not perhaps be eafy to define exactly 
the Difference betwixt the Cerriti and Larva- 
ti. Plautus treats them as if they were the 
fame, unlefs you make the Cerritus to be one 
that is more mad, and more wild, than 
the Larvatus ; fo much more fo, as to be 
thought Larvarum plenus. This feems to be 
the Cafe, if one may judge from another Paf- 
fage in Plautus, where fome Advocates are in- 
troduced, walking fow and grave, and defend- 
ing themfelves for not running along the Streets, 
left the People Jhould throw Stones at them as 
Cerriti, i. e. quite mad. 

■Haud quifquam noftrum currit per vias 



Neque nos populus pro cerritis infeftabit la- 
pidibus, Pcen. Aft. III. Sc. i. 

-Quaefo quin tu ifthanc jubes 



Pro cerrita circumferri. Am. Quin faflo eft opus ; 
Nam haec quidem aedipol larvarum plena eft. 

Plaut, Amphitruo Att. II. Sc. 2. 

D But 



( i8) 

But to return. See how fome Luftrations 
were made in the f Margin. The Ufe of thefe 
Paffages in Plautus to our Purpofe is, that this 
Sort of Madnefs, whatever was the Caufe, was 
imputed either to Ceres, or Spirits ; and the 
Diftemper was named from Them, as if 
They were the proper Caafes of it : whereas 
in Truth, only certain Symptoms could be re- 
ally expreffed by thofe Terms, fince it does 
not appear that there was any fuch Perfon ex- 
isting as Ceres, nor any fuch Spectres as the 
Larva, 

Apuleius, in his Book De deo Socratis, ex- 
plains what the ordinary Notion concerning 
thefe Larva was. g They were Spirits or Hu- 
man Souls, who on Account of their lll-deferts 
in Life, were punijloed as it were by a Sort of 
BaniJImient, by their having no good Place of 
Aboad, but always rambling about, vain Ter- 
rors to Good men, but to Evil men noxious. 
Where therefore People, through the Force of 
any Diftemper, were under fuch violent Fears 
and Horrors as to be not Mafters of their 
Reafon at all, there they were faid to be Lar- 

•<riv, (<viz. Eggs and Brimflone, £ff c . ) *} rw inu$w tKilvlw vzst- 
rabfitrctt, Lucian. Necuomant. v. Cafaubon in Theophraflum. 
p. 202. 

s Propter adverfa Vitae merita, nullis bonis fedibus, incerta 
vagatione, feu quodam cxilio punitur, inane Terriculamentum 
bonis hominihus, cacterum malis noxium, hunc plerique Lar- 
va m perh ibent. Jpuleius dc Deo Socratis. 

vati : 



C 19 J 

*uati: where it came to Wildnefs, and incohe- 
rent Talk, they were deemed Cerriti, Now, 
in the fame Manner, and in the fame Pro- 
priety of Language, as diforder'd Perfons 
among the Romans were called Cerriti, and 
Larvati, though their Diforders did not arife 
from Ceres, or Larvce , Perfons may be called 
Demoniacks, though Demons are not the Caufe 
of their Diftemper. Who ever imagines the 
Diforders of the Cerriti or Larvati to be ow- 
ing to the Mother of the Gods, or to Spec! res ? 
Or when they are faid to be laruarum pleni y 
that therefore they had Legions of Speclres in 
them ? 

There were likewife a Sort of Madmen, 
ftiled by the Romans, Lymphatici ; by the 
Greeks, NvfupoAyiTrTcLi , as there were thofe 
whom Pliny mentions to be h NoSturnis Diis 
Faunifque agitati : by all which they plainly 
meant nothing but certain Diftempers, and 
to which certain Medicines were applied. 
Had they conceived real Spirits poffeffing 
fuch miferable Wretches, how abfard would 
it have been to have ordered for their Cure 
1 Rhadijh and Eliebore prepared in a certain 
Way ; or k Horfe-pifs, and the Water of a 
Smith's Forge , l or the Tongue, Eyes, Gall, 

k Pliny Nat. Hift. lib. xxv. c. 5. ! Ibid. lib. xxviii. c. 16. 
k Ibid. lib. xxix. c. 4. l Ibid, lib, xxx. c. 10. 

D 2 and 



(20) 

and Inteftines of a Dragon ; or m the Blood of 
a Mole , n or Diamonds , ° or Amber ? Or on 
the contrary, how could they conceive that 
the drinking the Juice of a certain Herb, 
viz. p ^halajjegle, could caufe Men to be 
pojfejfed with Demons ? Whatever the Word 
was by which they named this Diforder, ( for 
this was a Diforder of the whole Body, as ap- 
pears by Pliny ) and notwithftanding the 
Name might imply that it arofe from fome in- 
vifible Beings, yet fuch a particular Species of 
Diforder is the only thing to be regarded in 
thofe Names. 

From the Greeks and Romans, Let us next 
confider the fews. Here we have no great 
Light one Way or other, except what we 
can derive from a iingle Inftance in the 
Old Teftament, and from a very few Places 
in Jojephus, where he expreffly mentions De- 
moniacks. The only Inftance of a Diforder 
mentioned in the Old Teftament as arifing 
from an evil Spirit , is That of Saul : and 
this is expreffly imputed to an evil Spirit 
from God, i Sam. xvi. 14 — 16. c. xviii. 10. 
The proper Way to judge of this Cafe is, to 

m Plin. Nat. Hill. lib. xxx. c. 10. ft Ibid. lib. xxxvii. c. 4. 
Ibid. lib. xxxvii c. 3. 

p ThalafTeglen circa Indum amnem inveniri, quae ob id no- 
mine alio Potamautis appellator. Hac pota Lympbari homines, 
obverftntibiis miraculis. Ibid. 1. xxiv. c. 17. Nails taken out of 
a Grave, and fixed into a Threfhold, were good againft noftur- 
Ttas Lympbat tones, lib. xxxiv. c. 15. 

lay 



( 21 ) 

lay together the Paffages which relate to Sauh 
and from them to fee how he was affedted. 
tfhe Spirit of the Lord went away from Saul, 
and an Evil Spirit from the Lord troubled, 
or terrified, him. And Sauh Servants faid 

unto him, an Evil Spirit from God trou- 

bleth thee. Let our Lord now command thy 
Servants to Jeek out a Man who is a cun- 
ning Player on an Harp. And it Jhall come 
to pafs, when the evil Spirit from God is upon 
thee, and he Jhall play with his Hand, and 
thou Jhalt be well. This Advice was taken, 
and David was thought of, and brought to 
the King ; And it came to pafs, when the Spi- 
rit of God was in [or at or upon] Saul, David 
took an Harp, and played with his Hand, and 
Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the 
Evil Spirit departed from him, v. 23. This 
is the firjl Place where this Diforder is menti- 
oned : The fecond has in it an Account of 
Sauh Condud: towards David. When Goli- 
ah was flain, and the Philijlines routed, The 
Women came out with Inftruments of Mufic 
to meet Saul, and as they played, they faid, 
Saul hath fain his thoufands, and David his 
ten thoufands. And Saul was very wroth, 
and the Saying difpleafcd him, and he faid, 
T^hey have afcribed unto David ten thouJa?ids, 
and to me they have afcribed but thoufands : 
and what can he have more, but the Kingdom ? 

And Saul eyed David from that Day. And 

it 



(22) 

it came to pafs on the morrow, that the Evil 
Spirit from God came apo?i Saul, and he pro- 
phefied in the mid ft of the Houfe. And David 
played with his Hand as at other 'times. And 

Saul cafl the Javelin at David and David 

avoided out of his Prefence twice, I Sam. xviii. 
j — 12. and c. xix. 9, 10, II. 

From thefe Places thefe Things may be 
obferved. if, That we have no Circumftan- 
ces how this Evil Spirit affected Saul, ex- 
cepting only that he was troubled, or terrified 
very much ; and that he prophefed in the 
midft of his Houfe. What is here called 
Prophefying, was acting as a mad man, act- 
ing as the Vates or Prophets are ufually de- 
fcribed by the Antients. Said was not infpi- 
red as the true Prophets of God were influ- 
enced, in a rational Manner, nor indeed at 
all -, bu^ as appears by the Hiftory, his Mind 
was alienated, and his Imagination difturbed. 
This was the ufual Diforder, either real or 
pretended, of the Heathen Prophets ; who are 
feldom or never mentioned as prophefying, 
but with Circumftances of Rage, and Fury, 
and Madnefs. The true prophetical Spirit is 
rational and confident : the falfe one is all tu- 
multuous and mad. It is obfervable therefore, 
that the Ckaldee Paraphraf fays that Saul was 
mad, or acled as a Mad mail in his Houfe : 
and it is probable, that from fome Similitude 

of 



( 23 ) 

of Circumftances that carelefs and prophane 
Men treated the beft and truefl Prophets as 
falfe ones, imputing that to Phrenfy, or Me- 
lancholy, which in Truth proceeded from a di- 
vine Afflatus. Hence it was, that when Eli- 
Jha fent a Prophet to anoint Jehu, Ahab's 
Servants faid to Jehu, Wherefore came this mad 
Fellow to thee? 2 King. ix. 11. And Jere- 
miah has joined together the Idea of Madnefi to 
that of Prophecy, c. xxix. 26. For every Man 
that is mad, and maketh himfelf a Prophet. 

There certainly muft be fomething in the 
true Prophet common to him with the falfe 
Prophet, from whence this Notion mull: arife, 
that Madnefs and Prophefying fhould be ufed 
by very good Writers as fynonomous. One 
cannot but obferve that Tully has ufed the 
Words, q Vaticinari, and Infanire, as fignify- 
ing much the fame thing. And whenever the 
Poets fpeak of Prophets, it is always of Per- 
fons under an Alienation of Mind. The Si- 
byl in Virgil is deYcribed as under violent 
r Agitations, and foaming, and raging. Lu- 

1 Eos qui dicerent, dignitati effe ferviendum, reip. confu- 
lendum, officii rationem in omni vita, non commodi, effe du- 
cendam, fubeunda pro patria perieula, vulnera excipienda, 
mortem oppetendam; <vaticinari atque infanire dicebat. Cic. 
Orat. pro Sextio. 

r At Phcebi nondum patiens, immanis in antro 
Bacchatur vates, magnum 11 pectore poffit 
Excuffiffe Deum, tanto magis il]e fatigat 
Os rabidum, fera corda domans— — 

Virg. JEneit. 6. 77—80. 

can 



( 24 ) 

can in the fame Manner defcribes a Prieftefs 
as filled with Fury, f her Hair ftanding an 
End, and fhe all burning within, and foam- 
ins;, and panting, whilft fhe delivered the 
Oracle. And Euripides cbferves, t that Mad - 
nefs has a good deal of a prophetick Faculty 
in it : and that Mad men could foretell fu- 
ture Things. It is probable that this Notion 
arofe from hence, that when the true Prophet 
received the divine Influx, his Senfes were 
as it were thrown ajleep^ and ceafed \ and his 
Mind fo taken up, that he attended to no- 
thing elfe but what was revealed. Thus u A- 
barbenel fays from Maimonides, and proba- 
bly very juftly. Hence came falfe Prophets 
to affedt a like Abfence of their Faculties : 
and as this was common amongft fuch as 
were mad with a w divine Influx, or Infpira- 
tion, hence Perfons, who by Reafon of a na~ 

f Bacchatur demens aliena per antrum 
Colla ferens, vittafque Dei, Phcebeaque ferta 
Eredtis difcuiTa comis 



>Magnoque exasftuat igne. 



Spumea tunc primum rabies vefana per ora 
Effluit, et gemitus, et anhelo clara meatu, 

Murmura. ■ Lucan. Lib- 5. 

1 To ihftnashc, ujcivtulw 7rc\Xv,v \y,w 
Orxv *f» irtoq u$ to <ra>[/j sAc'/f 7roXv$ 
Atytiv ro ujt^Xov thc, yjipwoTxc, xoiii. Eurip. Bacch. 
u A tempore Prophetia?, Facultates Prophetae funt obfopitae, 
fenfus ejus cefiant, et anima occupata eft in apprehenfione fua, 
indicatquc hominibus quid viderit, vel audiverit, fine ulia ope- 
ratione voluntatis et arbitrii ejus proprii circa id quod videt vel 
propherat. Vid. Lib. Cozri. p. 413. 
w Ota TTYcetTiriv t[*[AccviK. Eurip. Bacch,. 

tural 



( 25 ) 

tural Diforder, Phrenfy, Melancholy, &c. 
were alienated in their Minds, were faid to 
prophejy. It will appear prefently what Saul's 
Diftemper was ; and this Circumftance of his 
Prophejying, or acting as a mad Man, will be 
a considerable Argument in Point. I obferve 
2dly, The Cure of him was by a known Me- 
thod. Let thy Servants Jeek out a cunning 

Player on a Harp And he Jhall play 

with his Hand, and thou foalt be well. ^dly, 
The Cure was to be effected, and it was con- 
stantly effected, by Mufick and by That alone, 
Had it been to be cured by Prayer, or any 
thing that was devotional, Saul's Servants 
would have defired a Prophet, or a Priejl, not 
a Mufician, to be fent for. Ajhly, When Da- 
vid played upon the Harp, Saul was refrefh- 
ed, and was well, and the Evil Spirit depart- 
ed from him. When therefore the Evil Spi- 
rit was upon him, Saul was in a State oppofite 
to what is here called Refre/hment, and being 
well. Now the original Word x fignifies to 
Breathe, or draw one's Breath comfortably and 
well. The Septuagint tranflate the Verfe 
thus, i Sam. xvi. 14, An Evil Spirit from 
the Lord 1 fuffocated him : And when David 
played, he refreJJjed him. And Jofephus tells 

* fin refpirare % relaxation ejfe, Motum <vel agitationem in- 
chdit, fays Mercer. 
y 'Effuyi* uvtov. 

E us, 



( 26 ) 

us, * that grievous Diforders proceeding from 
Demons, attended Saul, which often were rea- 
dy to fuffocate and ftrangle him, Jo that the 
Phyjitians could think of no other Cure for him 
but this, that when the Demons came to him 
and disturbed him, One JJjould ft and at his 
Head and Jing. $thly, When the Evil Spirit 
was upon Saul, i. e. when he was in the Dif- 
order which thus affected him ; when in Jo- 
/ephus's Language, a the Demon dijlurbed 
and troubled him, it was then that Saul at- 
tempted to kill David. The Women with 
their Songs had made Saul look upon David 
with an Evil Eye ; they had raifed his b Envy 
and Hatred \ and thefe Paffions, joined to the 
Diftemper he had, made him mifchievous, 
and twice ftrive to murder David with his 
own Hand, kthly, From the Cure propofed, 
it is evident that this Evil Spirit from the 
Lord was feme natural Diftemper. For what 
Relation has the Sound of a Harp to the Ex- 
pulfwn of Spirits ? What makes them fo much 
afraid of Mufick as to leave the Body they had 

rpx>y}eiAec$ i77i(piyovTct. artiTcc* xura> frcoa-i)) rx dxiyjcmx x^ rx~ 

pctrloh 7ron7v vzTig xiCpxXw irxvTx •tyU/&uv. Antiq. Jud. Lib. 6. 
c ' 10. 

a To oui/jjoviov IQoqijZh fC, cwJiTclpxrli. Ibid. c. 14. 

b <&6cvov iCj (M'trO^. Ibid. c. 11* 

And when Jonathan interceded with Saul for Da<vid y 2oi 5ra- 
MpS ttviu^jcctoc, x^ t oUtfjmun iyxxQifyftivuv tcc jap i^icxtev. Ibid. 
Lib 6. c. 13. 

poffefTed, 



(27) 

pofleiTed, upon hearing the Sound of Harmo- 
ny ? Or why do they fly from exafl and good 
Mufick, more than from inharmonious jar- 
ring Difcords? For from the Hiftory it ap- 
pears that a Jkilful Mufitian was required to 
cure the King's Diforder. From whence I 
cannot but infer, ythly, That we are not to 
be influenced by the mere Words, an Evil 
Spirit, to imagine that fome wicked Being 
entered Saul's Body, and caufed thofe grie- 
vous Diforder s which he laboured under, any 
more than we can infer in the Inftances of the 
Cerriti and Larvati before mentioned, that 
they were under the Influence of Ceres or the 
Larvce. Sthly, From the Circumftances , of 
Saul's Cafe, viz. being terrified much ; being 
refrejhed by Mufick, and thence growing well- y 
from the Diforder s being not perpetual upon 
him, but returning at Times ; and if we take 
in from the LXX and Jofephus, his being rea- 
dy to be fir angled or juffocated, From 

thefe Circumftances, I fay, his Cafb feems to 
be nothing but deep Melancholy, It is one of 
Hippocrates s Aphorifms, c where Fear or Sad- 
nefs conti?iue long, it is a Sign of Melancho- 
ly. And, The Returns of this Diftemper are 
ufual d in Spring and Autumn. The Symp- 

d T» (Av vpos ret f/jomxot ?£ rk fX*Xcty%Q\'.KZ,-~ — — Ta di (pQiyox&piS 
*— — ^ roc (Aetvixa ^ t«s (Aihi •.■y^oAix.aj, HippjC ..oris. 

E 2 - 



( 28 ) 

toms of it are, as Sydenham well obferves, 

thefe They yield them/elves up a Prey to 

Anger, Jealoufy, Sufpicion, &c. Now 

they love one to Excefs, and injiantly they hate 
the fame Perfon as immoderately. They refolve 
in one Inftarit to execute fome Defign, and in 
the next, they make another and perhaps 
contrary Refoltition. It fometimes produces 
dreadful Convulfions, refembling the Epilepfy, 
the Belly and Entrails fwelling upwards to- 
wards the Throat, &c. Let me add in the 
Laft Place, that the Antients were wont to 
apply Mufick to the Cure of Diftempers, and 
in particular thought it an excellent Remedy 
againft this very Diforder. Theophraftus, in 
his Book of Enthu/iajm, tells us, that e Mufick 
cures many Diforder s of both Soul and Body, 
e. g. Paintings, Fears, long continued 
Dijbrders of Mind. The Playing upon the 
Pipe cures the Sciatica, and Epilepfy. And 
Mariianus Cape/la has a great deal to this 
Purpofe in his gth Book : where he introduces 
Mufick as faying what fhe had done, f I have 

cured 

Xrff<rUv. Theophraitus apud Apollonium. c. 48. 

F Pcrturbationibus animorum, corporeifque morbis, medica- 
bi!e crebvius carmen infonui. Nam Pbreneticos Symphonia cu- 

ravi. ■ — Febrem curabant vulncraque vereres cantione. Af- 

det item Tuba furdijjimis medebatur. Ad affettiores animi 

tibias 



( 2 9 ) 

cured Madmen by Symphony, The Anti- 

ents cured the Fever and Wounds by fnging. 
Afclepiades cured the very deafeji by a trum- 
pet, and madmen by Symphony. Theo- 
phraftus applied Pipes to the AffeStions of the 

Mind. Xenocrates freed thcje that were 

troubled with Spirits by injirumental Mufick y 
&c. 

Saul's Evil Spirit then does not fignify the 
real proper Caufe of his Diforder, fince it ap- 
pears that his was nothing elfe but natural Me- 
lancholy, which foft Accents and melodious 
Sounds were wont conftantly and regularly to 
afTwage. What Connection is there betwixt 
the Sound of a mufical Inftrument, and De- 
vils or Evil Spirits ? How could thofe about 
Saul think of Mufck, to expel a Spirit? 
Whereas fuppoling his Diftemper the Effect 
of Matter and Motion, and like other Dis- 
tempers y it was natural to have Recourfe to 
the then ufual Means of curing them, and 
accordingly they fucceeded. For can any 
thing be more natural than to procure zjkilful 
Mufti an to divert Melancholy ? And will not 
fuch a one always comfort and refrefh the Pa- 
tient, and make him well? The LXX and 

tibias 'Theophraftus adhibebat. Xenocrates arganicis moduli* 

lympbaticos liberabat. Martia. Capella. Lib. 9. 

C en/or inus fays, Afclepiades medicus phreneticorum mentes, 
morbo turbatas, fepe per Symphoniam fuae naturae reddidit. 
C. 12. de die natali. 



jojepvus 



( 30 ) 

Jofphus have added Circumftances which are 
very common in Hypocondriacal Cafes, I 
mean his being fuffocated when the Evil Spirit 
was upon him. And this may help us to 
conceive what really was his Cafe, and what 
exactly anfwers in every Circumftance. For 
though they all agree in the Word Spirit, 
yet ftill the Thing was no more than natural 
Dijbrder. Accordingly Maimonides obferves, 
that the Jews * call every Sort of Melancholy 
an Evil Spirit : and explains Evil Spirit, by 
Dijeafe. 

We meet with nothing of Demo?iiacks 
excepting the Cafe of Said, in the Old Tef- 
tament. But yet Jofephus, ( who profeiTes a 
ftricT: Regard to the Sacred Writings,) menti- 
ons certain Charms which Solomon left behind 
him, by which they could h cure Difeafes, and 
fo expel Demons, that they Jhould no more re- 
turn : and this Manner of Cure, fays he, con- 
tifiues amongjl us even to this Day. Upon this 
he relates a remarkable Story upon his own 
Knowledge, of one Eleazar's carting out De- 
mons in the Prejence of Vefpafian, and his 
Sons, and OJfcers, and Abundance of Soldiers. 

g Rambanus. Omnc genus Melancholia; 'vacant Spiritum ma- 
lum. Atque alibi; Spiritus Malus, i. e. Morbus. Lightfoot 
Her. Iicb. in Luc. c. 13. 11. 




f^KiTl tVfiWf Ads** ix-huKXTi, 



The. 



( 3* ) 

The Story, and the Manner of Cure, was 
thus. ' Applying a Ring having a certain 
Root under the Seal \ viz. one of thofe Roots 
that Solomon taught the Virtues of, He drew 
out the Demon through the Nofe of him that 
fmelt it : and prefently the Man falling down, 
he mentioning Solomon, and reciting the 
Charms "which he had invented, adjured the De- 
mon never to return into him. Eleazar being 
willing to fatisfy the By-flanders that he had 
this Rower, he placed a little Way from them 
a Cup full of Water, or a little Veffel that 
they wajhed their Feet in : and then he com- 
manded the Demon as he went out of the 
Man to overturn that Veffel, and thus make 
the Speculators fenfble, that he had left the 
Man. This is the Account of a Demoniack 
in Jofephus y s> Days, difpoffeffed by this Elea- 
zar. The Root which did this wondrous 
Feat, is that, I fuppofe, which he mentions 
in the Seventh Book of the Jewi/h Wars, the 
Story of which is flill more ridiculous than 
the Account of pulling out the Demon through 
the Noje of the Perfon that was pofTefTed. 

* T!po<r<pipci>v touc, p'ttn t5 Jkitbovi^opfytz ret dbcKroXiov] s%ovt66 Vzso 

tvJ <r<ppc&yidi pii^ccv 's/thtx i|s?Xx£» octppxivoffya) 2dJ. rZv fAVfcrt)- 

fuv to di/Af/joviov. £■ 7ri<ro'>T , &' iu$'j$ tS ccvfyo)?7% fJt/VK&r' zle, ecurev *V#- 
haQsiv a^Kis. fizki {/J/.®* £& 7Tii<rui on tuvtw t?C Si T W l% vv > 

* (a \ >/ (\ ' » ■• •' Jv /t=\ > tv \ " 

STiVU f/jtXfOV Sf/jTTpO&iV TTOTyMOV TT/WipiC, Oi4.T^>>, *i 77 odo'J iTTT GOV , 3C, T J* 

oxiiAovici) TrpotTiTurliv t£icvn t« u,na»7FH ruur ccvctrciyett, ttj wc.pot,%uv 
ixiyvwxi to7$ opZxiv, on KXTscAi}.6i7n tov stvOpcMFw. Jofeph. Antiq. 
Lib. 8. c. 2. 

However 



(32 ) 

However I'll relate it fince it concerns De- 
mom. " k There is a Valley on the North of 
" Macharus, in which is a Place called Baa- 
ras, which bears a Root of the fame Name ; 
It is of a flame Colour, and about Evening 
time it mines very bright. It is not eafily 
caught by them that would willingly ga- 
ther it ; but it withdraws itfelf, and does 
not flay, unlefs one pours the Urine of a Wo- 
man, or menftruous Blood upon it. And 
" even then it is certain Death to them that 
<c touch it, unlefs you happen to carry the 
u Root itfelf hanging down from your Hand, 
" There is another Way of getting this Root 
<c free from Danger, and it is this. They 
" dig quite round it, fo that the very leaft 
" bit of the Root is left in the Ground : 
<c then they tye a Dog to it, and the Dog at- 

k Bxctfxq ovofJUoc^ij ti$ to~oc, QCu rt o'.^xy coiwjf/jaz teyopfyw 
uvru. ccvrii (phoy) fy tw X^** ' £0WC£ - **f* °* Tof ? i<r7rifx<; (rixx$ 

icTTX^^UT.THQrx. TOIC, W £T(».CT* >£ fia>.0(VjjOi<, A««S?» UVTr,V, G&K WXt 

jy^s/po'T© , aXb.' l~c?i'jyu, k. hi XfOTipov l'<?xj Kfit xv rn; £pe? yv- 
rxiKG$, It To t/jjfAr,vcy tUiMe x%'^ KiiT ' &v~n<i- Ov (&??, xf^x x} tots 

irtnyMtw^ to qiZ.x* c-'x tjjs %h$ 0< > uxmrriivfiW' oc^ckitoh at x.a6' 

STi^GV TpJ/TO* UKUOlllUZ. CC. Ifl TOiCtTOi. %'JY.X'jO XXTXV XOTW <ZSC<CfV OS % * 

at, ac utelt to nftnrrefOp0> riJs p'-C^S ^ox^txtoi . sit' \\ xI>tyi<, krjj^- 
trt kvvx % juutMV ru crvuvTi trweuc&xdtvt cptAV}rxvT&, %u*a i«wsr3- 

J puOi'ac,. B-fKCKH o' ioti-jc, 6 ki>u¥, a<T77tc avTi£ohi<i ii ^C/jAAovt^ 

TVJ fioTcl-ro XVXtpCXC^. (pCeO" yxa &OUC, Tt"(e, L/Qj} TXVTX AxU.<sU1!S- 

<r<y. *Eci 6i «? tccztcjv xivgjv&'j StJa. u>ix* <V«f, <5j&«r77i£cx$(&'. to. 

K ' ~ ?\ - > "< • A ' 

yXP XX?.XfOf.X CXlf/jCViX, TOCJTX Oi ~OVtyUV ffi* eCVV^&'TTUV XViVf/jXTX, 

rei<i "Cpxr.v i,'<rci;ofty-x to kthvovtx tx$ fio.'fiuac, fju* TvyftxnovTus, xv- 

T1) TV UL7Ci y KXV X OOC Mi%ft [Jt/CVOt T0?5 fWSCi, JoieD. dc 

Bell. Judaic, Lib. 7. c. 23. 

* ( tempting 



CC 
U 
M 

<c 
u 



( 33 ) 

tempting to follow him that tied him, the 
Root is eafily pulled up. But then the 
Dog dies inftantly, as it were in the Stead 
of him who would get the Plant. l There 
" is no Fear to them who fhall afterwards 
"take it. This Root is very defireable for 
one Virtue it has, notwithftanding fo many 
Dangers in getting it. For Demons as 
they are called, (thefe are the Spirits of 
wicked Men) entering into the Living, and 
killing thofe that have no Help, this Root 
prefently expels them, even though it be 
only brought near thofe that are ill.'* 
How ridiculous foever thefe Stories are> 
both that of Eleazar, and this of the Hoot 
BaaraSy yet Jofephus plainly thought that 
there were properly Demoniacks, or Perfons 
into whom the Souls of wicked Men entered. 
He gives us no Symptoms of the Diforders 
thefe Men had : but only that they were kil- 
led if they had not Help, and that Eleazar 
pulled out the Demon through the Nofe of the 
Perfon to whom he applied this Root. I can- 
not but think Jofephus $ Demoniack to be the 
fame with the Cerritus of Serenus Samonicus, 
whom m dreadful Smells would often cure. 
Serenus is fpeaking of a Cafe where through 

1 So the Cynocephale, or Ofyritis in Egypt, is prefent Death 
to Kim that pulls it up, and is excellent good againft all Witch- 
craft. Plin. lib xxx. c. 2. 

f 1 Cerritum fepe horrendi medicantur Odores. Seren. Samon. 

F forne 



( 34 ) 

*fome Fault of the Brain a raving Madnefs arofe : 
and as the Cerriti were Mad men, and cured 
by Jlrong Smells, juft as fofephuss, Demoni- 
acks, it is very probable they were both under 
the fame Sort of Diforders. It will always be 
afked, How Jofephus knew, that thefe Per- 
fons had in them the Souls of wicked Men 
deceafed ? How he knew that thefe wicked 
Spirits killed Men ? What has the Smell of a 
Root to do with wicked Spirits ? Or how can 
that expel them ? To fay, that he Jaw the Fac7 
done 5 and to add that he faw the Demon over- 
turn a Bafon of Water, at his going out of a 
Man, is only affirming one incredible Thing 
in order to prove another. For what Evi- 
dence is there that this was done by a De- 
mon ? It is agreed that the Philofophers of 
Old talked much of thefe Spirits, or Demons ; 
but how did they know that thefe Demons 
were the Spirits of Evil Men ? He might fay 
perhaps, becaufe the Perfon that was difor- 
dered, was agitated, and thrown down, and 
fujfered much Mi/chief But thefe Effects 
might have nothing more in them than what 
was natural and ordinary, as I have already 
(hewn. Leaving therefore thefe Inftances of 
JewiJJj Exorci/ls, and the Charms which So- 
lomon is faid to have left, Thofe idle romantick 
Tales of jofephus, which mew how eafily he 



n Ex vitio Cerebri Phrenejis furiofa movetur 
Amiflaiquc refer t f widen amentia vires. 



was 



(35 ) 

was impofed on himfelf, or how ready he was 
to impofe on others -, 

I proceed in the next Place to confi- 
der what the New Tejlament Writers have 
faid upon the Subjedt of Demoniacks. 
And in order to mew what was meant, we 
muft compare the feveral Relations together ; 
and when we meet with plain and eafy Ac- 
counts of things, we muft make them the 
Standards or Tefts by which we ought to un- 
derftand the more difficult Places ; and not 
vice verfa, interpret eafy Texts by thofe which 
are intricate and hard. It muft be remem- 
bered likewife, that Demon in none of the 
Inftances already produced, fignifies what we 
in Englijh call Devil, but always is applied 
to ° the departed Souls of Dead Men. And 
laftly, that Epilepfy and Madnefs were pecu- 
liar Diforders attributed to the Gods. 

Thefe Things being already proved, it is 
neceflary to obferve, that when out Saviour 
began to preach, he went about all Galilee, 
preaching the Gofpel of the Kingdom, and heal- 
ing all Manner of Sickne/s, and all Manner of 
Difeafe among the People, and his FAME 
went throughout Syria - y and there followed him 
great Multitudes of People from Galilee, and 
from Decapolis, and from Jerufalem, and 

l*wr*>». Juft. Mart. 2 Apol. 

F z from 



(36) 

from Judea, and from beyond Jordan, Matt. iv» 
23 — 25. From hence it appears that He was 
much known ; and that the Doctrines he 
preached were likewife known ; and what he 
was imagined to be, was well known in all 
thofe Parts. This was fo notorious, that they 
brought unto him all fick People that were ta- 
ken with divers Difeafes and Torments ; and 
thofe which were poffeffed with Devils [De- 
mons] and thofe which were Lunatic, and thoje 
which had the Palfy. Perhaps this might bet- 
ter be tranflated, even thofe who were pof 
Je/fed, &c. for thefe are the particular and 
eminent Inftances of Perfons who had Difea- 
fes and Torments. What thefe Perfons pofjeffed 
with Devils [or Demons] were, is now to be 
confidered. 

St. John, c. x. 20, gives us an Account 
of a Controverfy amongft the Jews on Occa- 
fion of fome Things which our Saviour had 
faid. In this Debate, many J aid he hath a 
Devil, and is mad. Others Jdid, thefe are not 
the Words of him that hath a Devil : can a 
Devil open the Eyes of the blind f Madnefs is 
here imputed to our Saviour -, and the imagi- 
nary Caufe is, he hath a Devil. Thefe were 
fo connected together in their Minds, that 
Both Sides reafoned in the fame Manner : and 
both Sides took for granted that That particular 
Diforder proceeded from fome Evil Spirit 
that pofleffed him, They therefore that 

thought 



(37) 

thought he fpoke the Words of Sobriety, re- 
plied, can he that is under the Influence of a 
wicked Spirit, i. e. a Mad man, either fay or 
do fuch Things as this Man does ? 

It is exactly in the fame Senfe that the 
Jews anfwered our Saviour, John vii. 20, 
when he charged them with going about to 
kill him,- — — They faid, Thou haft a Devil. 

The Meaning of which was Thou art 

mad, who goeth about to kill thee ? He charged 
them with an AQ. which they difclaimed ; and 
they immediately replied, that he had a De- 
vil; ufmg the Caufe, the imaginary Caufe, for 
a vifible Effecft, which they conceived natural- 
ly to flow from it. 

Again ; when John came neither eating nor 
drinking, they fay, He hath a Devil, Matt, xi, 
18. i. e. When he appeared in that auftere ri- 
gid Manner, living in the Wildernefs, and 
preaching ftridt Repentance as he did, and u- 
iing fevere Mortification, they looked upon 
him to be mad. To name one Inflance more. 

Our Saviour having told the Jews, John 
viii. 48 — 52, that they were not of God, they 
faid unto him, Say we not well that thou art 
a Samaritan, and haft a Devil ? Jefus anfwer- 
ed, I have not a Devil, but I honour my Fa- 
ther, If a Man keep my Saying, he fhall 

never fee Death. Then faid the Jews unto him, 
now we know, that thou haft a Devil. Abra- 
ham is dead, and the Prophets, and thou fayefl, 



CI 



( 38) 

If a Man keep my Saying, he Jhall never taji 
of Death. The Meaning of all this is very 
plain : " Do we not fay very juftly, that you 
" treat us juft as the Samaritans do, with Ran- 
" cour and Malice j and that you are really 
€t madr He replies, " I am not mad, but 
cc know what I fay and mean ; my Defign is 
to honour my Father, and with a View of 
promoting this good Defign I tell you, He 
that obeys what I fay Jloall live for ever!* 
They inftantly reply, " Now it is evident 
you are mad: Abraham is dead, and the 
Prophets ; and yet you tell us that he that 
obeys your Doctrines mail live for ever : 
Whom tnakeft thou thy felff 

Had not St. John, in the Paffage firft ci- 
ted, explained fo particularly what was meant 
by having a Devil, ( or Demon, for fo it is al- 
ways to be read) we mould probably have un- 
derstood thefe Places of Madnefs, or of a difor- 
dered Underftancling : Becaufe fo many Inftan- 
ces might be produced out of heathen Authors, 
where thofe who were called Cerriti or Lar- 
vati, or Lymphatici, and were fuppofed to be 
affe&ed by, or to be under the Direction or 
Influence of Demons, were all in their Degree 
mad. But as the Words are explained in the 
Gofpel itfelf, it is eafy to fee upon w r hat 
Grounds the Jews fiid to our Saviour, 
Thou haft a Devil. They had neither feen 
nor heard any Demon in bim t nor in John the 

Baptijl i 



( 39 ) 

Baptijl , and yet inftantly they charge them 
with having one. Whence did this proceed ? 
Or why do they fay a Devil, rather than any 
thing elfe? They faw indeed, what they 
thought to be Madnefs, and nothing elfe. 
From this vifible Effect then they prefently 
imagined a Demon (or Devil) to be the Cauje\ 
and therefore charged him with what they 
did not fee ', arguing from the Effect to the 
Caufe. And therefore when Jofephus, or O- 
thers, call fuch or fuch Perfons Demoniacks y 
they may do it merely from certain Symptoms 
of which they fuppofed Demons to be the 
Caufe, though no Evidence of fuch Demons 
appeared. And indeed it was cujiomary for 
the Jews to attribute to Evil Spirits certain 
great Diforders, which either diftorted the Bo- 
dy, or occafioned Phrenfy, or DiflraBion of the 
Mind: as Dr. Lightfoot has well obferved.? 

The Paffages already produced, which make 
the having a Devil and Madnefs to be the 
fame thing, will help us to underftand fome 
others, which at firft Sight may appear more 
intricate. Thus for Inftance ; in St. Matthew , 
c. xvii. 1 5, there came a certain Man to our 
Lord, who kneeled down and faid, Lord have 
Mercy upon my Son, for he is lunatick, a?id 

P Judasis ufitatiffimum erat morbos quofdam graviores, eos 
praefertim quibus vel diftortum eil corpus, vel mens turbata, et 
; .agitata Phrenefi, malis Sp:rmbu3 attribuere, Lightfoot Her, 
Heb. Matt. xvii. 15. 

fore 



( 40 ) 

fore vexed : for oft-times he falleth into the 
Fire, and oft into the Water. The other E- 
vangelifts give us a mere particular Account 
of this young Man's Cafe. St. Mark, c. ix. 
17, 18, makes the Man to fay to our Savi- 
our / have brought unto thee my Son, 

which hath a dumb Spirit ; and wherejbever he 
taketh him> he teareth him, and he foameth, 
and gnafheth with his Teeth, and pineth 
away. When the young Man was brought 
to our Lord, v. 20, the Spirit tare him, and 
he fell on the Ground, and wallowed, foaming. 
In St. Luke, the Cafe is reprefented thus, 
c. ix. 39. A Spirit taketh him, and he fud- 
denly crieth out, [or fhrieks] and it teareth him 
that he foameth again, and bruifing him, 
hardly departeth from him. This Man was 
plainly, what Juftin Martyr defcribes thofe 
which were ^Jeized by Demons to be, r thrown 
upon the Ground; and he is plainly a Demoni- 
ack, for in curing him Jefus rebuked the De- 
vil, Matt. xvii. 18. From the Symptoms he 
had -foxing into the Fire, or Water, tear- 
ing himfeif gnafl:i?ig with his 'Teeth, foaming, 
wallowing on the Ground, being bruifed, and 
then the Fit leaving him, his Cafe was Epi- 
leptick. Celjus obferves of fuch Perfons, f The 

9 AeK^ev.j.V.TTii, '■l>-j%x7q ^Tz&ccvovrav Xtty&u*o[fy-ct. Juft. Mart, 
r 'r»,Tra^©i. Ibid. ApoJ. 2. 

f Homo fubito concidir, ex ore Spumse moventur, homi- 

11cm confumit. Ceffus Lib. 3. c. 23. 

Man 



4i ) 

Man all of a fudden falls down, foams at the 
Mouth, and when the Dijlemper is ?iew upon him, 
it makes him pine away. Hippocrates has given 
us the Symptoms of the Epilepjy more accurate- 
ly. * " He becomes uncapable of fpeaking, 
cc and is fuffbcated, and Foam runs out of the 
" Mouth, his Teeth gnafh, the Hands are 
cc clojejljut, the Eyes are dijlorted, they under- 
cc Jland nothing : — he falls down, he kicks with 
" his Feet. After this particular Account of 
the Symptoms, he explains the natural Caufe 
of each ; and fays u Thus is this Dijlemper to 
young People -, He adds, * When the Dijbrder 
is of long ftanding, it is not curable. This is 
a direct Expofition of the Cafe before us, and 
fhews the Man to be plainly Epileptic. 

You will fay perhaps then, that Madnefs is 
not the fame as having a Devil, but Epilep- 
jy, which is a different Diftemper. But the 
Circumftances will clear up this Point. As 

ijl, It is obferved that this Diftemper had 
been long upon him. How long, fays our Sa- 
viour, is it ago fmce this came unto him f And 
he J aid, Of a Child, Mark ix. 21. zdly, I 

* 'A^y®-" yivsrat, y^, ot^fc, <£y. t» fo^fKT^ Cs/.pizi, <C 01 ocbvTit, 
triwy.pxtco-i, *£ oti #J*pj<; (rvmuvTcii, fc to.- lyj^aro', 2>\tj.<?fi<$MTcu i k, 

*£iv (ppovtxiri 7rpo<r7Ti7rTn ^xxTifyi Tourt xcxnv. De morbo 

facro. 

u Toitri yjsv »y TTctihotcnv 'areo ytvirui. Ibid. 

w 'Qnorcvi mci/®* ynnrcn rvj W<r&>, gvy, tri w(Tluj&' ytviren. 
Ibid. 

G mult 



( 42 ) 

muft obferve from Hippocrates, x Melancho 
lick Perjbns are "very often wont to be Epilep- 
tic, and Epileptic Perfons Melancholick. 
Each of thefe Diflempers prevail, as the Dijbr- 
der inclines to either Body or Mind : If to the 
Body, they are Epileptic ; if to the Mind, 
they are Melancholick. ^dly, It muft be ad- 
ded from the fame Author, that where the 
Epilepfy * has grown np with a Perfon from 
his Childhood, (as was the exprefs Cafe of the 
Perfon before us ) the Cure is very difficult, 
^thly, St. Matthew expreffly calls him a Ln- 
natic. He is Lunatic and fore vexed. 5thly> 
I cannot but obferve that Alexander Trallia- 
mis gives us an Account of a Cure of the 
Epilepfy, which he learnt in Hetruria from a 
Country/nan, who cutting, fays he, wild Rue 
in a Field, his Fellow Servant, ctXyvicLxos a>v 
ima-tv, being a Lunatic, was feized with a Fit 
of Epilepfy. Alex. 'Trail. Lib. 1. Exactly 
in St. Matthews Language. 

Thefe Things being confidered, it appears 
that this Young man was Epileptic : His Epi- 
lepfy had brought him to be Melancholick^ 
which is the natural Turn of the Diftemper; 
and his Melancholy had made him mad. 

* Ol fitiXxy^oXixoi x^ i7rO.17TTix.ok ita£x<rt yuio% coc, tTTiToTroXv, <c" 
c* »ti ?^7ttikci yjiXxy^Xixoi Txtuv o\ tKccTtpov yuuX^ov yi'vtrxi' iqf 
c~or<pcc oci pt'jiry txto to ulpa?Y\y^x: ' Hr yA> i<, to era/Act tWAjjTrrct ; 
t\ at fT* tw 2>ldvow iMXayx.0X1x.0l. Hippoc. de Morbis popular. 
Lib. 6. 

y Ot*i *&jn wtuottt (Tvv/.vliTcti -m*~«,?TciXXcify(; *ctXt7rtj yi'viTctt. 

From 



(43 ) 

From hence St. Matthew, in his Account, ex- 
preffly calls him Lunatic. The other Two 
Evangelifts take Notice, the One of the dumb 
Spirit which he had, the Other, of the Spi- 
rit, but fay not a Word of his Madnefs, 
which was implied in the Term, Spirit : 
And then they defcribe at large the Symptoms 
of the Epilepfy. St. Matthew defcribes the 
Epileptic Fits, as foon as he had faid that the 
Young man was Lunatic : The two other 
Evangelifts defcribe the Epileptic Fits, as foon 
as they had faid that he had a Spirit, or a 
dumb Spirit. Therefore Lunatic and Demo-> 
niack> or having a Spirit y or a Devil, muft 
be the fame. 

I am fenfible how difficult it is to account 
for every Expreffion on thefe Occafions, where 
we often know not the exact Ideas to which 
fome particular Words were applied. We 
muft be often left to Uncertainty and Con- 
jecture, and he that gue/Jes, not irrationally^ 
ought to be excufed if he varies from com- 
mon Sentiments, when common Sentiments 
are not at all intelligible. In the Proceft of 
the Hiftory of this Young man, it appears 
that the Difciples of our Lord could not cure 
him. The Father of him tells our Saviour, 

/ fpake to thy Difciples that they Jhould 

cafl him out, and they could not, Mark ix. 1 8, 
or as St. Matthew has it, I brought him to thy 
DifcipleSy and they could not cure him. Our 

G 2 Saviour 



( 44 ) 

Saviour curing him Jo eafily, his Difciples af- 
terwards afked him privately, or apart, Why 
could not we cajl him out ? His Anfwer, as it 

lies in St. Mark, is only thus This Kind 

ran come forth by nothing, but by Prayer and 

Fajiing, c, ix. 29. But in St. Matthew, the 

Anfwer is much larger and fuller, and from 

thence perhaps we may be able to conjecture 

at the Meaning of thefe Words. Jefus [aid 

unto them, becaufe of your Unbelief. For ve~ 

rily I fay unto you, if ye have Faith as a 

Grain of Muflard-Jeed, ye Jloall fay unto this- 

Mountain, Remove hence unto yonder Place, 

and it Jhall remove, and nothing Jhall be un~ 

pofible for you. Howbeit, this Kind goeth 

not out but by Prayer and Failing. I obfer- 

ved before, that this was an Epileptic Cafe \ 

and it was an Epileptic Diforder of long 

flancimg : and confequently either incurable, 

or very hard to be cured, by any Means of Art, 

The Determination of the Old Phylitians is, 

1 That neither Broths, nor even Meats that are 

light and eafy of Digeftion, nor Flefh of any 

Sort, and particularly Hogs Flejh, is not good for 

this Sort of People. You are not to give Juch 

any Food at all till the third Day after the 

% Cibum poft diem tcrtium dare. Neque forbhiones his 

-. 1: ulioqui molles et fhciles cibi, necue caro> minimeque fuilU 

-ronve'iit, et uhi tertio die cibus aatus eft intermirtere quar- 

tum, et invicem alrerum quemqu-j donee quatuordecim dies 

ranfeant. Celfiu Lib. 3. c. ;;. 

Fit, 



( 45 ) 

Fit ; and when he has taken fome Suftenance, 
on the third Day, you mufi leave it off the 

fourth, and jo on every other Day, -//// 

fourteen Days are pajl. When great Exercife 
is prefcribed, yet ftill the Rule is a Let him 
have but little Victuals -, or let him abftain al- 
together from Flefh. 

I know not whether this may help us to 
folve the prefent Difficulty. The Difciples 
afk why they could not cure this young man. 
Our Saviour's Anfwer to them is, " Becaufe of 
" your Unbelief. For had you Faith equal to 
" the Advantages you have, you fhould be 
cc able to do the moft difficult Things, nay 
€€ nothing which is neceffary to gain Credit to 
" your Authority or Doctrine, fhall be im- 
" poffible." This contains a full Anfwer to 
their Queftion : and what follows, about the 
Neceffity of Fajli?tg and Prayer, may not re- 

a Paulum cibi afTumat. Ibid. 

Kpjftjy 7TXVTS>i.6)$ KX.X.OV i^lV CCTTi^itBxi ■ - oXiyoV Xiit/j-sCt.VZTa, x± 

oXiyuKic,. It is good to abjiain from Flefh entirely. But if he 

dcjires fome let him take but little, and feldom. Again, Tee. 

ci y^iu. TrcipaiTsi'&c&i yjixfi rzteici$ cc^ecXXxy^. He ought to abftairt 
from Flefh till he is quite cured. And then follow a great man/ 
Cautions about what the Epileptic ought to eat and drink. 
Alex and. Trallianus. Lib. I. 

- — —oil's; oXiyo7?o(TM, tevy.x, te^rx- Xx%c{,vm iCpQav, oy.o<rct it; 

ajvxpivty[Azct. Let him be kept altogether from Flefh ; but if that 
cannot be, let him be kept fo during the Cure. Let him drink 

but little Wine, white, thin. ■ Let him eat thofe boilez 

Herbs, which are as Jharp as pojfible, &c. Aretseus fafioiTrtk* 
gfovinqv nciQw, c. 4, 



(46 ) 

late to the Difficulty which they propofed. 
A miraculous Power was neceffary to cure this 
Diforder in the Way which Jefus cured it. 
Is a miraculous Power to be attained by Faft- 
ing and Prayer ? Or cannot a Jiipernatural 
Power cure a Diforder, fuppofing it to be 
granted to Men as it was to the Apoftles, un- 
lefs they fajl and pray for the Removal of the 
Diforder ? I cannot conceive that our Saviour 
meant, that the Perfon who would expel this 
Kind of Devil, (or would cure an Epilepfy of 
long Continuance} mufr. neceffarily fajl and 
pray, or elfe that he could not pojjibly cure it : 
For our Saviour himfelf did neither fall nor 
pray, notwithftanding he cured the Youth -, 
nor did he blame his Difciples for not fafting 
or prayi?ig -, nor did he charge them with any 
thing but Unbelief, as the Reafon why they 
did not, or could not, cure the Diforder. Nor 
did the Difciples afterwards ever fall: and 
pray ( that we read of) in order to cure any 
Diftempers, or to caft out any Devils. Nor 
was Fafting and Prayer required of the 
diflempered Perfon by our Saviour in order to 
his Cure, fince our Saviour fhewed his Power 
in curing him inftantaneoufly, and without 
the Means which the Phyfitians were wont 
to prefcribe ; / charge thee to come out, and 
enter no more into him. Nor, laftly, can I 
think, that our Saviour gave this Direction, 
" to inform his Difciples, that this miraculous 

" Faith 






( 47 ) 

cc Faith, being the fpecial Gift of God, was 
to be fought for by flagrant Devotion, that 
it might never be wanting to them. ,, 
An ingenious Phyfitian, to wh'om I propo- 
fed this Difficulty, offered me this critical 
Emendation of the Place ; inftead of h vrpo- 
(nwxy %$j wi<Tto&,> to read h ^poo-i^ei vv\^i[ct y in 
conjiant Fajling, juft as all the Phyfitians were 
wont in this Cafe to prefcribe. If this were 
the true Reading in St. Mark, St. Matthew 
muff: be corrected in the fame Manner, fince 
it is agreed, that the Verfe was not at all 
originally in St. Matthew, but inferted into his 
Gofpel from Mark, as Dr. Mills has rightly 
obferved. If this be the Cafe, the Meaning 

of the Words is " You could not cure 

" this Man becaufe of your Unbelief: But 
yet you fee how eafy this Diftemper is re- 
moved -, though it be a Diftemper, which 
when of long Continuance, is allowed by 
all to be hard to be cured, and for which is 
ufually prefcribed a long Courfe of Failing." 
This indeed would folve the Difficulty ; 
but as no various Reading will countenance 
the Emendation, it may perhaps be thought 
to be cutting the Knot. 

I am apt to think, that the Phrafe, by Fajl- 
ing and Prayer, is proverbially ufed, and im- 
plies great Difficulty only. For as neither 
Failing nor Prayer were here ufed on this 
Occafion by either our Saviour, or the diftem- 

pered 



( 48 

pered Perfon, tlie Words muft be taken not 
in too ftridt a Senfe. I conceive therefore 
that our Lord defigned to oppofe to the ufual 
Length of Time and Difficulty of Cure, the 
Speed and Eafe with which he had removed 
this Diftemper; <£ This is the Diftemper that 
" All People make fo great Difficulty in cu~ 
<c ring ! yet you fee how eafily it is done 
" by me." Our Saviour fays that it was be- 
caufe of their Want of Faith, that the Difci- 
ples could not cure this Perfon : nor does he 
blame them for not Fa/ling, but justifies them 
in not Fajii?ig > in other Places : Had they 
therefore had Faith, they might have cured 
this Diftemper. This plainly fhews, that in 
this Place, the Words are not to be taken 
too rigidly ; but as when it is faid one cannot 
obtain a Thing, nee prece, nee pretio, no 
more is meant, than that one in vain attempts 

to get it ; So here This Kind goeth not 

out but by Prayer and Fajting, no more is in- 
tended than, that this Diforder is very hardly, 
or naturally impoffible, to be removed. But 
this I refer to the Reader's Judgment \ and 
Avail readily fubmit to better Information. ' 

There is another Inftance of a Demoniaek, 
Mark v. I. (St. Matthew fays there were Two 
of them, c. viii. 28.) which will require a 
particular Difcuflion. Immediately there met 
htm out of the Tombs a Man with A n unclean 

Spirit, 



( 49 ) 

Spirit, who had his Dwelling among the 'Tombs y 
and no Man could bind him, no not with 
Chains, becaufe that he had been often bound 
with Fetters and Chains, and the Chains had 
been plucked afunder by him, and the Fetters 
broken in Pieces, neither could any Man tame 
him. And always Night and Day he was in 
the Mountains, and in the Tombs, crying, and 
cutting himjelf with Stones. St. Matthew fays 
there were Two that met him, exceeding fierce, 
fo that no Man might pafs by that way, c. viii. 
28. St. Luke's Account is thus, c. viii. 
27 — 29. There met him one which had Devils 
a long Time, and ware no Cloths, neither 
abode in any Houje but in the Tombs. 
The unclean Spirit oftentimes had caught him, 
and he was kept bound with Chains, and in 
Fetters ; and he brake the Bands, and was dri- 
ven of the Devil into the Wildernefs. 
Mark and Luke agree in this, that when our 
Saviour alked Him [the Man] his Name, 
H e anfwered, Legion : The Reafon of this 
Anfwer is in St. Mark, for we are many ; in 
St. Luke, the Reafon is, becaufe many Devils 
were entered into him. Laftly, When the 
Man was cured, the People found him a in 
his right Mind, fay both Mark, c. v, 15. and 
Luke c. viii. 3 5. 

H From 



( 5°) 

From thefe Accounts of this unhappy Man, 
we muft obferve 

if, Here was a Perfon, not in his right 
Mind; running about naked; plucking afun- 
der his Chains or Fetters ; no one could tame 
him 5 living in the Mountains like a wild 
Man 5 roaring out ; cutting himfelf ; fierce ; 
miichievous to Paflengers. Thefe are all or- 
dinary Symptoms of Lunacy ', or Madnefs, if 
the Perfon be fuffered to ramble out in a ra- 
ving Condition. 

idly, It is faid, no Man could bind or tame 
him. Hence it appears that his Cafe was 
Madnefs, and not Epileptick, fince Epilepticks 
are not wont to be bound with Chains. 

idly, This was a Perfon with an unclean 
Spirit, Mark v. 2. and he is, before his Cure, 
conftantly treated by our Saviour, and by 
Mark and Luke, as poflefled by One only Spi- 
rit. Come out, thou unclean Spirit, v. 8. 
He was pojjeffed with a Devil, v. 15, 16. 

And fo St. Luke. He commanded the 

unclean Spirit to come out of the Man, for 
oftentimes 1 t had caught him, c. viii. 29. 
Our Saviour then faying in the Angular, Come 
out Thou unclean Spirit, at the Time he 
cured him • and not in the Plural, Ye un- 
clean Spirits, notwithftanding the Man had 

iaid he had a Legion in him, it follows that 
this Account of many Devils was nothing 
clfc but the Man's Imagination, and not the 

Truth 



(5* r 

Truth of Things -, For to call out one Devi/, 
when a Legion was in him, was really do- 
ing no Service to the Perfon afflicted. 

\thly, In St. Mark and Luke, where we 
have the Cafe of this Man at large defcribed, 
we hear of no more than One unclean Spirit, 
till Jefus afked the Man his Name. Now as 
to have a Devil and to be mad is the fame 
thing, this Man was confidered merely as a 
Madman. And fo all that follows is confid- 
ent. Our Saviour alks the Man his Name : 
His Anfwer was that of a mere Madman, 
that his Name was Legion, for many Devils 
were entered into him. 

tfhly, Taking him for a Madman, could 
any thing be more natural than what pafled. 
He addrefles our Saviour openly, and without 
any Fear or Care -, calling him the Son of 
God, and proclaiming him what he was. 
What have I to do with thee, Jefus thou Son 
of God moft high ? It was eafy for him to 
know Jefus, fince his Fame was fpread in all 
thofe Parts ; and that made him addrefs him 
in the Manner he did. And it was as natural 
for him, conlidering him as a Jew, in his 
mad Fit to afk that the Devils which were in 
him might be permitted to enter into the 
Herd of Swine which he faw juft before him. 
The Sight of them would naturally put the 
odd Image into his Head : And when Jefus, 
is faid to permit them, or give them Leave -, 

H z or 



(52) 

or in St. Matthew's Language to fay Go. 

All this is no more than not concerning 

himfelf with the fantaftic Humour of a Mad- 
man, but humouring him whilft he cured 
him. 

But the main Difficulty is ftill behind. 
They, i. e. the Devils, when they were come 
out, went into the Herd of Swine, and be- 
hold ! the whole Herd of Swine ran violently 
down a Jleep Place into the Sea, and were 
drowned, Matt. viii. 32. All the Three Evan- 
gelists agree in telling us, that the Devils en- 
tered the Swine, But yet we mull obferve, 
that all this Legion of Devils was nothing but 
the Madman $> Talk. If therefore by any Ac- 
cident the Swine ran down the Precipice, 
whilft the Man or Men were under Cure, 
whether drove down, or frighted down by the 
Madmen, This would fully anfwer all the 
Story. For as to the Requeft itfelf, That was 
nothing but the mad Difcourfe of one difor- 
dered in his Senfes : Juft as I my felf met with 
a Woman who told me of Numbers of Devils 
in her; and confiftent with that Principle, fhe 
told me what This or That particular Devil faid; 
and what they defired to be done ; and me afked 
me, if I did not hear or fee the Devils. 

But fuppofing this Conjecture, that the Mad- 
man drove or frighted the Swine down a fteep 
Place into the Sea, will not fufficiently account 
for the Expreffions of the Evangelifts, I con- 
ceive 



(53 ) 

ceive that there can be no greater Difficulty 
in this Cafe, than there is in one Man's Dif- 
temper paffing into another Man. The Mad- 
nefs therefore of this Man may be conceived 
to pafs into the Swine, juft in the fame 
Manner as the Leprofy of one Man could be 
transferred into another. The Leprofy of 
Naaman was to cleave to Gehazi, and to 
his Seed for ever, 2 Kings v, 27. Which 
way foever this is to be accounted for, I ap- 
prehend that by the fame Method the In- 
ftance before us may be refolved without any 
Difficulty, the like Effect being imputable to 
a like Caufe. I fhall have a further Occafion 
to confider fome other Circumstances of this 
Story by and by. In the Interim, I cannot 
but be furprized at a Calculation lately made 
of how many Devils entered into each 
Hog. Had Mr. IVooljion, in his Defign to ex- 
pofe Chriftianity to Contempt and Ridicule, 
calculated in fuch a Manner ; I dare fay, that 
thofe who were fo zealous to inflict Punifh- 
ments upon the Man for his Banter, would 
have pitched upon this very Inftance, as one 
of the moft flagrant of all. 

I know not whether there is a fingle In- 
ftance of a Demoniack, which may not fairly 
and juftly be explained by Epilepfy, or Mad- 
nefs. The Cafe of the Pythonefs, Acts xvi. 
16 — 18, is that of a Perfon that pretended to 
tell Fortunes 5 and engaged the Attention of 

the 



(54) 

the People, by fpeaking inwardly. This was 
called a Spirit of Divination ; and when flie 
was difcovered, flie was difabled from playing 
this Trick any longer, by St. Paul's faying to 

her, / command thee to come out of her. 

No more was, or could be meant, than to 
put a Stop to the Trick the Woman ufed. 
She was not a Demoniack in the Senfe of 
thole that are mentioned in the Gofpels ; no 
more than the Woman whom St. Luke men- 
tions c. xiii. ii — 1 6, who is faid to have had 
a Spirit of Infrmity eighteen Tears, and to be 
bound by Satan fo long. She was never repu- 
ted a Demoniack ; but only to be fo bent in 
her Body, as not to be able to lift herfelf up. A 
Spirit of Infirmity is nothing but an infirm 
Difpofition or Habit ; , in the Jewifli Phrafeolo- 
gy : and the Chriftian Writers are full of the 
fame Manner of Expreffions, applying to eve- 
ry Vice, and every Paffion, and every Dif- 
pofition, the Name of Spirit. And as to the 

other Expreffion, Satan hath bound her, 

-That Word would have been ufed, what- 
ever was the true Caufe of this Indifpofition, 
or whatever was the Obftruftion to her Health. 
Satan is nothing elfe but Adverfary, and is 
to be underftood according to the Subject to 
which it is applied. Thus Matt. xvi. 23, 
Our Saviour fays to St. Peter, Get thee behind 
me, Satan, thou art an Offence unto me, i. e. 
You are an Adverfary to the Means by which 

God 



( 55 ) 

God intends to erect his Kingdom, and you 
talk as fuch. Peter here is called Satan, 
from his oppofing the Means of the Chriftian 
Difpenfation. And fo to be bound of Satan, 
when applied to an Infirmity , means no more 
than that which was an Adverfary to Health, 
be it what it would. The Woman here, 
feems to be a devout, religious, good, Wo- 
man : She was in the Synagogue before her 
Cure ; and as foon as fhe was cured, fhe glo- 
rified God, Our Saviour bears this Teftimo- 
ny to her, that She was a Daughter of A- 
braham ; by which he meant to commend 
her for her Faith, and good Difpofition of 
Mind. Why then fhould we imagine the 
Devil, or the Prince of Devils, to have 
been in her fo many Years ? Might not 
one have Grounds to think that he would have 
perverted her Mind, and not her Body, or 
have diftorted her Soul, and not have made 
her Carcafe crooked? 

That it was cuftomary for the Jews to ap- 
ply the Term, Satan, to any JLnemy, is plain 
from 2 Chron. xxi. i. compared with the 

2 Sam. xxiv. I. In the former it is faid 

Satan food up again]} Ifrael, and provoked 
David to ?iumber Ifrael. In the latter it is 

faid The Aiiger of the Lord was kindled 

againft Ifrael, and H e moved David againjl 
them, to Jay, Go nwnber Ifrael. Not that 
God moved David to do as he did; for then 
there had been no Fault : but it was fome- 

bodv 



( 5& ) 

body that was an Enemy of the I/raelites in 
the Event. And fo 2 Sam. xix. 22. David 
fays to Abif!:a y What have I to do with you , j£ 
&/Z.T 0/ Tferujah, /&?/ ^ jhould be Satan /a 
jew ? i. e. that ye fhould be fuch deadly Ene- 
mies to me. So here in the Cafe of this in- 
firm Woman, Satan had bound her : whatever 
was the Caufe of her Infirmity, whether it 
proceeded from a natural Caufe, or from fome 
malicious Blow, or any other mifchievous Ac- 
cident, which in the Event proved fo fatal 
to her, the Jews would fay, that Satan bound 
her. Judceis ufitatijjimum erat morbos 

quibus dijlortum eft corpus malis Spiritibus 

attribuere. Lightfoot on Matt. xvii. 15. 

This Cafe then was mere Infirmity : But 
every Inftance of Perfons called Demoniacks 
are Inftances of Epilepfy, or of Madnefs. Thus, 
A5fs viii. 7. The People attended to Philip, who 
caft out unclean Spirits crying with aloud Voice - 9 
i. e. he cured Men that were raving. And fo 
Matt. ix. 3 2, 3 3 . They brought unto him a dumb 
man, pofTeffed with a Devil: and when the Devil 
was caft out, the dumb fpake. Again, Matt. 
xii. 22. They brought unto him One poffeffed 
with a Devil, blind and dumb, and he healed 
him, infomuch that the blind and dumb both 
Jpake and jaw. The Pofflfiion being the fame 
as being mad, the Circumftances which attend- 
ed it mew how the Man was affected. E. g* 
in the Cafe juft mentioned, the Madman was a 

blind 



( 57) 

blind Man, and dumb, either through natural 
Infirmity, or elfe fullen through his Diftem- 
per. And if at any Time a determinate 
Number of Devils are faid to have polTefled 
any Perfon, e. g. Mary Magdalene, out of 
whom went Seven Devils, Luke viii. 2. Mark 
xvi. 9. — The Meaning is, that flie had affirm- 
ed in her Melancholy, that me had fo many 
Devils in her, juft as the Madman faid that 
he had a Legion of Devils in him. This will 
eafily mew us the Meaning of what is faid in 
the Ac7s, c. xix. 13 — 16, concerning the va- 
gabond Jews who took upon them to call over 
them which had evil Spirits the Name of the 
Lord Jefus, faying, We adjure you by Jefus 

whom Paul preacheth. And the Evil Spirit 

anjwered and faid, Jefus / know, and Paul 1" 
know, but who are ye ? And the Man in who?n 
the Evil Spirit was, leapt on them, and over- 
came them, and prevailed againjl them, Jo thai 
they fed out of that Houje naked and wound- 
ed. The mad man fell upon them, and tore 
their Cloaths off their Backs, and wounded 
them. Thefe Vagabond exorcifis pretended by 
certain Charms to cure this Diforder. They 
finding that the Apoftles, endued with fu- 
pernatural Powers from on high, did in 
the Name of Jefus eafily and inftantaneoufly 
cure any Difeafe ; They, I fay, likewife 
pretended to this Power ; and being able by 
their Charms, or Exorcifms, to do nothing, 

I they 



( 53 ) _ 

they differed iuftly the Demerit of their Rafh- 
nefs and Folly. 

It will be worth our while on this Occasi- 
on to coniider a little the Practices of thefe 
vagabond Jews, thefe ftroliir.g Cheats. St. Luke 
here defcribes them as b Strollers, taking upon 
them to expel Devils by the Name of the. Lord 
Je/us. This was a new Trick they had taken 
up : for the ufual Practice among them had 
been to do it in the Name of the God of A- 
hraham, and the God of Ifaac, and the God of 
Jacob. When fuflin Martyr, and Origen, 
fpeak of Jews and Gypjies driving away De- 
vils, they do it as if there was found to be a 
lingular Force or Charm in thofe Words. c 
If you exorcifc, lays Jufin againft Trypho, 
in the Name of any of your Kings, or Jujl 
?nen, or Prophets, or Patriarchs, none of the 
Devils [or Demons] will obey you : But ifi?ideed 
any of you exorcife by the God of Abraham, and 
the God of Ifaac, and the God of Jacob, p?~o- 

babh he will obew However it is obfervable. 

J y i 

d that thefe Exorcifts did not dare to reft the 

Bvent upon the Charm they ufed - y but they 

c Yjc- KUTet jmcmto$ ^oUbXi^- Ttm tFUc fff/tlt yr-'<Sfr;y,S:rurvi f2x<ri~ 
>£6J> r, Oir.uL,c.\ v, ~;o<p >r-u- j K TCCtTttatflQUl t+<sz >.&-< VLOiTq, &;£* VSTa- 
vy.', .-trircit \tn> ran o*..i/*w>m ce.?./. i. uzx. i'cccx.^a tu; b[//&v xutcC 

• :: coat. Tryph p 311. 

~«», Jbi'i. 

had 



(59) 

had Recourfe to Art : they uied Chains to fe- 
cure, as well as ftrong Sce?its to expel the 
Demon out of, the Demoniack. 

Origen feems to impute the whole Cure to 
the mere Sound of the Words which thefe 
Strollers ufed ; and He is of Opinion that the 

Sounds The God of Abraham rightly 

fpoken, were effectual to drive away Devils. 
I fay rightly fpoken : For the Jewifo Strollers 
and the Gyp/ies, were not to ufe the Greek 
Words, nor did they in their Charms : But 
they took Care to pronounce Hebrew Words, 
the better to impofe upon the ignorant People, 
d The Egyptians, fays he, who did not know who 
Abraham was. xet ufed the Words the God of 
Abraham ; and fo they did, Ij'aac and Jacob 
and Ifrael - y and imputed to, and promi/ed great 
Wonders from thole Hebrew Sounds , and 
made it a Part of their Secret. Some- 
times the Jews faid in their Charms, e The 
God of Ifrael, the God of the Hebrews, the 
God that drowned the Ki??g of the Egyptians, 
and the Egyptians, in the Red Sea : And this 

a IlO/lAof TCt)f i~XC6VT61V CTXIUUMXC, yjCtHTX\. CV TUC AOfOJC M.J7-X; Tti x 

S-£C5 A^xxfX/ cxx. 1~:^xu>ko: 01 Tt$ tfiv o A*pzxu*. Tx a 

ccurk >.sx.TiW y^ yrspt rS Icxux, £ 5T*p» t£ Ixk&iZ, ;£ ~*pi ri W:u.*A t 
ceruse ouioXoyXf/u&ac, Evpxtx ovrx oio^xtx 77^X>m'/J6 t«s A.y^r ,a, 
i7rxy,i~A>,e>[/jivoic, dvipyuxv twx cUViTeeprat f/sx&a/xci. Oi;g. C Cell. 

1 I. p. 1^7. 

e O $-£65 t£ IcrpatiA, >£. o 3"£C5 ran Efcpajryy, <c o S-ssc I ^ztx~c:- 
t&xtxc, ov ty, Epufyos S-xs.xc&v, rev Aiyuxli&t Sxai?.iX *£ ry; A;yt r , -. 
Troht.xKis cyoi/jx^iTXi 7>xox>&yj<.xvLioti'&' kcctx ozifAoyaa. J bid. 1. 4. 

p. 184. 

I 2 was 



( 6o ) 

was of mighty Influence againft Demons, as 
Origen tells us, Book 4. p. 184. 

One may well wonder, whence it is that 
fuch impudent Vagabonds v/ith nothing but 
hard Names in their Mouths, fhould be able 
to gull and impofe on fo many as they did. 
But one would more wonder that Men of 
Learning, fuch as Origen was, fhould contend 
for the Power and Efficacy of fuch Sounds 
upon real Diftempers. The Sons of Sceva might 
pretend to caft out evil Spirits by a new Charm 
as they thought - y and they might pretend to 
vye with St. Paid, in the miraculous Cure of 
diftempered Perfons, in the Name of 'J ejus. 
But for Men of Senfe to endeavour to account 
for thefe Practices of Cheats, I mean for Won- 
ders and prodigious Cures done, by Sounds, and 
Charms of Words, and fuch Sort of magical 
Operation, is, methinks, to promote the Cheat, 
and to encourage the World to confult In- 
chanters, and Witches, and Wizards, and Ne- 
cromancers, notwithftanding it is faid fo 
exprefHy, that they which do fuch Things are 
an Ahoinination to the Lord, Deut. xviii. 12. 

The Place where thefe Sons of Sceva pretend- 
ed to caft out Devils by the Name of J ejus, viz. 
Rphefus, puts me in Mind of the Ephefian 
Letters which Plutarch in his Sympofiacs fays, 
f the Magicians commanded Juch as were pojjej- 

f 'Oi Viccyoi T8<; ^xif^ov^cfjoiva^ KiXzvucri rcc Z<pi<nx ypxfAfAxrx 
jrps ec ; jTX<i xxrxAiyuv ^ ovoujaQiv. Plut. SyiDpof Lib. vii. c. 5. 

fed 



( 6i ) 

fed by Devils [or Demons] to read over, and 
pronounce, when they were by them/elves. Ridi- 
culous Words! Senfelefs Sounds! fit to cheat the 
ignorant with! They are of the fame Stamp 
with the famous Abracadabra, or Abraxas, and 
a thoufand others. The Reader may fee the ori- 
ginal Ephefean Words, (for fome Cheats had af- 
terwards added others to them,) in Hefychius, * 
3 Aax.h KoLToLcnth Ai^> Terpcc^, Actfxy afjLinv$, Aujw. 
They are juft fuch Cant Words as now our ftrol- 
ling Gypiies ufe: by'Aoxi they meant Darknefs, 
KctTctcx,* Light, by Ai'£, He; AoLfxvd^nv^ fignifi- 
ed the Sim, and Amov, True; as for Terpen^ it is 
not explained. This will fhew fufficiently, what 
Eufebius has obferved in his Praparatio Evan- 
gelica, Lib. 3. c, 1. That thefe Impoftors 
when they did any thing, h made life of certain 
Charms with unintelligible, inarticulate, and 
barbarous Sounds. 

It is eafy from the Inftances produced to 
underftand any other Cafe which the New 
Teftament Writers mention. Their Demo- 
niacks are much the fame with the Cerriti, 
or Larvati, or Lymphatici, of the antient 
Romans, or with thofe whofe Diforders are 
mentioned by Hippocrates, as coming from 
the Gods. Not that any of the Antients could 

S Evince, ypcc[Jt/[//oiTc6, w [Aiv xuXcti, v^cv <^« 7TfocriQi(rccv riisq 
uz-ccTtavis y^ etXXa,. <pct(noi rm Ttyoirwv rx ovof//urx ra'is. plg-xi, &c. 
Hef)cbius. 

h Mtru rty<&> arr^w xj QxfaptKvis \mi\wu>>^ Euf. Prae. Evan. 
1 3. c. I. 

prove, 



( 62 ) 

prove, that thofe whom they called Demoni- 
acks, or Cerriti, or Larvati, were really pof- 
feded by the Souls of G?m, or Apollo, &c. or 
by the Larva. Thefe Terms might imply an 
Hypothefis originally, in order to account for 
certain Diforders -, but they do not imply the 
Truth of Things. And when once Words are 
applied to fuch or fuch Diforders, every Man 
that fpeaks of fuch Cafes muft ufe the tecni- 
cal Terms, and cannot with any Juftice be 
deemed to approve the Hypothefis, becaufe 
he fpeaks as Cuftom has made it necefTary. 

But againft this way of interpreting the 
Scripture, it is obje&ed 

Firft, that the Scriptures and Eccleliaftical 
Writers make a conftant and a plain Diftinc- 
tion betwixt thefe two things, the curing of 
Difeafes, and the cafting out Devils. Thus 
Matt. iv. 24, They brought to him alljick Peo- 
ple that were taken with diver fe Difeafes, and 
thofe which were pofjeffed with Devils ; and 
thofe which were Lunatick, and thofe that had 
the Palfy. So likewife, Matt. x. 1. He gave 
to the Difciples Power againft unclean Spirits 
io cajl them oat, and to heal all Manner of 
Sickncfs and Difeafes. And Mark i. 34. Our 
Saviour beheld many that were lick of diver fe 
Dijeafes, and cajl out many Devils. And 
thus too Luke iv. 40, 41. All they that had 
any fick with diverfe Di /cafes brought them un-. 
to him ; and he laid his Hands on every one of 

them 



( 6 3 

them and healed them, and Devils alfo came 
out of many crying out a?id faying, Thou art 
Chrijl the Son of God. To all this the An- 
fvver is obvious, 

That what is ufually called PoJfeJJton of De- 
vils, is no more to be diftinguifhed from Dif- 
eafe, or Sicknefs, than the Palfy is, which in 
the very firft Citation from St. Matthew is 
put in the fame Manner as Lunacy is, and is 
contradiftinguifhed from Difeafes. In truth, 
the proper Rendring is, He cured all that were 
taken with diverfe Difeafes, even Demoniacks, 
Lunaticks, and Paralyticks. In the other 
Paffages the Senfe is very clear : He gave the 
Difciples Power over unclean Spirits, and not 
only that Power, but likewife to heal all other 
Diftempers. As to Himfelf, our Saviour cu- 
red the fick, and likewife all Sorts of Luna- 
cy. Lunacy or Madnefs is a Difeafe which 
appears in different Shapes : l Some are merry, 
fome are fad, feme are eafily kept within Bounds, 
and are only mad in their Words ; others are 
furious and outragious, and of thefe fome only 
offend in ufing Violence, others apply Arts, 
and look and a£i as if they were in their Senfes 

1 Alii hilares, alii trifles {lint, alii facilius continentur, et in- 
tra verba defipiunt, alii infurgunt, et violenter quaedam manu 
faciunt, atque ex his iplis alii nihil nifi impetu peccant, alii eti- 
am artes adhibent fummamque fpeciem fanitatis in captandis ma- 
lorum operum occafionibus prsebent, fed exitu deprehenduntur. 
Ctlfui lib. 5. c. 18. 

only 



( 64 ) 

onh to catch an Opportunity of doing Mi/chief: 
Hie Difference betwixt them is difcovered by 
the Event ; as Celfus has rightly obferved. It 
is very hard to cure this Diftemper by natural 
Means ; and fo it is to cure the Palfy : They 
who are afflicted with it k feldom are brought 
to be well again, and generally drag on a mife- 
rable Life, lofmg their Memories : Sometimes 
it is acute in particular Members -, often it is 
a long Dijeafe - y commonly it is an incurable 
me. Celfus lib. 3. c. 27. The Meaning there- 
fore of thefe Paffages is, That our Saviour 
healed all Sorts of lick Perfons; even thofe 
that were mod difficult to cure. 

If it be faid, that the Scriptures not only 
make a Diftinction betwixt curing Difeafes, 
and cajling out Devils ; but likewife in this 
Paflage of St. Matthew betwixt thofe that 
were poftffed with Devils, and thofe that were 
Lunaticks. I might anfwer, 

That "Theophyladl did not read in his Copy 

thofe Words, And thofe which were poffef- 

fed with Devils : And it is plain they are 
wanting in fome MSS. v. Mills in he. In 

fome Copies which have the Words And 

thofe which were poffeffed with Devils — ; — the 
following ones And thofe which were Lu- 

k Raro ad fanitttcm perveniunt, et plerumquc mifcrum fpiri- 
tum trahunt, memoria quoquc aniiiia. In partibus nonnun- 
quam acutus ; fope longus; fcrc inianabilis cit morbus. Ibid. 
1. 3. c. 27. 

naticks 



(65 ) 

natich are omitted. But fay that the 

common Reading is the true one, it amounts 
to no more than this, That our Saviour cured 
all Sorts of Madnejs, whencefoever it arofe, 
whether it were from Melanchply, or from 
any other Caufe. It is objected, 

Secondly, " The Difference betwixt Demo- 
" niacks and Lunaticks is evident from the 
Circumftances relating to the Devils to be, 
or that a&ually were, call out. e. g. Chrifl 
fuffered not the Devils to fpeak, becauje 
they knew him to be the Chrift, Mark i. 34. 
Luke iv. 41. They faid, Thou art the 
Chrift, the Son of God : They expoftulate 
with Chrift, faying, What have we to do 
" with thee ? Art thou come to torment us be- 
" fore the Time ? and pray that he would not 
" torment them : They afk his Leave to en- 
" ter into the Swine ; and being entered, they 
hurried them into the Sea ; and beg that 
they may not be fent out of the Country ; 
They acknowledge that their Name was 
Legion. Now to make all thefe Sayings 
the Effedts of a Difeafe, or to conceive that 
Chrift [poke thus to a Difeafe y is too great 



it 
ci 
cc 

cc 

i( 
cc 



cc 

cc 
cc 
cc 

cc 
cc 

" an Evidence of one that is himfelf Difea- 
" fed." 

As this is the principal Objeftion, I muft 
be more particular in my Anfwer. And 

Firft, It is faid that Chrift fuffered not the 
Devils to fpeak becaufe they knew him to be the 
Chrifl, The plain Meaning of thefe Texts is, 

K that 



( 66 ) 

that he checked the Demoniacks whom he cu^ 
red, juft as he did likewife his immediate Dif- 
ciplcs and Followers, if at any time they pub- 
lickly and openly declared him to be the 
Chrift. It would be foreign to the prefent 
Pnrpofe to confider the Reafon of this Con- 
duct in our Saviour ; and it has been fully and 
fatisfa&orily fhewn by Others. When a pof- 
fejj'ed Perfon, i. e. a Lunatkk x declared Jefus 
to be the Chrift, and with an Unguardednefs 
ufual to fuch Men faid, what might expofe 
him to Danger, and even Death, before his 
Time w T as come, it was right to rebuke them, 
and not to fuffer them to talk in that Manner, 

Again, 'Tis faid, Jefus rebuked the Devils, 
Luke iv. 41. Now to conceive that he Jpoke 
to a Di/ea/e, is abfurd. 

The Anfwer is very obvious ; fince the fame 
Manner of Expreffion, nay the fame Word, g?re- 
•njutyre, is applied to a Di/eaje but two Verfes be- 
fore, which is here applied to Devils, i. e. Madnefs. 
He rebuked the Fever in Peter's Wife's Mother, 
is no harder to be understood, than He rebuked 
Madneji, the one being as much a Difeafe as the 
other. If by rebuking Devils, or Demons, be 
meant, His not fuffering them to fiiy Who he 
was, This has already been confidered. But I 
muft add, that the Romans confidered Fever , 
as a certain Being to which they x built Altars 

Inrvetni flat in Marie Feb' is. Cicero de legibus. 'Va^xH- 
.. It^pcvj luvri. Ckmcvs Protnpt. 'Cjs iv p«pj| jr^i»S P*f*i* 

Jrrimh in Epifr. 1. i.e. 19. 

and 



( 67 ) 

and facrificed. In this Cafe, to rebuke & Fe- 
ver is exactly the fame with rebuking a Devil. 
Each was in reality nothing but a Difeafe , 
and yet each was confidered, and treated as 
if it were a Per/on. 

It is faid, That the Devils cryed out, "Thou 
art the Chriji the Son of God. Anf. If the 
Man that was poffeffed, or mad y made fuch 
Declarations in Confequence of his Diftem- 
per, it may I think in the fame Propriety be 
attributed to the Diftemper, as when St. Paul 
fays, Rom. vii. 17, 20. It is no more I that do it y 
but Sin that dwelleth in me. The Madmen fpoke 
what Fame had fpread : For the Fame of Jefus 
very foon went throughout all Syria, and great 
Multitudes of People followed him from Galilee, 
and from Decapolis, and jrom Jerufalem, and 
fro?n Judea, and from beyond Jordan. Matt. 
iv. 24, 25. Now as this Imprudence, in 
faying what our Saviour's Circurnftances would 
not admit, was the Effect of Diftemper in 
thefe mad men, and the Diftemper was im- 
puted to De?nons, it was not unnatural to 
forbid thefe Demons, i. e. the Men who were 
difordered, to publifh what was fo unfit and 
improper to be publifhed. Wherever Difeafes 
are treated as Perjons, or Virtues or Vices are 
confidered as fuch, it is always ufiaal to fpeak to 
them in perjonal Characters. Thus, not to re- 
peat what I juft now obferved about the Goddefs 
Fever, The Goddefs Fides had a Temple built to 

K 2 her$ 



(68) 

her ; and fee how me is addrefled in Plautus's 
Aulularia, Adt IV. Sc. 2. Eitclio fays, m< Take 
heed, O Faith, and do not fhew any one that 
my Gold is there. And Strobilus hearing him, 
fays, O Faith, Do not you be more faithful to 
him than to me, &c. I mall presently take 
Notice of an Inftance, where That is dire&ly 
imputed to a Devil, which could belong only 
to the Man that was difordered. 

It is added in the Objection, That the 
Devils expojlulated with Chrift, faying, Let 
zis alone, What have we to do with thee, thou 
Jefus of Nazareth : Art thou come to deflroy 
US? I know thee who thou art, the Holy one 
cf God, Luke iv. 33, 34. Mark i. 23 — 26. 
At another Time, They cried out faying, 
What have we to do with thee, Jefus thou Son 
of God ? Art thou come hither to torment us 
before the Time ? Matt. viii. 29. 

In the lirft of thefe Places, I cannot but 
take Notice of a very extraordinary Change of 

m Euclia. Tu modo cave cuiquam indicaffis, aurum meum 
eft ifthic, Fides. 

■ Verum id te quaefo ut prohibeffis, Fides. 
Vide, Fides, etiam atque etiam nunc, falvam ut aulam 

abs te auferam. 
Tuae Fidei concredidi aurum : in tuo luco et fano modo 

eft fitum. 

Strob. ■ ■ Fides, 

Cave tu illi iidelis, quaefo, potius fueris, quam mihi. 

■ ■ per fcru tabor, ft inveniam ufpiam 

Aurum, dum hie eft occupatus : fed ft repperero, O Fides, 
MuJfi congialem plenam faciam tibi fideliam. 

Plaut. Aulul Aft. iv. Sc. 2. 

Ptrfins, 



( 69 ) 

Perfons. The Man which had A Spirit of 
an unclean Devil, fays, Let us alone, What 
have We to do with thee ? Art thou come to 
deflroy U s f I know thee who thou art. And 
Jefus rebuked H i m, faying, hold Thy Peace. 
Would any but a mad man have reafoned 
thus? Had he nothing to do with the Holy 
one of God, who was already fo famous for 
his curing all Manner of Difeafes ? Or why 
is it faid, Art thou come to deflroy Us, fince 
the Man had but One unclean Spirit ? If it be 
faid, that the Word Us, relates to the Man, 
and the unclean Spirit, in what Senfe did the 
Holy one of God come to deflroy the Man ? I 
add 

2. That the Evangelifts fometimes impute 
that to the Caufe of a Difeafe which is proper 
and peculiar only to the Man who is diftem- 
pered : They impute that to Devils which 
the Man alone could do. And therefore if it 
be faid in fome Places, that Devils expoftu- 
lated with Chrift, That may be underftood 
of the Man expoftulating ; jult as when that 
is imputed to Devils which does not, or can- 
not, belong to them. e. g. St. Mark fays, 
c. iii. 1 1. Unclean Spirits when they saw him, 
Fell down before him, and cried, faying, 
Thou art the Son of God. Unclean Spirits 
law him, and fell down! No. The Perfons 
who had the Diforders imputed to unclean 
Spirits did fo. Jufl in the fame Manner as 

Devils 



(?o) 

Devils fall down before him, did they cry out 
or expoftulate with Chrift - y i. e. The Perfong 
v, ho were fo or fo affected did fo. 

It was a Remark made at leaft as long ago 
as the Author of the Queftions and Anjwers to 
the Orthodox ', ufually annexed to Jujiin Mar- 
ty r, * That the Scripture attributes to the De~ 
moniatk the Works of the Demon. The Re- 
verie of this is as true. That the Scriptures 
attribute to Demons the A6ts of the Demoni- 
ack: which fhews, that in thefe Cafes, we 
are not to regard the Letter, but the real and 
exact Meaning of the Sacred Writers. 

To account fully for all the Difficulties in 
the Other PafTage, Matt. viii. 29, and the 
correfponding Places in the Other Evangelifts^ 
is fomcthing more hard. It has been already 
obferved, that when the Man faid, that a 
Legion of Devils was in him, This was nothing 
but the Anfwer of a Madman to our Saviour 
that afked him his Name. It is generally fup- 
pofcd that in this Story, it was the Devils 

which cryed out, Art thou come hither to 

torment us before the Time. But there is no 
Neceffity for this ConftrucYion ; and it is 
plain that both St. Mark and St. Luke expreff- 
ly afcribe this Declaration to the Man himfelf. 
St. Mark's Words are, ch. v. 6, 7, When [the 

X. et Pvcip. ad Orthod. Qux. 41. 

Man] 



( *i ) 

Man] He faw Jefus afar off, he ran and 
worJJjipped him, and cryed out with a loud 
Voice , and faid — — i" adjure thee that thou 
torment me not. St. Luke expreffes himfelf 
in the very fame Manner — — When He Jaw 
Jefus, he cried out, and fell down before him, 
and with a loud Voice faid, What have I to do 

with thee 1 befeech thee torment me not, 

Luke viii. 28. St. Matthew relates this of 
Two Men , and therefore confidently with his 

Narration, he fays -Art thou co?7ie hitter 

to torment U s. The Reafon of the Man's, 
or Men's, making this Requeft, feems to be, 
that they remembred the ill Ufage they had 
formerly met with, when they were bound 
with Chains and Fetters : and confiftent with 
that Notion, they beg of Chrifr. that he would 
not, iScto-otv/crccf, torment, or vex them. Bzvol- 
vio-oli, which we interpret to torment, fignifies 
not only to torment in the way of Punifh- 
ment, or to extort the Truth, but is ufed in 
general in any way to vex, or put to trouble ; 
and figuratively it is ufed in Cafes where it 
fignifies no more than trying any thing as with 
or by a Touchftone. In this place the Senfe 
is plain; The Men who had felt the Pain 
and Anguifh arifing from being fetter d and 
chain'd, defire that Jejus would not put them 
to that Torment again. 

There is another Difficulty in Relation to 
this Story; and that is, It is faid that the 

Devils 



( 72 ) 

Devils bcfought him, that he would not command 
them to go into the Deep, Luke viii. 31. St 
Mark fays, He, that is, the Man, hefought him 
much that He [Jefus] would not fend them away 
out of the Country, ch. v. 10. In fome Copies 

of St. Mark it is that He would not fend 

him, i.e. the unclean Spirit, out of the Country. 
The Lunatick had faid that his Name was 
Legion ; that he had many Devils in him , and 
he had defired that thofe things which he cal- 
led Devils, might enter into the Herd of 
Swine. Thefe were Inftances of exceffive 
Madnefs, and that the Diforder was in a high 
Degree upon him. The Requeft here made 
was another Inftance of the fame Kind, that 
Chrift would not command them to go into the 
great Abyfs. Had he been in a right Mind 
at this Time, would he have defired the 
Company of fuch malicious Beings near him- 
felf, or near his Neighbours ? Or would he 
not have defired them to be fent into the deep, 
or any where elfe rather than continue in his 
Country ? The Hiftory of this Cure therefore 
feems to me to be thus. When This Man, 
who was not in his right Mind, faw Jefus, 
he ran and worshipped him : Jefus upon this 
commanded the Diforder to ceafe : Before this 
ErFecl: was produced, or whilft the Madman 
was before our Saviour, He requefted that Je- 
fus would not command the Devils (which 
were^ as he faid, many that were entred intd 

him^ 



( n J 

him) to go into the Deep., and feeing the 
Swine there, he befought him that he would 
fuffer the Devils to go into Them. This was 
all the Effect of high Madnefs ; and natural 
upon that Suppofition : It was as natural for 
fuch a Man, or Men, to run amongft the 
Herd and drive them down the Precipice; 
And when this Mifehief was thus done by the 
Madmen, could any thing, after they were 
brought to a right Mind, be more natural, 
than for them to defire to be taken along with 
"J ejus, when he left that Country ? 

Another Difficulty in relation to this Cure 
is, That, Matt. viii. 29, The Madmen fay 
to Chrift, Art thou come hither to torment U s 
before the time? When it is alked^ What 
'Time? the common Anfwer is, Before the 
time of the Day of Judgment, until which 
the Evil Angels are referved i?i Chains wider 
Darknejs. 2 Pet. ii. 4. Jude 6. I am apt tcr 
think, that this Paflage may more juftly and 
confidently be accounted for thus. When 
the Men faw our Saviour, ( known fufficient- 
ly thereabouts, and famed for curing all Dif- 
orders) they cried out, Art thou come 2h hi- 
ther, viz. into the Country of the Gergejenes, 
tog} Koupii, ante tempus, i. e. unfeafonably, 
fooner than was expecled or defired, to vex us t 
Or it may be, Art thou come , ° thus } after 



ppoA/poy, Tpa xxips. Hejycb. 

p Qfe, QvTtoc, : s/g t£tov rev rporov, Hsftch* 



this 



( 74 ) 

this manner, untimely, to torment us? In this 
Senfe ^o» Kcupx will be oppofed to h jtaipS, 
or Itc\ x.cLipv r or d$ ncupov, which fignify op- 
portunely, or feajbnably 3 and will be the fame 
as 'zs^cepo?, or ax&lpoos, untimely, unfeajonably. 
But this I fubmit, as I do whatever I have 
faid on this Subject, to the Judgment of the 
candid Reader, who will take the trouble of 
examining and confidering all the Circum- 
ftances of this Cure, which on all imaginable 
Schemes mull be allowed to be attended with 
fome Difficulties. 

A Third Objection is taken from hence, 
That Chrift fometimes puts Queftions to thefe 
Demons, afking their Names : Sometimes he 
commands them to be Jilent : And fometimes 
to come out of a Man, and enter no more into 
him. v. Mark i. 25. Luke iv. 31. Mark ix. 

2 5- 1 

The Anfwer to thcfe Difficulties is eafily 

collected from what has been already faid. 
e. g. He did not afk the Devil, but the difor- 
dered Man, his Name : When the Man faw 
Jcfus, He cryed aloud And Jefus faid un- 
to Him, what is Thy Name. When in St. 
Luke it is (aid, Devils came out of ma- 
ny\ crying out and faying, Thou art Chrijl 
the Son of God; and he rebuking them, fuffer- 
ed them not to fpeak, or to fay that they knew 

him to he the Chrijt, The Meaning is, 

He rebuked the Perfons who had fuch Difor- 

ders 



(75 ) 

ders upon them, when he cured them ; nor 
would he fuffer them to publifh openly that 
he was the Chriji, When it is faid, that Devils 
were commanded to come out of a Man, it is 
the fame Sort of Language with rebuking a Fe- 
ver : which if any one fhould take too rigidly, 
it would imply the Fever likewife to be an intel- 
ligent Being, or a Goddefs as the Romans made it. 
The Meaning therefore of fuch Expreflions is 
no more than, " Be thou cured-, or be free from 
" this Diforder." Thefe Diforders being fup- 
pofed, poflibly, to arife immediately from De- 
mons refiding in, and working upon the Body, it 
was natural enough to fpeak as to them, and to 
command them : Whereas when now thofe 
Cafes are looked upon as proceeding from dif- 
ferent Caufes, the Language muft neceflarily 
be changed, and it muft found harfh to our 
Ears. When the Gods were fuppofed to in- 
habit any Statue, the People made no Scruple 
of addreffing them as in that Statue j they fpoke 
to them in that ; and worfhipped them in 
that ; and implored their Aid from that ; and 
Cuftom made it eafy and familiar to them to 
do fo. But to Us the Language and the No- 
tion being rare, we think it harfh to talk of 
rebuking a Fever, or to fpeak to Demons, 
when we know that the Diforder is owing to 
quite a different Caufe. 

L 2 A Fourth 



A Fourth Objection is, that theft Demonic 
acks were of fuch Strength, that no Chains ox 
Fetters could bind them. Mark v. 3. Nor is it 
poffible for Difeafes to fear to be deftroyed, or 
fent out of the Country ', or into the Abyfs, by 
Chrift, fince this is an Abfurdity that ftrikes 
one at the firft Sight. 

It is eafy to anfwer to this that thefe Ex- 

prefiions, no Man could bind him, no not with 

Fetters, — can mean no more than this, that the 
difordered Perfon had been often bound with 
Fetters and Chains, and he had often broke 
loofe. There needs no {training of Words to 
anfwer this > And as to the other Part of the 
Objection, it is founded upon miftaking the 
Texts, as has been fliewn. 

I know not by what Authority the Author 
of the Quejlions a?id Anfwer s to the Orthodox 
afferts, that m the Demon did not enable the 
Man to break his Chains and Fetters, but the 
Demon himfelf broke them. This is owing to 
an Hypothefis, which has been (hewn fufficir 
ently to be groundlefs. 

But the haft Objection appears to have fome 
Weight in it, viz. Why would jfefus counte- 
nance fuch a Notion as this, if there were really 
no fuch things as Demons, nor Perfons pofieffed 

9 'Ou reo (rarf/jctTi ■xxpi^iv o oxifjj&v mv ^uvxfjuw ?rpo$ to otivx&xt 

cxipuv <rv>tTfi£t xj elifffXTi roe, Ma-px xj txc, aXvcu^ it xj i Sui* 
'/tx<p* t(S ^xtu/ovtmri Tpo(r>j4'i t£ ^xlfJboyd^ Tec *jpy«e. Qucft. Ct 
Refp, ad Orthodoxos. Refp. 41, 

by 



( 77 ) 

by them ? Why would he not rid Men of 
fuch pernicious Opinions, and plainly tell 
them, that thefe PqffeJJtons were nothing elfe 
but Lunacy or Epilepfy, or whatever other 
Name the Diforder had ? 

To this I anfwer, that no Man conceives the 
Defign of the facred Writings to be to corredl 
the Miftakes of Men in Phyfick, more than it 
is in Aftronomy, or any other Art : No nor is 
it its Defign to guard againfl wrong Notions 
of God himfelf. It fpeaks of God in the 
Language of the Vulgar, in a figurative man- 
ner, and fuppofes all Men to have fuch com- 
mon reafonable Notions of him, as not to 
underftand literally what is faid of his Hands 
and Ears and Eyes. It fpeaks of the Motion of 
the Sun, and the Reft of the Earth ; and yet it 
is now univerfally known that that is a ground- 
lefs Hypothefis. And fo here \ It was the mira- 
culous Cure which our Saviour did, the Cure 
of all Sorts of Diftempers, whatever they 
were, and how long foever they had continu- 
ed, which was the thing by which he evinced 
what he was : But as to the Caufe of fuch DiC. 
orders, it was of no Confequence to his De- 
fign to explain them. This was what indeed 
the Philofophers of oldexpedled: They fee k 
after Wifdom, fays St. Paul y i Cor. i. 22. But 
what was foreign to our Saviour's Purpofe he 
very wifely avoided^ content with what would 

prove 



(78) 

prove him to be Chrijt the Power and the Wif- 
dom of God. 

And now to refume the Questions propo- 
fed at firft, the Anfwer to them is very eafy. 
How comes it to pais that we read of fo ma- 
ny Perfons juft at the particular Time of our 
Saviour's Appearance under the Power of De- 
vils ? 

Anfwer. We meet with no more at that 
Time, than we meet with now \ or than were 
in Being at all Times equally, and will be al- 
ways, when their Cafe is rightly underftood. 

^ Whence is it that we fo rarely meet 
with Accounts of the fame Diforders amongft 
Men, either before •> or after, the Times of 
our Saviour ? 

A. The Instances produced of Perfons fup^ 
pfed to be poffefled by the Gods, fhew that 
there were always fuch like Cafes in the 
World. The Philofophy of the Antients 
was entirely groundlefs in thefe Matters -, and 
now their Language, founded on their Hy- 
pothefes, is made the Foundation of the pre- 
sent Confufion in Men's Minds. 

5^, Whence was it that God permitted fo 
much Power to fuch unclean Spirits, who 
feem to delight in doing Mifchief ? 

A. God did not permit in Fact any fuch 
Power as is imagined to unclean Spirits : nor 
was there any Initance of unclean Spirits ha- 
ving 



( 79 ) 

ving fuch Power over the Bodies of Men, when 
the Cafe comes to be examined thoroughly. 

^ What then were thofe PoJJejfions which 
are fo frequent in the New Teftament ? 

A. They appear all to be fuch Cafes of 
Madnefs, or of Epilepfy, as all the Antients 
agreed in imputing to their Gods, or Demons. 
The New Teftament Writers made ufe of the 
Terms and Language ufual in their Times : 
And as the Hypothefes they then had in Phi* 
lofophy equally ferved the Purpofe of our Sa- 
viour in his great Defigns, as the very exadteft 
Truth would have done, it had been to no 
Purpofe for him to have engaged in Difputes, 
or to have oppofed the received Notions. His 
Caufe would not have been in a better Way ; 
nor would the Caufe of the One God in Op- 
pofition to Idolatry ; or of Religion and Vir- 
tue in Oppofition to Vice, have been better 
promoted, by refuting the Demonology then 
received, than by ufing the common ordinary 
Language: it was enough that our Saviour 
{hewed a Power over all that was before Him, 
and cured the Difeafes with a Word, which 
to every body elfe were incurable* 



FINIS. 



: ^ 



A N 



■4/ 



ESSAY 

Towards Vindicating the 

LITERAL SENSE 

O F T H E 

DEMONIACKS, 

IN THE 

New Teftament; 

In anfwer to a late Enquiry into the 
^y Meaning of them. *OjS 



'E$-eapxv tov (TOLJctvav ug d<r^'7rrjv etc r£ i&vx 
Treo-Gvja,. Luke x. 18. 



LONDON: 

Printed by J. Bettenham, 

And Sold by J, Roberts, near the Oxford- 
Arms in Warwick-Lane. Mdccxxxvii. 



t 3 3 



A N 



ESSAY 

Towards Vindicating the 

LITERAL SENSE. 

Of the Demoniacks in the 
New Testament, &c. 



T is, no doubt, a very commendable Em- 
ployment, and a very ufeful Defign, W 
endeavour to clear up the Difficulties of 
Scripture s to let in Light to any of its darkPaf- 
fages, to folve the Doubts, and anfwer the Ob- 
jections, which may have been raifed, concern- 
ing them. And it is as unqueftionably our Du- 
ty to receive fuch Interpretations, as contribute 
moft to thefe Ends, 5/ nufquam occulta ejfet 
Scriptural non te exerceret. For thefe,. as well 
as other Reafons ? God might pleafe to leave 

A a fome 



[4] 

fome Difficulties in the Sacred Writings, to ex- 
ercife our Diligence in enquiring, and to try our 
Honefty, in adhering to what, upon Enquiry, 
appears beft. 

It is more to be defired, than expected, to be 
able, in every Cafe, to hit on an Interpretation, 
which is perfectly fatisfa£tory, and which leaves 
no juft room for any farther Contention. 
There are Places capable of feveral Senfes, for 
all of which a great deal may be faid; and yet 
not one of them raife in the Mind fo full an 
Affent, as to put an end to all Doubt. Here, it 
muft be reaibnable to examine carefully each 
Meaning, to weigh impartially their feveral 
Difficulties and Advantages, and receive that, 
which, on the whole, we find attended with 
feweft Objections, tho' it may not be free from 
all Where we cannot come at abfolute Cer- 
tainty, we muft be content w T ith the beft Light 
we can get, and embrace what appears molt 
probable. This will often happen in our Study 
of the Scriptures , of thofe Parts of them, which 
do not immediately relate to Articles of Faith, 
or Rules of Life. 

In general, I believe it muft be allowed, that 
the Prefumption lies on the Side of the literal 
Meaning of any Book, This will ever firft oc- 
cur to the Mind of the Reader, and feems to 
claim his Attention, unlefs it be contrary to any 
allowed Principles, inconfiftent with the rea- 
foning in the fame Place, or with the clear Senfe 
of the fame Book in any other part. Indeed, 

if 



(5) 

if common Sentiments be not at all intelligible, no 
one wants an Excufi, for varying from them, 
Enq. p. 43 ; and we are at liberty to feek out 
for, or even to gnefi at, another Suppolition 
which is fo. And if this Suppofition he alfo 
rational, we are obliged to receive it. But there 
is a wide difference between a Meaning s being 
entirely unintelligible, and its being attended 
with Difficulties. Our Ignorance of the Reajbn is 
no fort of Argument againft the FaSi. There are 
few Truths, which we can perfectly account for. 
Tho' therefore the plain literal Meaning mould 
have fome Difficulties, ftill it may ftand, and 
thefe not be confiderable enough to difprove it. 
I own, if another Senfe can be found out clear 
of all fuch, or, which has much fewer and light- 
er, on the Comparifon, it is to be chofen. But 
the Letter ought always to be adhered to, where 
the Difficulties are equal, and much more, 
where they are greater on the Side of the Fi- 
gure. 

I am led into thefe Reflections by reading a 
late Tract, entitled, An Enquiry into the Mean- 
ing of Detnoniacks in the New T'e '/lament. The 
Author, or * Authors of which have, with 
Learning and Ingenuity, with Serioufnefs and 
Modefty, endeavoured to remove and to clear up 
a Difficulty, which is faid naturally to arije in 
\ 

* I mention this, merely, became the unufual Number of ini- 
tial Letters in the Title-Page may denote feveral Hands concern- 
ed. For the future, I beg leave to fpeak of the Author, or to ap- 
ply to him, in the Singular. 

mojl 



( 6 ) 

tob/t Mens Minds, upon reading the Cures done 
b\ our Saviour on fuch. (Pref.) I am fo far a 
Friend to Freedom of Debate, that I think, En- 
quiries made in fuch a Temper and Spirit, well 
deferve the Attention of the Publick, and the 
Confideration of ferious and thinking Men. 
And I flatter my felf, that this Gentleman has 
the fame regard to Liberty, and will excu feme,, 
if I make ufe of it, to examine his Reafons, and 
to differ from his Sentiments. 

The Difficulty was raifed by the truly pious 
and learned Mr. Mede, and is in effect this. If 
the Demoniacks were really Perfons pojfejfed by 
Devils, whence came it to pafs, that we hear of 
them in no other Nation or Age, but in Judea, 
and there too, about the Time of our Saviour's 
being on Earth, only ? And farther, that then 
this was not looked upon as any ftrange or ex- 
traordinary Thing ? In order to avoid this, Mr.- 
Mcde imagined, that by Demoniacks in the 
New Te/lament, we are not to underftand Per-* 
fons properly pof/e/Jed, but fuch as were afflicted 
with ibme particular Diftempers, which the 
World, milled by Prejudices, looked upon as 
proceeding from Demons; fuch as Madne/s, 
the Epihpj.\ and fuch like. This Scheme the 
Author of the Enquiry has proceeded upon, o- 
pened at large, and applied to the mod remark- 
able Cafes of this fort in the New Tefiament. 
And indeed, it effectually deftroys the general 
Difficulty, and puts an end to all the Wonder 
which can arife from thence. But the Queftion 

is, 



( 7 ) 

is, Whether it be not liable to other Difficulties, 
more in Number, and harder to be got over ? 
The common Sentiment here is very intelligible^ 
and ought therefore to keep its Ground againft 
any Conjectures, which may be offered in its 
room, if thefe are not lefs exceptionable. 

Before I go farther, it may be proper to tefti- 
fy my Satisfaction in this Gentleman's Reafon- 
ing, in his Preface ; where he fays, that " the 
' c Caufe of Chrift is not affected " by this Dif- 
pute. " For" on both Suppofitions, " a real 
f* Miracle is done; the Perfon affected is cured ; 
fC and the Evidence arifing from Miracles for 
" the Truth of Chriftianity is equally ftrong. " 
But then I muft add, and I believe this Author 
will agree with me, on a View of what I mall 
advance, that if it be true, we have an additio- 
nal Evidence of our Religion. So that, by hi§ 
Scheme, our Faith is not hurt, by the com- 
mon one, it is neceffarily confirmed. 

The better to compare both together, and to 
range what I have to fay in fome Order, I pro- 
ceed to conlider them diftindtly ; and, in exa- 
mining his Interpretation, will, firft, view what 
he has urged in Defence of it, and then propofe 
fuch Objections,, as occur to me, againft it. 

The Enquiry, Pag. 2. begins with fome Ob- 
fervations about the general Notion of Demons 
among the ancient Greeks ; which I can't think 
to the prefent Purpofe of fettling the Meaning 
of the Demoniacks in the New Tefi anient. For, 
however indifferent the Ufe of the Word zW* 

am 



(8) 

fim might be among thofe, yet ActtpcvtGv in Scrip- 
ture^ always, when defigned to {hew theOpinion 
of the facred Writers, ufed in abadSenfe, and ap- 
plied to the Devil, or to Idols, as has been obfer- 
ved by Criticks ancient and modern*. It is there- 
fore probable,that this different Acceptation of the 
Word will and muft occafion a peculiar Accep- 
tation of that derived from it ; and that we can- 
not have any Light from the general Senfe of 
Aaipav among the Greeks, to determine the 
Senfe of ^atpovityfAmi in the New c Teftament. 

Indeed this Gentleman tells us, P. 4. that 
" this Notion of Demons, that they were the 
Souls of fuch as once had lived upon Earth, 
is fo univerfally allowed by Jews and Chri- 
flians, as well as Heathens, that fcarce any 



* To Ce/fits, who pleaded, that Demons, as well as Gods, de- 
fended from Heaven for the Service of Men, Origen anfwers, 

bX CfUV, OTl TO 7&)V 0<X-{[SjOV&>V OlOfJUCC &9t f//E<TOV iftV, 6)C, TO T&V av^JCO)- 

nuv, Iv tic, rtvtt; fjuiv ciftTci, ti\tic, ai <pxvA.oi SKTIV 1 CCit OS tVf TUt 

<$Xtj\k>V i\u 7« TIOC^VTIFH (TCt)(J!/Ct\<&> OiiVXfAia'V TOtOTtTtXt TO TUV OUtU.0 ' - 

vxv ovefjux, xAxvcvYlav xl 7>t^<r7rctv]av rsq ccv3-get)7rxc, t xj x.x§iAxov\cci 
ttiro r« ©£« y^ 7wv v*zftjfotviojv IttI tu tviot ^uy^x]x. L. C. Ed, 

Cantab, p. 234. 

Nos autem, ficut S. Scriptura loquitur, fecundum quam Chriftiani 
fumus, Angelos quidem partim bonos, partim malos, nunquam, 
vero bonos dacmones legimus. Sed ubicunque illarum literarum 
hoc nomen pofitum reperirur, five daemones, five dzemonia dican- 
tur, non nili maligni fignificantur Spiritus. Aug. de Ci<v. Dei. 
L. 9. c. 19. Twilts Crit. Exam. Part 1. p. 116. H. Stepb. 
Lex. in voce Aa »///&". Warren's An fiver to Plain Account, Part 2. 
} . 7, &c. Vid. etiam Du Frene GloJJ. V. 2. in <voc. Deem. 
Augujl. ubi fupra, acids, that not even the Heathens ever faid, 
Damonem babes, but by way of Curfe, and Reproach. Grotius 
en Matth. iv. 24. obferves, That the Hellenifts ufed kxtyuw in an 
ill Senfe, as the Hebrews did Baal; tho' both originally indiffe- 
rent in their Signification. 

* c one 



(9 ) 

u one will difpute it. " But if he means, that 
this is the proper Notion of the Scripture De- 
mons, I apprehend he is miftaken, and will find 
but few that affirm it. He quotes Jitftin Mar- 
tyr, and Jofephus. As to the former, what 
wonder can it be, that one bred up in the 
Schools of the Platonick Philofophy, fhould not 
be able to get rid of all the Notions he learned 
there, and fhould ftill retain a Prejudice, which 
could have no very ill Confequence ? And that 
the other, to recommend his Hiflories to the 
Heathens, for whofe Sake he wrote them, 
fhould probably have adopted one of their Mi- 
ilakes, and given an Explication of the Word 
Act,i[jtiviov y which they had been ufed to ? How- 
ever this be, it is certain, that this is not the 
Scripture Senfe of this Word , which there de- 
notes either Idols, or Devils. Thus, Pf. xcvi. 
5. jj'dflft St 9~t0i t£)v iBv&v * oatfjLGvtct, The He- 
brew Word is g3^7*Wfc which Lev. xxvi. 1, is 
by the LXX rendered x iL P 07ro ^ Tct y an d which 
is derived from V?8 which fignifies, nothing, 
agreeably to what St. Paul fays, &Tiv stfrahov c* 
KGcpai, 1 Cor. viii. 4. Vid. Rev. ix. 20. That 
the Scripture confiders the Gods of the Heathen as 
Devils, I believe wants no Proof, no more 
than that they were fo looked upon in the Pri- 
mitive Church ; of which more hereafter. 

The next Point propofed to be confidered in 
the Enquiry, is, (Pag. 5.) " Whether" thefe De~ 

* Symmacbus etrfactfxlt. Aquila. Ixirtefof. 

B mom 



( io ) 

mons, or the Souls of departed Men, " had any 
" Powers committed to them over Mankind ? " 
This the Gentleman does not think has been 
Satisfactorily proved, " and imagines, that 
they that attempt to " do this, " muft prove 
with Certainty, that the Heathen Gods and 
Goddefles, Neptune, Hecate, Ceres, Apollo, 
&c. were the real Authors of fuch Actions, 
as were imputed to them." 
Here alfo I am obliged to differ from the Au- 
thor. I can't think it at all necerTary to do fo. 
Upon the prefent Foot of our Debate, it ap- 
pears fufficient to prove, that the Devils, the 
Scripture Demons, had fome " Powers commit- 
" ted to them over Mankind." And this, I be- 
lieve, this Gentleman will not deny. And I 
can't but add, that the general Notion oiPof- 
JeJJions, whether juft or not, feem to imply as 
much. The yews certainly had no Notion of 
Neptune, Hecate, &c. And yet we find the 
Belief of Po[JeJ/io?is as ftrong in them, as in the 
Greeks. How to account for a Belief fo uni~ 
verjally prevailing, will perhaps be difficult ; 
unlefs we, at leaft, have recourfe to fome tra- 
ditionary Account of evil and mijchievous Spi- 
rits fuffered to rans;e about the World. The 
Prejudices and Superftition of the Heathens here 
are owned. I would beg to know, from whence 
they proceeded ? If it be faid, from their Fears, 
the Queftion returns, What gave occafion to 
thefe ? Surely either Experience, or Tradition. 
Men do not ufe to fear what they have never 

ken 



( II ) 

feen or heard of, and what they have noReafon 

to imagine. If their Ignorance of the true 

Caufe of any Diftemper be pleaded as the Rea- 
fon of their afcribing it to their Demons, — This, 
I own, is not improbable, if we firft fuppofe 
them acquainted with the Nature of thefe Spi- 
ri's. But from whence had they this Know- 
ledge? Probably, from what they faw, and 
from Tradition, which being by degrees corrup- 
ted, and mixed with Fable, and like their Pro- 
phecies, obfcuris vera involvem, might come 
to be, what the Heathens efteemed it. This 
however, is offered only as a Conjecture. That 
trie Devils had a ftrici a?id proper Power over 
Men, and that they exercifed this Power under 
the Names of the Heathen Deities, is what the 
Scripture fuppofes, and is all that my prefent 
Argument requires. 

The Author of the Enquiry next obferves, 
Pag. 6, 7. that fome particular and extraordinary 
Diftempers " were imputed directly to their 
" Demons." He firft mentions the Epilepjy, which 
was thence called lues deijica, and morbus Jacer. 
And from Hippocrates he {hews, that fome 
Quacks pretended to cure it by Expiations, and 
Magic Charms, P.J, 8, 9, 10. Now, befides 
that this concludes nothing againft the Demo- 
niacks of Scripture, the Sentiments and Lan- 
guage of which can't be fuppofed to have been 
borrowed from the Greeks, we mould take no- 
tice, that this is not one of the Cafes, which 
were generally thought Demoniacal, To go 

B 2 no 



( 12 ) 

no farther than to P. 9. of the Enquiry, we 
find from a Paffage of Arijiceus there quoted, 
that there were feveral Opinions about this Di- 
ftemper, and that this was but one Reafon, (a- 
mong others which he affigns) for its being 
called Sacred. Suppofe then thofe, who gave 
this Reafon, were miftaken in this Particular, 
as I can eafily grant they were — what follows? 
That there were no Perfons in thofe Times 
properly poffejfed, becaufe thefe were by fome 
falfly laid to be fo ? — No furely. — Nay the 
contrary may rather be concluded from hence. 
For if there were no realPoJJ'ejJions, whofe Symp- 
toms or Appearances were known, and with 
which the Cafe of the Epileptick could be com- 
pared, 'tis hardly probable, that any one would 
have thought of reprefenting this as a PofjeJJion. 
Nor can any Thing be drawn from the Im- 
pojlors which appeared then, or from Hippo- 
crates fpeaking with Indignation againft them, 
to prejudice my prefent Argument. That there 
fhould be Cheats, who took hold on the Preju- 
dices of the People, and impofed on their Ig- 
norance 5 and that fo excellent a Phyfician 
fhould difcover and expofe them, both out of 
Kindnefs to the People, and in Vindication of 
his Pro feffion ; there is furely nothing wonder- 
ful in this. We fee the like happen every Day. 
But from fuch Miflakes and Impoftures, the 
Confequence w T ill be only a Pojjibility of other 
Cafes being fuch. We have not yet the leaft 
Proof, that they were actually fo. 

From 



( i3 ) 

From what has been faid, we fee a ready 
Anfwer to the Argument in the two next Pages, 
Enq. p. ii, 12. It is here fuppofed that T'ertnl- 
lian meant by Demons, the Souls of departed 
Men : Whereas it is plain from what we fhall 
have occafion to cite hereafter, that he under- 
ftood Devils, or evil Spirits, which the Gentiles 
worfhipped. And as to the Paffage before us, 
every Word is as applicable to thefe, as to the 
others. * P. 12. proceeds on a like Miftake, 
that Neptune, Mars, &c, can't be proved to 
have fuch Powers as were ufually imputed 
to them." And that " Many of the Hea- 
then Deities, to whom Diftempers were at- 
tributed, were nothing but mere imaginary 
Beings," And therefore that cc in both Cafes, 
a mere Hypothecs is maintained," that thefe 
were the Caufe of fuch Diftempers. But what 
then ? If thefe were " Imaginary Beings," are 
the Devil and his Angels alfo " Imaginary Be- 
" ings ?" Have thefe no Exijlence, or no Power 
over Mankind ? And may it not be fomething 
more than <c a mere Hypothefis," That thefe 
exercifed this Power in fuch a manner, and were 
the Occafion of Difeafes ? Thefe are the only 
Scripture Demons, whofe Poffeffions I am con- 
cerned to defend, and who were the Authors 

* Corporibus quidem et valetudines infligunt, & aliquos cafus 
acerbos ; Arums vero repentinos et extraordinarios per vim ex- 
ceflus. Suppetit illis ad utramque iubftantiam hominisadeundarn 
fubtilitas et tenuitas fua. Alultum fpiritalibus viribus licet, ut 
invifibiles et infenfibiles in effect-ii potius quam in aclu fuo appu- 
reant. tertul. Jpologet. c. 22. 

and 



cc 
cc 
cc 

tc 



(14 ) 

and Objefts of the Heathen Worfhip, under 
the Names of Mars, Pluto, Hecate, &c. -j- 

The Paragraph I am examining concludes 
with the following Rule, which, however plau- 
fible it appears, I cant think univerfally true. 
If we find there is nothing in [any Diftem- 
per] but what may be the EfFed: of mere 
natural Diforder in an human Body, it is ab- 
furd to introduce a Deity into the Affair." 
This is confirmed by that Line of Horace, nee 
Deus inter/it, &c. The Poet certainly proves 
nothing here, as he fpake of a quite different 
Matter. And as to the Rule itfelf, though it 
fhould be allowed to hold in Cafes, where we 
have no Reafon to believe any PoffcJJion, yet 
it cannot hold againft Evidence of Pojjejjions, or 
be fufficient to fet it a fide. Who can pretend to 
an exa£t Knowledge of the Extent of the Power 
of evil Spirits? Who can fay, that they can't 
inflid: even natural Difeafes ? If they can, then, 
tho' nothing more than mere natural Difbiders 
appear, it may not be abfurd to introduce them 
into the Affair. And, if we have fufficient ex- 
ternal Tef limony, that fuch Diforders did pro- 
ceed from them ; in fuch Cafe, it is not abfurd, 



■\ " Recaufe thofe, whom the Gentiles took for Demons, and 
c ' for deified Souls of their Worthies, were indeed no other than 
" evil Spirits, counterfeiting the Souls of Men deceafed, and 
" masking themfelves under the Names of fuch fuppofed De- 
" mons, under that Colour to feduce Mankind ; therefore the 
•• Scripcure ufeth the Name Demons, for that they were indeed, 
" and not for what theyfeemed to be." Mede's Works, p. 635. 
\ id. H. Grot, de Vent. L. IV. Sett. III. 

to 



(i IS ) ' ; 

to introduce them ; or rather, it is abfurd, not 
to introduce them. As Scripture muft be owned 
by Chrijlians to befufficient Tejl'wiony, this can 
be no juft Rule for examining into the Cafes 
mentioned therein. Where this afcribes any 
Diforders to Devils, however * natural the 
Effe&s of fuch Diforders may be, yet the Per- 
fons labouring under them, are to be efteemed 
Demoniacks. 

The firft Inftance the Enquiry, p. 13. gives 
of the Application of this Rule, is that of the 
Epilepfy, the Cafe of which is reaffumed. But 
I need not repeat what has been faid about this. 
We are no way concerned to vindicate the Hea- 
then in any Miftakes. It is acknowledge, that 
They without Grounds afcrib'd this Diftemper 
in general to their Gods. This Hippocrates very 
judicioufly and juftly confuted, by fhewing it 
in general to be ri cLv&q&Tnvov, naturally incide?it, 
to Man. But they gave him no Occafion to 
proceed any farther. Had they affign'd any 
particular Cafes, and been able to produce as 

* That Devils had a Power in thofe Days to inflift Difeafes, is 
owned by Dr. Hammond, on Mat. x. I. xvii. 15. So V Enfant, 
on 1 Cor. v. 5. " Soit mis dans la puiffance du Diable, pour en 
«* etre tourmente, afflige de maladies, & de peines temporelles, 
" jufqu' a 3a mort meme, fi Dieu le permit." Mr. Locke's Opi- 
nion is much the fame, — " Deliver the Offender up to Satan, that 
" being put thus into the Hands and Power of the Devil, his 
M Body may be afflicted and brought down, &c ." On St. PauPs 
Epiji. See alfo Dr. Cave's Primitive Cbriflianity, p. 449. 

" Why may not the Operation of an evil Spirit on the Body 
" create Diflempers, as well as the Operations of many Natural 
" Subftances ?" Difcourfe of our Saviour s miraculous Power of 
Healing, &c. 1730. p. 24. 

4 fufficient 



( 16 ) 

fufficient Evidence, as Scripture is to us, that, 
in thefe, the Diftemper was owing to evil Spi- 
rits; I apprehend, it would not have been fuf- 
ficient for him to have pleaded, that the Effects 
of the Diforder were natural : And he muft, 
notwithftanding this, have admitted fuch Per- 
fons to have been real Demoniacis ; unlefs he 
could have proved thofe Spirits to have had no 
Existence, or no fuch Power. Which, I be- 
lieve, Hippocrates would hardly have undertaken 

to do. 

The Cerriti and Larvati come next to be 
confider'd, of whom the Author treats pretty 
largely, Enquiry, p. 14—19. proving from Plan- 
tus y that Madmen had thofe Titles given them, 
and concluding " That in the fame manner, and 
1 in the fame Propriety of Language, as dif- 
c order'd Perfons among the Romans were \ 
f called Cerriti and Larvati, tho' their Difor- 
4 ders did not arife from Ceres, or Larva - y 
1 Perfons may be called Dcmoniacks, tho* 
c Demons are not the Caufe of their Diftem- 
c pers." p. 19. Were all this granted, I cannot 
fee how it would affedt the Point I am defend- 
ing. The Qncftion is not whether Madmen, 
6cc. may be called Demoniacis ? But whether 
they are the inly Demoniaek , or the Demoniacks 
of the Nc:v ^'/lament f This will by no means 
be allowed to follow from the other. Thus, 
to ufe the feme Inftance, Madmen were called 
Cerriti. But were they the only Cerriti ? 
No Calepin informs us ; that this Word origi- 
nally 



r»7) 

nally figniries : : tormented b\ t \ for the 
Prieils in performing her faered Cere/nonies, 
-*oere fdzci r J.:tb M. And he i'ubioins 

another Inftance very appofite to this Purpofe ■, 
And as from Bacchus w -nes the IVord Baccbam, 
Jo from Ceres that of Cc~:tus *. 

The truth of the Cale, in ihort, is this. 
The Myfteries of the Heathen Gods, ana the 
Ceremonies cf their V." :, were perfor- 

in fuch a disorderly tumulcuous manner, t 
it had much more the I -ance of Madn 

ifosuLReEgion. Hence the Curtom of g 
fame" riiich I from diem:; 

to all Perion?, who, wh for- 

tune, or otherwife, like :r. inner. 

Thus the Word - —me to figliify to 

:A : Tfai Cerr'-tus : T us _-...- 
u:.:.~. l feft Senfe of which is to be 7 . d 

with a Dcron,) * from the furicus Actions 
nfoally >bferv'd in fuch, [ to be uftd : 

tot Thele fecoadary Sen&s men m 

be ittowc ht not to exebde or pre-'u- 

dice the primarv or Intei| ; on 

are • uded, and which 

.indeed they greatly confirm -\- . 

* C: - ■ -"■ 

" - ' .... ... 

Bi:cbo baccharoon didniic, i\z z. Cerere ■ Cmltftmt Z 

-f- Thus alfc b Aotbc ~ 

:f the r 

C T. 



( 18 ) 

Thus alfo Larvatus was ufed for a Madman, 
But from whence arofe this Senfe ? H. Steph. 
in his The/aunts, tells us, from Fejtus, Larva- 
tus, mente mot us y quasi a larvis exterritus. 
This fhould feem to imply, that there had 
been Inftances of Perfons really fo affrighted. 
And I hope I fhall not be thought fuperftitious, 
if I think it probable there were fucn. For if 
the Larva? were indeed, what the Author of 
the Enquiry, p. 16. owns they were imagined 
to be, " mifchievous and wicked Spirits " then 
they were fomething more than Speclres, and 
there is no Difficulty in believing, that they 
might terrify and torment Men. And I am 
confirmed in this Suppofition, by obferving, 
how nearly the Account we have, p. 18. from 
Apukius, of " the ordinary Notion concern- 
" ing thefe Larva*" correfponds with the 
Scripture Account of evil Spirits *. Are 
thofe faid to be puniJJjed on Account of their ill 
Defcrts in Life ? So St. Peter fpeaks of thefe, 
2 i±,p. 11. 4. Qecg ctyyiXocv dfAcLpTinrclvrav xk 
sQc-icctTc. Are they punijhed with a fort of 
Banijhment, always rambling about ? Exactly 
the fame is the Account of the Devil, Jobi. 7. 
1 Pet v. 8. Were they vain Terrors to good 
Men, but to evil Men noxious ? It would he 
needlefs to cite particular Texts to juflify this 

* Propter adverfa vita: merita, nullis bonis fedibus, incerta* 
vagatione, fcuquodam exiJio punitur, inane terriculamentum bo- 
nis hominibus, cxterum malis noxium, hunc plerique Larvam 
peihibenc. Jlpuleim de Dsos Socratit, 

4 Compa- 



( 19 ) 

Comparifon. — — The whole Character of evil 

Spirits in Scripture makes it good. We 

fee then, how probable it is, that the Larvce 
were imagined to be, what they really were ; 
that they were not mere Speclres, but actual 
Beings, whofe Nature prompted them to do 
Mifchief, and who might be permitted, in fome 
Meafure, by the Supreme Being, to do it. Nor 
can it be any Objection to this, that they were 
known by thefe Names 5 that their Natures 
might be a little mifunderftood ; or that they 
gave Occafion to a real Diftemper's being 
called after them. 

As to the vvp4)o}JJ7rToi, or Lymphatici, which 
are mentioned in the Enquiry, p. 19. I find 
great Difference about the origin of the Word. 
We faw that Calepin made them the fame with 
the Ceriti. Hejychius's Interpretation is, Per- 
fons pofj'efsd with the Nymphce, and Prophejying 
wider their actual Influence S: 

Others derive it from the poetical Stories of the 
Nymphs, and from fome, who were reprefented 
as feized by Madnefs, for having feen them com- 
ing out of the Water *f\ Others make it only a 
moft particular fort of Madnefs, when Men have 
fuch a Terror of the Water upon them, that 
they can't forbear plunging into it §. And it has 

\ Dicitur vj(a$i£v furore corripi ob vifam Numphas effigiem, 
feu fpeciem e fonte. H. Stepb. Lex. 

§ Alii autem Lymphatos dici exiftimant eos, qui metu ec hor- 
rore quodam aquae afficiuntur, adeo utfefsepe in earn przecipitent : 
Quos Graci v<Jp*<pe£ys appellant. Ibid. 

C 2 been 



( 20 ) 

been obferved, that Ariftotle applied the Word 
up/pioUt to Mares. So that amidft fuch a Va- 
riety of Interpretations, it may be hard to fay, 
whether any Pcffejjion, ftrictly fpeaking, was 
intended by thefe Expreffions, or not. The 
Gentleman thinks " they plainly meant no- 
" thing but certain Diftempers, and to which 
<c certain Medicines were applied/' And he 
goes on to mention from Pliny feveral of thefe 
Remedies, moft of which indeed are ridiculous 
enough. But from their being fo ridiculous, 
it may be concluded, that fomething more than 
mere Madn /i was conceived to be the Cafe. For 
by far the greateft Part of thefe Medicines are 
equally as unfuitable to this, as to real Pojfef- 
fuau If this be fuppofed, Superjlition will eafily 
account for the Abfurdity of ordering fuch 
things ; fince nothing is fo ridiculous, which 
Superjlition will not lead Men to. But if 
t^efe were only conceivdto becommonDiforders, 
nothing could be more abfurd, than to apply 
fome of thefe Remedies. I will mention only 
one we find, Enq. p. 20, in the Ma?'gin. 
" Nails taken out of a Grave, and fixed into a 
<c Threfhold, were good againft. noBurnasLym- 
: phationes" This has evidently the Face and 
Appearance of a Charm , and could never have 
been thought of, as a Remedy againft Madnejs, 
or any other natural Dijlcmpcr *f\ 

We 

f'MiKh »h? fome may he faid of the Luftratiom mentioned, Enq. 
•>■ li it fhould be here objected, that Charms have been ufed 

to 



( 21 ) 

We have now gone through, what this Au- 
thor has urged about the Notion the Greeks and 
Romans had of Demons, and their Poffej/ions. 
And, I hope, it has been made appear, that 
the Objections he has brought, do not deftroy 
our Belief of fuch, or force us to think all Cafes 
of this Nature mentioned by them to be no 
more than Natural Diforders. Nay, I hope, 
it has been (hewn to be probable, that evil Spi- 
rits exercifed fome Power over the Bodies, as 
well as the Minds ; of Men, among them, and in 
thofe Times. The Certainty of this I might 
now proceed to (hew from the Testimonies of 
fome of their wifeft Men, who can't be 
thought to have wanted Sagacity enough to 
have (etn through the Opinion of the Vulgar, 
if it had been all a Miftake. But this will fall 
more properly under a future Head. At prefent 
I will only mention one publick Inftance, which 
I can't but be furprized the Author of the En- 
quiry has neglected to take notice of; and this 
is that of the Heathen Oracles. The univerlal 
Regard paid to thefe is as well known as any 
Fact whatever. 'Tis impoffible to imagine, 
that the Accounts are all falfe, or that here was 
nothing more than natural Diforders : And 
that the Perfons who delivered them were 
really pofejjed, or proper Demoniacks, I think > 

to cure Difeafes, I anfwer, in the Words of Grotius, in Mat. xii. 
22. A dsemonibus ad morbos rnos tranfiit '. Nor is there any other 
good Account to be given of their Original. And perhaps thefe 
Difeafes mught be then imputed to evil Spirits. See alio Dr. Freina's 
Hilt, of Phyf. V. f. p. 122, 123. 

there 



(22 ) 

there is no room to doubt. The antient Fa- 
thers often rank them with fuch, and ipeak of 
them as actuated by Devils. Thus Jujlin 
Martyr having mentioned feveral Kinds of 
Necromancy and Divination, adds, and Perfons 
Seized and thrown down by the Souls of dead 
Men, who are called by all Aa,i[jLovioAy7rTct 
Demoniach, and Madmen, and what you call 
the Oracles of Amphilochus, and Do dona, and 
Delphi, &c. * So St. Cyprian faid of evil Spi- 
rits, thcfe are they who infpire the Breajls of the 
Prophets, who are the Authors of Oracles, 
who creeping into Men's Bodies, raifefecret 'Ter- 
rors in their Minds, dijlort their Limbs, deflroy 
their Health, and caiife Diflempers \. Arno- 
bius, having mentioned our Lord's Power in 
curing Difeafes, in a pious ftrain of Rhetoric, 
asks, Was He one of us, the Prefence and Sight 
of whom the Devils which had entered into hu- 
man Bodies could not bear, but frightened with a 
new Power, yielded their PofeJJion ? — Whofe 
Name once heard puts the evil Spirits to fight, 
flences the Prophets, and makes the Diviners 

* Ntw>fJuaAuui (Xttv yxp, k} xl uaixQ&o'pvv izxi^ui inoxliv- 
tritfy kJ ^Z^ ¥ ci'fyvxUan Khia-aq, Kj cl Xtycptvoi <mxfx roTq yud- 

yttf o»»»paTo fM7:oi Xj vnxyio^oi iCj el yu^a^ x7roGx*bv]6>* KctfA,- 

QeticfAtioi, *j pi^la/xi'M ectG^axot, «s JaifAoueXijVlifS kJ fAtXlvefxitcv<i t 
Ka*u<n tea MS, x^ tx -CD-tftp' bfjuir XtyofAitx fJt/Xtlux A[A^>i^o^x, t£ Au- 

hmm % *^ UvGSs, K3 oa-x xMxtoixZtx i& Apol. 2. Vid. Ladtan. 
de Orig. Error. 1. 2. c. 16. 

f Hi Spiritus Afflatu fuo varum pe&cra infpirant — Oracula 

efficiunt Irrcpente5etiam in corporibus occuhe mentes terrent, 

membra diftorquent, valctudincm frangunt, morbos laceffunt. 
DcJdolor. Vanit. Ed. Ox. p. 14. 

joolijh ? 



( 2 3 ) 

foolijh * ? Laftantius follows his Mailer in the 
fame Sentiment. Let there be Jet before us one y 
who, it is certain, is pofejfed by a Demon, and 
the Delphic Prieji or Prophet, we Jhall fee them 
both in the fame manner terrified at the Name of 
God -, and Apollo will with the fame hajle de- 
part out of his Prophet, as the Spirit will out 
of the Demoniack -f\ Eufebius is my next 
Witnefs. In his Praparat. Evangelic, we find 
one Chapter with this Infcription, That the 
Heathen Prophecies a?td Oracles proceed from 
evil Spirits \\. St. Augujlin's Teftimony (hall 
clofe this Account. He tells us, that among o- 
ther Things, Apu\ciusal/o refers to the Demons the 
Divinations of the Augurs, Soothfayers, Pro- 
phets, and Dreams §. . 

We fee here the Senfe of the primitive 'Church 
concerning the Gentile Oracles, that the Fathers 
fpoke of thefe as of diabolical PoJfeJJions, attribut- 
ed them, as well as other Demoniacks, to the 

* Unus fuit e nobis, cujus pnefentiam, cujus vifum, gens ilia 
nequibat ferre merforum in viiceribus Daemonum, conterritaq; 
vi nova membrorum pofleffione cedebat ? 5 — Cujus nomen 

auditum fugat noxios Spiritus ? Imponit filentium vatibus? Ha- 
rufpices inconfultos reddit ? Arnob. adv. Gent. L. I . p. 26. 

f Si conftituatur in medio & is, quem conftat incurfum Dae- 
monis perpeti, & Delphici Apollinis Vates, eodem modo Dei 
nomen horrebunt ; & tarn celeriter excedet de Vate fuo Apollo, 
quam ex homine Spiritus ille Dasmoniacus. Lafi. de vera Sapi- 
ent. L. IV. Ed. Spark, p. 399. 

(I L. V. C. 4. (Iff* T4s? fGTOvqfW* JkifAQtm UVUi TU IffCtpot TC~$ tOmci 

$. Inter caetera etiam dicit [Apuleius] ad eos [Daemones] per- 
tinere divinationes Augurum, Arufpicum, Vatum, atq; Som- 
morum. Aug. de Civ. Dei, L. 8. c. 16. Vid. Minuc. FeL 
Qftav. Ed. Lugd. Bat. p. 30, &c. 

fame 



( 24 ) 

^iime evil Spirits, and declared, thatagainft both 
Cafes, the lame Means were equally fuccefsful. 
Whatever Miftakes therefore there might be in 
other Inftances, tho' I fee no Reafon to fuppofe 
fuch in all ; thefe appear to be fuch, as can't 
well be denied, without deftroying the Faith of 
Hiftory, in general. If it mould be afked, for 
what Reafon God permitted the Devils to have 
this Power then ? I know not enough of 
his Divine Counfels to anfwer this, nor am I at 
all concerned that I am not able to anfwer it. 
If plain Facts are to be denied, becaufe we are 
ignorant of the Reafons, why they were per- 
mitted to happen, we (hall, I believe, be obli- 
ged to deny almoft every Thing we hear, or 
fee. 

I now follow the Author of the Enquiry, 
and proceed, as he does, P. 20, to " confider 
^ £ the Jews" and firft, the Inftance of Saul ; 
which he dwells upon fome time, and offers fe- 
veral Confiderations to prove it to be nothing 
but deep Melancholy. Now here it may be 
faid, with Probability, that we are not obliged 
to believe any PoffeJJion, in the Cafe, and that 
the Hiltorv feems to intend no more, than 
that, the evil Spirit, by ordinary Inftigations, 
ftirVed up the Mind of Saul to Envy, Malice, 
and Fury*. Thefe are the chief Effects we 
find mentioned of his coming upon, or affault- 
ing, him 5 and thefe, we know, denote fome- 

* In this manner it is faid, that Satan entered into Judas. 
Luke xxii. 3. Job. xiii. 2, 27. 

thing 



( 25 ) 

thing very different from our Notion of his fei~ 
zing, oxpoffieffing any human Body. 

Or, by an evil Spirit may be meant nothing 
elfe, but the Temper and Affections of his Mind. 
Thus, we read of the Spirit ofWifdom andUn- 
derjianding: And, as this may properly enough 
be called a good Spirit, fo we may as properly 
fpeak of the Spirit of Sadne/s, or Fear, or Rage, 
under the Notion of an evil one*. In this Senfe, 
the Inftance of Saul is very far from being pa- 
rallel to the Demoniacks of the Gcfpel. The 
Language here may be thought not to point 
out to us any Thing more than common, which 
can never be faid of thofe, with the leaft Juftice. 
Since whatever the real Cafe of thefe was, they 
are plainly, and ftrongly reprefented, as actua- 
ted by Devils. 

I mention thefe Interpretations, out of regard 
to fome learned Men, who chufe in one of thefe 
Ways to avoid the Difficulty. But as I think 
this not fo formidable, and as the literal Senfe 
appears moft agreeable to the whole Hiftory, I 
mall, with the generality of Commentators, 
and, as it is faid, with all the ancient Chriftian 
Writers, fuppofe Saul to have been a real De~ 
moniack-y and accordingly go on to reprefent 
what I take to be the true Account of this Mat- 
ter, and then to vindicate it from the Objections 
of the Enquiry* 

* Poflibly the Jews might mean fomewhat like this, when 
they called all kinds of Melancholy, an foil Spirit. 

D Among 



(26) 

Among fome other Predictions, which Sa- 
muel made to Saul on his firft anointing him 
to the Kingdom, we read, i Sam. x. 5, 6. 
that he mould meet a Company of Prophets coming 
down from the High Place, with a Pfaltery, 
and a Tabret, and a Pipe, and an Harp before 
them ; and that the Spirit of the Lordfould come 
upon him, and that he mould prophefy with 
them, and mould be turned into another Man. 
Whatever might be the particular Confequences 
of this Spirit,, whether Wifdom, or Courage, 
or Goodnefs ; it appears pad Difpute, that it 
defended from above \ and was fupernaturally deri- 
ved upon him. We find in thegthandiothVer- 
fes, that this Prophecy was fulfilled. And we have 
Reafon to believe, (yid. ch. xi. v. 6.) that this 
Spirit did not abide continually with him, but 
came to his Support and Affiftance, on fuch 
proper Occafions, as called for it. However, 
it was not long before he difobeyed God, and 
forfeited His Favour : And then we read, (ch. 
xvi. v. 14.) th'dt tie Spirit of the Lord departed 
from Saul, and an evil Spirit from the Lord 
troubled him. The Antithefts in thefe Words is 
very obfervable; the one part tends greatly to 
illuftrate the other. As, by the Spirit of the 
Lord, which he had forfeited, we muft under- 
ftand fome extraordinary Influences and Com- 
munications 5 fo, by the evil Spirit, as oppofed 
to that, what can be meant, but fome uncom- 
mon AfTault of the fpiritual Enemy? Let us 
next obfervc the different Effects of thefe. The 
3 Fruits 



C 27] 

Fruits of the Spirit of God are Love, Joy> 
Chearfulnefs, and Confidence, Thole of the Spi- 
rit of Darknefs, are Envy, Wrath, Terrors, and 
Fears. Thus God fuffered Satan to poffefs 
Saul, afflicting him with divers Difeafes and 
Torments, fuch as Melancholy, Diffraction, 
&c. and driving him to the greateft Exceffes of 
Rage and Diforder. All the Relief he could 
get, in thefe deplorable Circumftances, was 
from Mufick, which often gave him Eafe and 
Refrefnment, and made the evil Spirit depart from 
him-, till his Envy brought him again. Vid. ch. 
xviii. ver. 10, 11, 12. Ch. xix. v. 9. -f- 

This, on a diligent Examination of the whole, 
I take to be the true State of this Story. We 
fee now how Saul was affected. Nothing in- 
deed more than natural Diforders appear. But 
thefe the Scriptures afcribe, not to his natural 
Conftitution, but to an evil Spirit from th& 
Lord, by His Permiffion, * troubling, cr # ter- 
rifying, or *feizing, or * jlr angling him. It 
may be queftioned, whether this his Melancholy 
gave occafion to the evil Spirit to enter into 



ic$*to*. Jofeph, Antiq. L. 6. c. 13. 

* In thefe feveral Ways the ancient Interpreters have ex- 
pounded this PafTage. Vulg. exagitabat cut?t, Cif arripuerit. 
Chaldee Paraph, terrified. Syfiack, vexed, and invaded. So 
the Arabick, LXX cstmvcv, Jofephus, nnypxt "turu kJ *p«/yaA*{ 
iviQipaAot. And how agreeable thefe Actions are to the Nature 
of fuch wicked Spirits, appears from Eufebius's derivation of the 
Word hf^oiv ; ©^a to hwcttuv, oxtp syi <pcZuo% t£ IxQcQiiv, «W- 
jbm*$Thx\ npoS^YflS o^V^. Praep. Evang. L, 4. p. 5. 

D 2 him : 



[ 28 ] 

him* 5 or, whether it was a neceflfary Confe- 
quenceofthe%>/V^GaD, the Author of Joy 
and Chearfulnefs, departing jrom htm ; or, whe- 
ther it was, with the other Diforders, ^ nrft rai- 
fed and occafioned by the evil Spirit. But, 
whether there was any toil Spirit concerned in 
the Affair, for my part, I can make no doubt. 
The laft of thofe Suppofitions is, I think, moft 
confonant to the facred Text, which makes 
all the Diforders of Saul confequential to the 
evil Spirit's coming upon him. And, as was 
obferved before, 'tis very eafy to imagine, that 
the Devil may be permitted by God, to exercife 
a Power of infliding common Difeafes on the 

Bodies of Men. 

Let us now confider what the Author ot the 
Enquiry urges againft this Interpretation. Saul, 
P 22, is faid to prophefi, i.e. " to z& as a 
«< Madman, acTingas the Fates, or Prophets, 
« are ufually defcribed by the Ancients. " All 
this I own, and yet, according to what has been 
faid, he might, ftri&ly fpeaking, have been a 
Demoniac^ And tho' Fates came to fignify 
Madmen, yet it alfo retained its original Mean- 
ing, and fignined Prophets too, both good and 
bad, in the ttueft Senfe. And, from a Sentence 
of Euripides quoted, P. 24, we find the Hea- 
thens had a Notion of a fort of Madnefs, occa- 

* m Dieu permit, qu'il fut agite par un mauvais Efprit, qui 
<« fe fervant de la mauvaife Uifpofition des humeurs de ce 
• Prince, & de (a melancholic, Tagitoit et l'obfedoit." Cornet 
pi:i. in Saul. 

fioned 



(29) 

fioned by Divine Inspiration, SeS irvoeti(ri ip^ar 
vug. And to this only, not to all Madnefs, in 
general, he attributes " a good deal of a pro- 
" phetick Faculty. " His Words are thefe, 
Madnefs has much of a prophet ick Power ; for 
when a powerful God enters into the Bod)\ he 
makes the Madman foretell what is to come *. 

The Gentleman's 2d Obfervation is, cc that 
" the Cure of [Saul] was by a known Method/' 
Here I apprehend the great Objection lies. He 
afks afterwards, P. 26. " What relation has 
" the Sound of a Harp to the Expullion of Spi- 
" rits?" And much the fame, P. 29. Tho' 
there be no direct or immediate Connection be- 
tween thefe, yet we may eafily conceive, how 
one might, in a great meafure, be affected by the 
other. If we fuppofe Saul's Melancholy and 
Diforders inflicted by the evil Spirit ; Hill thefe 
are the fame in kind with other Cafes of this 
Nature, tho' they were different, with regard 
to their Original. And natural Diforders, from 
whomfoever they proceed, may be lerfened, (and 
Said does not appear to have been perfectly cu- 
red) by natural Methods. As therefore " a fkil- 
" ful Muflcian will always comfort and refrefh 
" the [melancholy] Patient:" Saul's Servants 
might eafily chink of this Remedy ; and Mufck 
might naturally raife his Spirits, and chear his 



* To (juurtuffiq fjua.v\t3trn* 7roX)sr,v i%u ' 



Eurfp. Bacch. 

Peart, 



( 3° ) 

Heart, and in fome degree chafe away thofe 
Fears, and that Sadnefs, which the evil Spirit 
had raifed within him. 

2dly> * If we imagine Saul's Melancholy prior 
to his Poffejjion, and that the Devil made ufe of 
the ill Temper of his Blood and Spirits to afflict 
him ; then, 'tis not difficult to be conceived, 
that what contributed any wife to drive away 
fuch Diforder, and to enliven and glad the 
Heart, as Mujick undeniably does, muft, in fuch 
proportion, contribute to difappoint the great 
Enemy of Men's Happinefs, and to relieve 
them from thefe his Torments. Since it is ac- 
tually depriving him of the Means, if I may 
fo fpeak, by which he torments them. But, 

Laftly, what difficulty is there in imagining, 
that Mujick might be propofed to Saul, as one 
way of inviting the Spirit of the Lord to come 
upon him again, and to drive out the evil Spi- 
rit, which had been fuffered to trouble him ? 
Tho' this be not exprefly mentioned in the 
Text, yet neither is it there excluded : Nor 

* Mufica naturaliter pellit melancholiam, qua Daemon ute- 
batur ad cruciandum Saulem. Nullus enim humor hoc oppor- 
tunior eit Diabclo, ut homines vexet, tentet, incitetq; ad mce- 
rorcm, invidiam, iram, de fpe rati one rn. Qunre eo utitur Dae- 
mon (qui per caufas naturales agit) ad homines adigendum in an- 
gores, fcrupulos, odia, caedes. A Lapid. apud Synopf. Critic, in 
i Saw. xvi. i 6. Hac ergo melancholica difpofitione ut gaudet 
Daemon, ita, ea fublata, per accidens & indire&e vel abigitur, 
vel impeditur. Ibid. Mufica quidem nihil poteft in Diemonem 
direile, cum Spiriijjs fit, poteitta men per accidens, quia mitigatis 
affeclibus, per quos in animos noflros Diabolus fe infmuat, etiam 
ipfe pelKtur. X- Bocharl. ibid. 

does 



( 3i ) 

does it feem at all improbable. That the Pro- 
phets, among the Jews, then ufed this Method 
is paft Difpute. Saul himfelf appears firft to 
have experienced the good Effects of this, and 
might therefore be not unwilling to try it a 
fecond Time. Eli/ha, having been ruffled* by 
the Prefence of a wicked King of Ifrae! y takes 
the fame Way of calming his Mind, and of fit- 
ting it for the Reception of the Divine Influ- 
ences. Bring me, laid he, 2 Kings iii. 15. a 
MinJireL And it ca7ne to pajs when the Min- 
flrel played, that the Hand of the Lord came up- 
on him. 

Indeed, it is hard to believe, that ever the 
Spirit of God came upon Saul as before: But 
this is no Proof, that neither he, nor his Ser- 
vants had fome fuch Hopes, and View. And 
tho' it did not pleafe God to grant him any 
more extraordinary Favours, yet he might let 
the Method have its natural Force and Power ; 
or if this was neceffary, enjoin the Devil for a 
Time to leave him. Or thofe about Saul might 
defign no more than the prefent Relief of their 
Mailer ; and at the fame Time think, that, 
what was fo well known to be an Inflrument 
of inviting a good Spirit into Men, might prove 
as effectual in driving out a bad one. There is 
nothing in any of thefe Suppofitions, but what 
is very conceivable. On either of them, the 
Objection of the unfitnefs of Mufick * to caft 

* Chryfofiome calls David** Harp, Axt&c'w Qvythyrmov. 
Ed. Par. 1636. Tom. p. 4,1. 

out 



( 32 ) 

out an evil Spirit, appears fufficiently anfwer- 
ed. And therefore I (hall venture to put down 
Sauk as he is defcribed by the only ancient 
Hiftories we have of his Life, the Scripture 
and Jo/phus, for one true and undoubted In- 
stance of real PqjJeJJion. 

The Author of the Enquiry y P. 30, &c. 
next confiders the Charms, which Jofphus 
mentions ; and which indeed he has great room 
to ridicule and expofe. But ftill this is not e- 
nough to difprove the Fadl in queftion, the re- 
ality of PcJfe[jlons among the Jews *. Nay, 
I think this is rather hereby confirmed. For 
if there had been no fuch Poff'cjfions, 'tis unac- 
countable, whence the general Belief of them 
arofe : And if there had been no fuch general 
Belief, we can never imagine, that thofe 
Charms would have been inven'ed, or have 
been ufed, among them. Whereas, on the 
other hand, we need no longer wonder : Su- 
ferftithn y as has been obferved, will account 
for every Thing of this Nature. It is not there- 
fore neceflary to the Vindication of Demcniacks, 
that we fhould allow every Remedy that was 
pra&iied again ft them: But it is difficult to fay, 
how thefe came to be ever thought on, on 
any other Scheme, than the Supposition of fuch 
Demoniacks, 



* " The Targutn on Pf. xci. 6 " where the LXX is aV. 

Acapnia n/io-»^f«»a, *' numbers Troops of Demons, mong thofe 
" who uiflid Plagues, and Death upon Men." Witby on Luke 
xiii. 16. 

How- 



( 33 ) 

However, Jofephus is not the only Author* 
who gives us an Account of thefe, and of the 
Jewtfh Manners of exorcifing them. We have 
Relations of both as ferious, as his appears to 
be ludicrous, yujiin Martyr feems to have 
made * no doubt that the Devils might be fiib- 
jedt to thofe among them, who would caft 
them out, in the Name of the God of A'ora-* 
ham, and the God of Ijaac, and the God of 
Jacob. *f This we have confirnYd by Irenceus, 
whofe Teftimony is fo ftrong, that I beg leave 
to fet it down at length. All things are Jub- 
jedl to the Name of the Supreme, Omnipo- 
tent Being: By calling upon whom, even 
before our Lord's coming, Men were delivered 
from the mojl evil Spirits, from every Kind 
ef Demons, and from all Apojlacy : Not that 
any earthly Spirits or Devils had ever feen Him $ 
but knowing Him to be God over all, they trem- 
bled at his Name. — For this Reafon, the Jews, 
even to this Day, put the Devils to flight by this 

* The Word "a-aq in the following Citation does not neceffarily 
imply Doubtfulnefs in Juftin. H. Stephens in his Lexicon having 
obferved, that in Arijlotle and others, inter dutn adhiheri locis ubi 
alioaui de re minime dubid agitur. And accordingly Grotius ren- 
ders tkr*t, qjoting this very Place, by Credo, in Mat. xii. 27. 

•j- 'Eocv at Karen izr#/}og o»cf/jCf?i<^ run GJote i/xJv yilivvipfawvy ij ficcd- 

1uy*)<ri]cu a'^sf ruv ^ctif/mviuv. aM' ti cilga, ifypxifyi tU v/aSi kccto6 
tS Q*Q A£pattf.«>, x^ © £ £ la-xetK, *) OiS IcckuG, ''iZflS i7ro]xy^<ri]oci, 

Jj(Jt) fJbi* TOl ol f| VfA/UV fTTCQKlS-Xi T7? TB^VY), WOrXtO H^ TU £#!'>}, ^f«- 

pivot *|«p*i£a<n, >£ ^vf/jtcc fjuoHTi *$ k.cc]x^i<T[JU6tq #p<yy1««, tixot. Juft- 

Dial, cum Trypbon. Ed. Paris, 1636, p. 31 1. Vid. Orig. L. 4. 
€ont. Celf. p. 183, 184. 

E Wrf 



( 34 ) 

very Invocation, becauje every thing fear the 
Name of their Creator §. 

Nay, it is not difficult to colled: this from 
the Ne-ro T'cftament itfelf. When the Pharifees 
aicribed our Lord's Cures to Beelzebub, he 
asks them, by whom then do your Sons cajl 
them out ? Alluding to fomething well known 
among them, and, as I think, moil evidently 
implying, that fuch Miracles had been unde- 
niably performed by the Di/ciples of the Phari- 
fees. For, as to the Suppofition, that by your 
Sons here, were meant any of the Twelve, or 
the Seventy, though it has the Countenance of 
fome very learned Men -, I cannot think it pro- 
bable. Becaufe, our Saviour plainly fpoke of 
fome Cures, which the Pharifees could not 
deny, but v/ere obliged, on their own Princi- 
ples, to admit. Whereas there is but little 
Probability, that they would allow thefe Mira- 
cles, in the Difciples of Chri/l, to be In- 
stances of a Divine Power, any more than they 
did, in * Himfef. St. f crow's Commentary 
on this Verfej appears very juft. " By the 

§ Altiflimi et Omnipotentis appellationi omnia fubjecta 

funt : Kc Hujus invocatior.e, etiam ante adventum Domini noitri, 
falvabantur homines, et a fpiritibus nequifiimis, ft a Dcemoniis 
univerfis, & ?.b apoihfift univcria : Non quaii vidifl'enteum terre- 
ni fpiritus aut Daemones, fed cum fcirent, quoniam eXt, qui eft 

iupcr Omnia Deus, cujuset in vocation em tremebant Er propter 

hoc Judaei ufquc nunc hacipla ndfatione Da?monas effugant, quando 
omnia timeant invocationem Lijus qui fecitea. bena. Adv. haeref. 
L. 2. c. 5. 

' Matth. X. 2C. Et* Tf\> oix.nl Wn-o'lw /3«^£t£«A tKoi^nrctv t tcoVy 
p*>Mv TMt QiX&Kvs aVls ; Vid, Grot, in Mattb, x'u. 27. 

Sons 



( 35 ) 

Sons of the J,ews is fignified either the ufual ex- 
orcifis of that Nation, or the Apo files, who were 
born of their Race. Jf the exorcifls y who call 
out Devils by Invocation of God, then our Lord, 
by a prudent ^ueftion y forces them to confef, 
that His Cures werethe work of the Holy Ghoft. 
For y Jays He y if when your Sons cafl out Devils , 
you afcribe this, not to Devils y but to God, 
why may not the fame Works, when performed 
by me, be imputed to the fame Caufe *f\? We fee 
then, that our Lord fuppofed the Reality of 
fome fuch Cures among the Jews y and fpake 
of them, as he fpake of his own, § without 
the leaft Intimation, that they were only pre- 
tended ones, or that they had no better Foun- 
dation, than the Prejudices of the Pharifees : 
Which I cannot think he would have done, if 
this had been the Cafe. But of this I purpofe 
to fpeak more hereafter. 

There is one feeming Objection againft this, 
which I find very ftrongly urged by a prefent 
very learned Prelate of our own Church, and 
which I therefore beg leave to fet down id bis 
LordfTiip's Words. 

f Filios Judaeorum, vel exorciftas gentis illius ex more fignifi- 
cat, vel Apoilolos ex eorum ftripe generatos. Si exorcittes, qui 
ad invocationem Dei ejiciebant Dsemones, coartat interrog tione 
prudenti, ut confiteantur Spiritus Sancli effe opus. Quod ii ex- 
puliio Dasmonum, inquit, in filiis veitris Deo non Dscmonibus 
deputatur, quare in me idem opus non eandem habeat Caufain ? 
Hieron. Com. in Mat. c. xii. v. 27. Vid. Wbitby, in locum. 

§ Hac voce quid magis portend it, quam in eo ejicere fe, in quo 
etfilii eorum ? In virtute icilicet Creatoris. Tertu/. 

After 



( 36) 

§ After he had mentioned " the Accounts, 
(C given by the feveral Evangelijls of the extreme 
Surprize of the Jews y that were Eye-witne£- 
fes of the feveral Difpoffeffions of evil Spirits 
by our Lord \ which Ajlonijhment of them 
is not capable of any natural Explication, 
on Suppofition that the Difpoffeffion of De- 
vils was an unufual Pradtice among the Jews 
in our Saviour's Time, independently of his 
Authority."— His Lordjhip goes on to obferve, 
it is not eafy for any one that pays a due 
<c Veneration to the Divine Authority of the 
Gofpels to perfuade himfelf, that the cafling 
out of Devils was before cuftomary among 

the Jews It is clear too, that not merely 

the People confider'd our Lord's Difpoffeffion of 
Devils as a new thing, but the Pharijees 
themfelves, as malicious and learned as they 
were, are not found to derogate from thofe 
Facets, as if they were things ufually pra£tifed 
among them, and that confequently gave 
J ejus no peculiar Authority." 
Now I readily own, that fuch Inftances of 
Difpofjefftons were not ufual, or frequent, and 
therefore the Surprize of the Jews is no more 
than natural. As Men are too apt to degene- 
rate into Superftition, the generality of the 
Exorcijls among them depended on Magical 
Charms and Incantations^ the Succefs of which 
we have no Reafon to contend for. The Fa6t 

$ Bifhop Smalbrokes Vindic. of Miracles, &c, V. I. p. 192, &>c 

is 



cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 

iC 

cc 

cc 



CC 

cc 
<c 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 

C| 

it 
tt 



( 37 ) 

is not only certain from Jofephus, if his Autho- 
rity here be worth any thing, but from Ju/lin 
Martyr, who tells us, that they made ufe of 
Arts and Methods, to this Purpofe, in com r 
mon with the Heathens, Vid. Supra. And 
probably, thofe Jewijh Vagabonds, the Exor- 
cijls, mentioned Acls xix. 13. (who, without 
any regard to our Saviour, only having ob- 
ferved the Succefs of St. Paul, prefumed to ufe 
the Name of Jesus, as a Charm,) were of this 
Number. We may therefore fixppofe there 
were very few left, though jbme Chrift feems 
to imply in the forementioned Queftion, who 
called on the Name of God, and thus caji out 
Devils §. And it is not difficult to imagine, 
that thofe who were Eye-witnefles of this Mi- 
racle in our Saviour, might not have feen any 
Inftance of this Power : And then how natu- 
rally does that Speech, // was never Jo feen in 
Ifrael, fall from People in their Circumftances ! 
A little Allowance will ferve to explain this, 
without taking it in the ftricl: and rigorous 
Senfe. 

Not but I believe and allow a real Difference 
between our Lord's Difpofjejjions and theirs, 
which will juftify even this Senfe, and fuffici- 
ently account for that Ajlonijhment of the 

§ Grotius on Mat. xii. 27. gives fome Instances of the Name of 
the God of Abraham being ufed in exorcifms, among the Egyp- 
tians, and O'her Nations. See alio Hammond on Mat. xii. 27. 

N. B. The Enquirer, p. 58. to lefen our Notion of thefe Egyp- 
tians, calls them Gypftes, which 1 think is too low for one of 
his good Senfe, 

Jews, 



(3« ) 

yews, which they exprefled by laying, what 
new Doffr.ne is this ? for with Autho- 
rity commandeth He even the uncle a7i Spirits, 
and they obey Hrr, Mark j. 27. Thefe Words 
plainly point out to us fome Superiority in our 
Lord's Cures, above any they had feen ; 
and this probably confifted in His performing 
them, without any of thofe folemn Invocations 
and Ceremonies, which they Jhad been accuf- 
tomed to, and by His bare Word alone, Mat, viii. 
16. which be the thing denoted by nav 

k^bs<riav, ■■ ' nc.r irza-loui iMclv. But this I 

fubmit to tiie learned Reader ; and conclude 
theie Ren. Ao, io far as they relate to the 
Jews, with the Words of the Right Reverend 
Anther juft now mentioned. — # The Dirpof- 
fefiions of evil Spirits performed by our Lord 
were not only the immediate Effects of one 
commanding Word, by which he extorted 
the plaineftAcknowledgments of His Divinity 
from all manner of evil Spirits— ~ -that were 
difpolTeffed by him with greater Efficacy, 
and in greater Numbers, than was ever 
known before ; but He likewife communi- 
cated the fame Power to others of cajiing out 
Devils in His own Name, and thereby evinced 
that He was that MeJJiah, whom He profef- 
fed Himlelf to be. For fuch Difpofleifions 
" were not only made perfonally by Himfelf, 
<c but by others in His Name, as they are fup- 
" pofed to have been before performed in the 
14 Name of the true God. And confequently 

" the 



( 39 ) 

the Pretentions of Jesus to the MeJJiahjhip 
and Divine Authority, were not only other- 
wife well fupported, but received fome 
fort of Confirmation from the faid Suppo- 
" iition f\* 

And thus at laft we are fallen upon the proper 
Subject both of the Enquiry, and of the prefent 
EJj'ay, the Cafes of the Demoniacks mentioned 
in the New c Teftament. In entring on which, 
p. 35, the Gentleman I am oppofing lays down 
a Rule to which I readily agree, " when we 
meet with plain and eafy Accounts of things, 
we muft make them the Standards or Tefts, 
by which we ought to underftand the more 
difficult Places." And, for the fame Rea- 
fon, jorced and laboured Conductions are ne- 
ver to be chofen without an abfolute Neceffity, 
being very feldom the true Senfe of the Au- 
thor. I mould now examine the Inflances he 
mentions as plain and eafy, and fliew that no- 
thing can be collected from them, in favour of 
his Scheme : But it may be necefiary firft to 
obviate a Pretence or two, which may lye in 
our way, and the Error of which has been 
fully {hewn. " Demon in none of the Inftances 
already produced fignifies what we in En- 
gli/Jj call Devil." And, p. 38. " a Devil or 
Demon, for fo it is always to be read." In no 
Scripture Inftance, it fignifies what this Gentle- 

* Ibid. p. 197, 198, 

3 man 



(.C 

cc 



( 4-0 ) 

man particularly means by Demons *, the Sotils 
of departed Men -, but, always, where it is put 
for any Beings at all, it is ufed, in the Opinion 
of the facred Writers, for Devils properly fo 
called. " The Epilepfy and Madnefs were the 
u peculiar Diforders attributed to the Gods. " 
That Madnefs in general, every kind of Madnefs, 
was attributed to the Gods, or that the Epilepfy 
was univerfally, and by all, fo attributed, has 
not yet appeared, but rather the contrary. — 
Thofe, who were called Cerriti, or Larvati, 
or Lymphatici, and were fuppofed to be af- 
fe&ed by, or to be under the Dire&ion or 
<c Influence of Demons, were all in their de- 
cc gree mad. " P. 38. Thefe have been feverally 
confidered. And it appears, that they were not 
common Madmen, but were aduated by De^ 
vils f. 

The firft Text infifted upon in the E?iquiry, 
P. 36. is Job. x. 20. He hath a Devil \ and is 
mad. Others faid, theje are not the Words of 
him that hath a Devil : Can a Devil open the 
Eyes of the blind? Here this Gentleman owns, 
c< that both Sides took for granted, that that 
<c particular Diforder proceeded from fome e- 
" vil Spirit that poffeffed him. " But, tho* 

* This Notion of the Souls of Men being turned into Devils, 
Dr. Hammond calls a vain Perfuafion. On Matt. viii. 28. 

f This is the Opinion of the great Grotius, who thus explains 
the Word &ouftiOHQ>fx,ve<; t non quovis modo ivfanientes, fed impuro- 
rum fpirituum vi rnajore correptos, atq; agitatos, quales erant 
quos Grasci tvpQo?*^*;, Latini Lcv-vatos, Ceritos, Lympbaticos 
vocabant. In Mattb. iv. 24. 

they 



[4i 1 i 

they were undoubtedly wrong in the particular 
Application to our Saviour ; yet I fee no Reafon, 
why they were not right in the general Senti- 
ment, that Madnefs might be imputed to a De- 
vil. . But here you will fay, the Notion of ha- 
ving a Devil is explained by the following 
Words, and is mad. I anfwer, that it could 
not be the Intention of thofe, who fpoke them, 
to explain them fo, who are acknowledged to 
have believed a real Po/JeJJton. Neither could 
this be the Deiign of the Evangeli/l, who had 
the fame Prejudice, and that, fo far from be- 
ing removed by our Lord, that it was confirm- 
ed by him. Nor indeed do the Words imply 
fo much. Nay, from this very Text, a late 
learned and excellent Critick has thought, that 
to have a Devil, and to be mad, were two di- 
ftinB Cafes, with both which the Jews charged 
our Lo?~d % But mould we allow the utmoft 
that can be collected from hence, that every 
Demoniack was mad, the Notion of real Pof- 
fejjions would remain the fame. Madftjs may 
be here reprefented as one Attendant, or Sign, 
or Effect of fuch Poj[cJjion\ but it will not there- 
fore follow, that it was the whole of it -f. Both 
facred and prophane Writers fpeak of Madnefs 

* Mr. Tiuellii Critical Examination, Sec. Part I ft. P. 97. 

-j- To fjt,xivio!% igitur pro efFectu potiris in ^</»«k^u&0 habere 
dam eft, quam ut iotus ille flatus mania conftitifie exittimetur. 
Wolf. Cur a Pbilolog. Thus alfo Tertullian makes this Madnefs 
to proceed from the Devil, Compar exitus furoris Cff una ratio eft 
inftigationis. Apqlo^et. XXIII. So Minutiui Fel. Ed. Lugd. 
Bat= p. 39, . 

F very 



C 42 ] 

very frequently, without the leaft intimation of 
a Demon °, which fhews, that, as fiich, it was 
looked upon as a common T>iforder, and nothing 
more ||. To confirm what I have faid, I fhall 
add the Words of an Author of great Learning 
and Judgment. " The Truth is, that the Jews 
reckoned this one fort of Madnefs, and the 
worft fort , but they diftinguifhed between 
this, and what we properly call Madnefs, a- 
rifing from fome Diftemper of the Body: So 
that tho' they called all Perfons poffeffed by 
the Devil, by the Name of Madmen, yet 
" thev did not <nvt to all Madmen the Name 
C£ of Perfons thus poffeffed: And they diftin- 
<c guifhed very rightly in the Cafe.," &c. §. 

We faw before many parallel In fiances of 
this. The Author of the Enquiry helps me to 
another, P. 22. " The true prophetical Spirit 
" is Rational and Confiftent, the falfe one is all 
cc Tumultuous and Mad." But can any one 
gather from hence, that it was nothing more 
than mere Madnejs ? The Paflages cited from 
Virgil, Lucanj and Euripides, P. 23, directly 
forbid fuch a Suppofition. And the ancient 
Fathers made Raving and Extaiies, one Crite- 
rion of diabolical Poffeffion. I fhall only men- 
tion the Cafe of Montana s, as defcribed "by fome 
Author in Eujebius, " he gave the Advetjary an 
41 entrance into himfelf, and being hurried a- 



|| Afts XXvi. 24. M«tyq riccuhi, x, r, *. 

$ Mitac/es of Je/ui Vindicated, 1729. Part 2d. P. 32. 

" way 



<c 



(43 

way by the Spirit, he began to be feized 
with a fudden PoJJeJJicn and Madnefs — Some 
rebuked him as one actuated bv the DeviL 
and in the Power of the Spirit of Error*." 
As to the Queftion, Can a Devil open the 
Ryes of the Blind? Tho' it may be underflood 
of a Madman, it has much more Force and 
Strength, when applied to an evil Spirit. For 
as the Powers of thefe are limited, the Jews 
might well think this a Miracle fuperior to them, 
and a certain Mark of a divine Authority. Or, 
as they are fubjecl: to God, it might with Rea- 
fon be imagined, that he would not permit 
them to work fo clear and undeniable Miracles, 
as could not but deceive the bell: and moft cau- 
tious of Men. 

The next plain and eafy Text we find P. 37. 
It is j oh. vii. 20. 'thou hajl a Devil, who go* 
etb about to kill thee? " The Meaning of which,'* 
fays this Gentleman, w T as, " thou art mad, fifc. 
" ufing the Caufe, the imaginary Caufe for a 
" vilible Effect, which they conceived natu- 
cx rally to flow from it." But this Interpreta- 
tion is unfiipported by any Proof; and therefore 
i,t will be fufficient to oppofe to it, that of Dr, 
Whitby, which I think more probable, and 
more agreeable to the Occafion of the Anfwer. 

>£ atyn^ws cv xx n io%ri rm t<l 7ix^iK<i<x.<rn ystof/ttivcv s\£«<r»a» — o! p,.y 
w? ir) Ef£^V8|%i»y ;u Jxij/tOvuvTi, >Cj ci %\oC\v& 7rvsv/Jtjx]i unccpwAi — ■ 
UiTtfjum. Hift. Eccl. L. V. c. 16. See Stillinpfleefs Anfwer to 
Q"JTh P- 63, &c. 

F 2 " Thou 



( 4-4 ) 

* c Thou art poffejfed with a lying Spirit? who 
goefh, &c. 

To Ma-th. xi. 18. When John came neither 
eating nor drinking^ they Jay, he hath a Devil. 
I anfwer, <c they looked upon him to be" more 
than "mad," or at leaft they intend. d to repre- 
fent him as PoflcJJ'ed, For refolving not to 
hearken to, or believe him, and riot knowing 
any other Ground of Accufation, they took oc- 
casion from his living in fo peculiar a manner*, 
to throw out a random Reproach, and to repre- 
fent him as a Demoniack. That by this Charge, 
they intended fomething worfe than Madncjs, 
is very clear from St. Mark, iii. 21,22. " When' 1 
J ejus s " Friends" or Relations " heard X)f " his 
gathering Difciples, &c. " they went out to 
" lay hold on him, for they faid, 'cri 'tiffin, he 
cc is bcfide himfelf. And the Scribes which 
<c came down from Jerufalcm faid, in BteXftSxA 
£#«, he hath Beelzebub ." Here we fee a mani- 
feft difference, between thefe two Expreffions. 
Our Lords Friends at that Time no more ap- 
proved of his Actions, than the Scribes did : But 
the former accounted for them in a favourable 
manner ||; the others in the moft malicious one, 

that 

* Perhaps, JobnS living in the Wildcmeh might give them a 
fpecious Qfa&pn. For thus we find St Luke delcribingone cer- 
tn inly thought f'lfjfjfedy Ch. viii. v. 29. »iAay>»1i vV« ry fkipoyos 

tie, ra c iy,\'->- •>'- 

|| There is another Interpretation of the Word *%i%* to be ieen 
jnGrotitt* and Dr. Whitby, which is, that he was faint. But 
this feem.s not to agree with theO'rcumitances of the Slory fo 



cc 
cc 
CC 
cc 
cc 
cc 
<c 



( 45 ) 

that they could think of. The one imputed 
them to Misfortune, the others to the greateft 
Crime. And it is very probable, that they de- 
figned to throw the fame Difgrace, in the fame 
Senie, on the Baptijl, who was alfo an Object 
of their Envy and Hatred ; and confequendy, 
fQ they" did nqt " look upon him to be" merely 
or commonly cc mad." 

Let us next coniider Job. viii. 48—52. " Say 
we not well, that thou art a Samaritan, and 
haft a Devil? Jefus anfwered, I have not a 
Devil, but I honour my Father, and ye do 

dijkonour me Verily, verily, I fay unto 

you, If a Man keep my Saying, he fhall ne- 
ver fee Death. Then faid the Jews unto 
Him, now we know thou haft a Devil, " 
&c. Here again the Gentleman, P. 38, in a 
Paraphrafe reprefents the yews, as charging our 
Saviour with Madnefs. But furely, ifwefhould 
allow, that having a Devil was merely an ima- 
ginary Caufe of Madnefs, yet it was what they 

believed, in the ftrid: literal Senfe -, and there-? 

1 .. 

well as our Translation. The plain Oppcfition between the Ac- 
counts of our Lord's Friends and of the Scribes is alfo here entirely 
loft. And, tho' Chrift had given no fign of Madnefs to raife an 
(Opinion of this, in his Relations, (which was what fwayed the 
learned Doclor to chafe this Interpretation) yet, as St. John in- 
forms us, that it was fome time before His Brethren believed in 
Him, they might be apt to fear fome Diforder in His Head, fVom 
His extraordinary Proceedings ; or, at leajft, when they knew no 
other Way to excufe Him, they might do ic in this Way. 2 Cor. 
y. 13. e£eV>j/x<2» is oppofed to v&.'tyo*~wj. Vide Hammond on 
Mark iii. 21. I can't emit the Reafon Erafmus gives heis 
for the common Senfe, " Id ell agnatorum, [ut comprehenderenc 
eum~| fi quia commota: mentis eife coeperit. 

fore 



( 46 ) 

fore 'tis hard to conceive, that they meant to fay 
no more, than that yon are really mad, when 
they laid, thou hafl a Devil. I therefore fhall 
beg leave to offer another Paraphrafe, more 
confiftent with their Sentiments. ci Can we 
ct be juftly blamed for laying on you thefe Re- 
<c proaches, as fevere as, they are ? After you 
" have fo bitterly accufed us of being the Sons 
<c of the Devil, of doing his Works, and of re- 
c< fufing to hear Gods Words, [See Verfes, 
44, 47] are we not in the right in faying You 
are a Samaritan, an Enemy to our Nation 
and Woifhip, accurfed of God; and that 
you are p r >(Jcj]ed with fome evil Spirit, who . 
puihes you on thus to dishonour God, and 
to build up his own Glory, by the Means of 
yours? The former Accufation our Lord 
thought it not worth his while to reply to 5 
but as this laft might prejudice the Belief of 
his Miffion, he not only denies, but confutes 
it, by anfwering them, that neither his own, 
nor Satan's, but God's Honour alone was 
His End and Aim ; and therefore, fays He, 
you difconour me, by this Charge. However, 
notwithstanding this, I will not leave off 
teaching you, that keeping my Saying is the 
only Means to bring you to Life and Happi- 
nefs, to prevent your jre'mg eternal Death ; 
Vcr. 51. The Jercs, mifunderftanding this 
Speech, and relenting more Chrifi's making 
himfdf fupcrior to Abraham and the Pro- 
fids, who had all died, with greater Con- 
fidence 



<c 
ci 

cc 

CC 

cc 
cc 

(C 
14 

CC 
(C 

€i 

c: 



'(47 ) 

fidence renew their Charge, Now we hiow 
thou haft a Devil : For nothing but his Infti- 
gation and Pofl'effion, could make thee guil- 
ty of fuch intolerable Affurance and Blafphe- 
my, fo far to exalt thy felf above the beft of 
Men in all Ages. In anfwer to this, our 
Lord refers to God, who had honoured Him, 
and confirmed all His Pretentions." 
And indeed, if the Jews had eiteemed 
Christ as a Madman only, 'tis amazing, that 
they would enter into fo long a Converfation 
with Him, and ftill more fo, that they mould 
at laft attempt to/lone Him for Bla/phemy. 'Tis 
fomewhat unufual to deal with fuch unfortunate 
People, in either of thefe Ways. 

To the literal Senfe it is objected, Enq. P. 
38, 39; that the jfeus " had neither/^ nor 
heard any Demon in Him, nor in John the 
Baptifl, and yet inftantly they charge them 
with having one. Whence did this proceed I 
Or why do they fay a Devil, rather than any 
Thing elfe ? They faw indeed what they, 
thought to be Madnefs, and nodding elfe. 
From this viiible Effecl then they prefently 
imagined a Demon, or Devil, to be the Cau/e, 
and therefore charged Him with what they 
did not fee, arguing from the Eff'eB to the 
Caufe! y But what will not Malice and Pre- 
judice prompt Men to ? Is this the only Cafe, 
where a good Perfon has been accufed without 
fufficient Reafon or Evidence ? Can it be denied, 
that the Scribes, &c. were guided by Envy and 
3 Rage 



( 48 ) 

Rage againft our Saviour t Why then mould 
not thefe Paffions have, in them, their ufual 
natural Confequences? And, farther, what could 
they fee in our Saviour, or in "John the Baptijl, 
which could give them the leaft Reafon to think 
either of them Mad? All their Words and Actions 
were thofe of Truth, and Sobernefs. There was 
therefore no fuch vifible EffeB, as the Gentle- 
man fuppofes. In fhort, if they would have 
taken pains to have formed a right Judgment of 
both, they would have accufed neither of being 
Mad, or PoffeJJed: As it is certain, they did 
not take fuch pains, 'tis equally eafy, on this 
account, to believe their accufing them of the 
one, as of the other *. 

I have been the longer on the foregoing 
Texts, becaufe they are the -f plain and eajy 
ones, which the Author of the Enquiry fays, 
P. 39, u will help us to underftand fome o- 
<c thers, which at firh: fight may appear more 
" intricate. " They are, I muft fuppofe, fuch y 
as he thought cleareft in Proof of his Suppofi- 
tion. We have feen, that they are fairly on 
our Side. And therefore I now go on with 

* This Gentleman quotes Dr. Light/- ot, that the Jews attri- 
buted certain great Diforders to tvtl Spirits. If they went too 
far herein, the Ufe I would make of this their Error is, to caution 
ns not only againft it, but againft the other extreme, of attempt- 
ing to bring every Thing down to natural Caufes. 

•j- N. B. I call thefe the plain and cafy ones, purely in compli- 
ance with this Author. For, in fair Conftruclion, thofe Gafes 
are moil />/a«, and mod fit to be made the Standards of Interpre- 
tation, which are related at large, with the greateit Number of 
Ciicumitances. Whereas thefe are the fhonelt. 

more 



( 49 ) 

more Courage to examine fome others, which 
he produces, and thinks ought to be explained 
by thefe. 

And the firft that occurs, is Matth. xvii. 15. 
the Cafe of the Lttnatick, which is handled in 
the Enquiry, p. 39- — r-48. But it is, I think, 
univerfally agreed, that this was Epileptick, and 
fome confiderable Criticks deny that there was 
any Madnefs in it * : Which makes me wonder 
that this Gentleman fhould, on the Strength of 
the Englifh Word Lunatick, and the Ambigui- 
ty of the Greek (rtX<yjt#fopzvog 7 contend, that 
the young Klan was Mad, as well as Epileptkk, 
p. 42, 43. Surely, he cannot but know, that 
the Word cntyvicityfjLevog, is ufed for all Diftem- 
pers, on which the Moon has any Influence. As 
therefore here was no fign of Madnefs : , the bare 
Word will not be fufficient to imply it. If then 
any Thing can be colle&ed from this Place, to 
exclude the Agency of the Spirit ; we muft fay, 
that not " Lunatick and Demoniack" but Epi- 
leptick and Demoniack, " muft be the fame." 

But, (hall we then fay, that this was no more 
than a common Epilepjy '? By no means. All 
the three Evangeli/ls, who relate this Cure, a- 
fcribe it to a Devi/, or dumb Spirit. Many of 

. . . 

* 2t>>7)nxgo(/.ti/us vertunt vulgo Lunaticos : fed alia morbi fpecies 
defignatur, Epilepfia videlicet, five morbus comilialif. Caufae funt 
quae videntur peritiadere : Lunatici enim vulgo lie difti non hr.bent 
fymptomata ilia, qua? Mattb. xvii. 14. Epihpti i astern habent. 
Hi enim faepius in ignem cadunt, &c. Scultet. apud LeJgb Crit. 
Sacr. So alfo Dr. Hammond, in locum. 

G the 



<< 

JC 
(C 

<c 

u 

a 



( 50) 

the ancient Verfions do the fame, not fo much 
as mentioning any particular Diftemper *. In- 
deed, we muft own, that very early the hea- 
then Phyficians were for reducing this Cafe to 
mere Matter and Motion, and for reprefenting 
it as a natural Diftemper. But how does Ori- 
gen exert himfelf againft fuch ? cc Let the Phy- 
ficians," fays he, " difpute about the Nature of 
Things, imagining that here was no unclean 
Spirit concerned, but a bare bodily Difor- 

der. But we, who believe the Gofpel, 

that this Difeafe was vifibly raifed in the Pa- 
tients by an unclean, deaf, and dumb Spirit, 
—-will affirm, that this unclean Spirit watch- 
es the Configurations of the Moon" &c. -f- 
And a Chriftian Phyfician, tho* he defends the 
Pofition, that the Moon has an effect on human 
Bodies, yet allows this Cafe to be Demoniacal, 
and attempts to account for it on this Princi- 
ple[|. 

This 



* Verf. Perfic. Quia Jilium baheo, in quern damonium fotefia- 

tem obtinet, & graviflime laborat, &c. Arabic. Quia cum Da- 

mone ejl y & wexatur *v aide in principiis pleniluniorum. — Verf. jE- 

thio+>. Ma/us Damon frehendit eum, &' murmurave eumfacit. Vid. 

.Walton. Polyglot. 

■4 'IaW fjuir «► $vriohoytiTu<rctv t oct$ /k»ij/$ axx'Sufi ' xtfv/x/X 

ifveti fofjci&vlfq xotrcc To» T07Tov t aAAfls <T6>[A>x]t»e» (Tt/fJt/lcufAcc • . 

ij-bvs £i *i K7 tv Ivuyyt'Kiu ms-tuovltq, on to vto-qf/jx tSto aV» 
irvtv'fJuscTos axecSccpTe, dXccte, kJ xw^» iv roTq Trxfyxtriv dvTo Siupiircti 
t¥ttya'fAttovm——<Pi)<rcp.iv f x> r, A. Origin. Com. in Mattb. Ed. 
Huet. V. 1. p. 311. 

K Pravis Corporis noftri humoribus Dacmones fe immi- 

fcent, & Lunae quadras appofite fequuntur, ut addidti corporali 
fpbftantis, humorum nempe orgafmo, & apparatui morbifico, 



C si ] 

This therefore appears plainly to be an Epi- 
lepjy, occafionedby the Operation of an evil Spi- 
rit The Diftemper, in kind, was natural : Yet 
the Man was properly a Demoniack. It can then 
be no wonder, that this ihould anfwer fo exact- 
ly the Description the Phyficians have given of 
that Diftemper. Nor can it follow from hence, 
that this is all we are to underftand by Pof- 
fejfions. 

The Gentleman, Enquiry p. 34, is " fenfi- 
" ble how difficult it is to account for every 
" Expreffion on thefe Occafions," &c. and in- 
deed on his Hypothefis, he had Reafon to be 
apprehenfive of this. Take the common Sup- 
position, and there will be very little difficulty. 
Why therefore mould we indulge any forced 
and ftra.ned Conjt y c7ures y and only involve our- 
felves k^more Uncertainty ? This, I fear, will be 
the Cdnfequence, if we leave the literal Mean- 
ing, and follow him in his new Criticifms on 
Ver. 2 1 . Howbeit this kind goeth not out, but 
by Prayer and Fa/ling. This St. Mark exprefly 
reprefents as our Lord's Anfwer to that Quefti- 
on of His Difciples, why could not we caft him 
out ? And yet, becaufe St. Matthew mak^s this 
only one part of His Anfwer, and prefixes to it 
a Sentence, importing the Neceffity and Pre- 
valence of Faith, this Author imagines the An- 

multo facilius segrotos divexent, corpora contorqueant, & ani- 
morum falfa imagination in abfurda prxcipitent. Gulielm. 
Ader. de Morbh Evang. Enar. IV. Apud Critic. Sacr. Tom. 9. 
p. 3366. 

G 2 Jwer 



C 52 ] 

fwer flops here, and that, what <c follows a- 
iC bout the Neceffity of Fajling and Prayer, 
<£ may not relate to the Difficulty they propo- 
" fed," P. 45, 46. But if it did not, can we 
think St. Mark would have wrote only this, 
and dropt the whole of fo proper and ufeful an 
Anfwer, to a Queftion of fuch Confequence? 
And what Inconfiftency is there in thefe two 
Conditions, that they can't both <c relate to the 
" Difficulty?" Is Faith, that which qualified 
them to eje£t, Devils ? And, may net Prayer 
and Fa/ling be the Means to procure an increafe 
of Faith ? On the other hand, is it to thefe Du- 
ties, that this Miracle was owing ? And, could 
they be performed rightly without Faith ? Do 
not they derive all their Virtue and Acceptance 
with God from this Divine Principle ? But let 
St. Matthew explain himfelf, Ch.xxi. ver. 21, 
22. Howfoon is the Fig-tree withered away ? 
Jesus anjuered and J aid unto than. Verily I 
fay unto you, if ye have Faith and doubt not, 
ye (hell not only, do this which is done to the Fig- 
tree, but alfo, if ye jh all fay unto this Mountain, 
be thou removed, a?id be thou caft into the Sea ; 
it /hall be d?ic. And all things, whatfoever ye 
(hall ajk in Pk a v i; $ , B E h 1 1 v 1 n g, ye Jhall re* 
t rive. We fee here Faith and Prayer joined to- 
gether, and both made the Grounds of a Pow- 
er to work the moft difficult Miracles. And, as 
for Fajling, we know this is in Scripture re- 
. prefented as an Attendant of fervent, effectual 
. Prayer. But this Gentleman, />. 44, feems to 
4 think, 



(53 ) 

think, that this Fajiing was to be practifed by 
the Patient *. Elfe, to what end is he fo par- 
ticular in giving us the Determinations of the old 
Phyficians, that Fajiing is of Service in Epilep- 
tick Cafes ? 

Now let us confider, what we find urged a- 
gainft the common Interpretation, Enq. p. 46. 
" A miraculous Power was neceffary to cure 
" this Diforder in the Way which Jesus cured 
" it. Is a miraculous Power to be attained by 
<c Fajiing and Prayer? Or cannot a fupernatu- 
€C ral Power cure a Diforder, fuppoling k to be 
cc granted to Men, as it was to the Apoftles, un- 
" lefs they fajl and pray for the Removal of 
" the Diforder ? " The Queftion is not, what 
a Supernatural 'Power can do, or in what man- 
ner it may work Cures ? But^ whether the Au- 
thor of Supernatural Power did not lay down 
thefe Duties, as Conditions neceffary to the at- 
taining it, or to the due Exercife of it ? The 
Gifts of Healing were certainly miraculous Pow- 
ers. And yet we learn from St. James, that 
thefe very Conditions were required, without 
which thofe Powers were not ufed. The Pray- 
er of Faith, Jhall fave the Sick -jr , v. 1 5. — 
" Our Saviour Him/elf did neither fajl nor 
" pray, notwithstanding He cured the Youth." 

* Indeed, p. 46. He denies that Fajiing and Prayer was re- 
quired of the diJiempered?tv(on, in order to his Cure. But itill 
1 am at a lofs to account for all thofe Citations, where Fajiing is 
prefcribed. 

f Vid. Whitby in Loc. 

Thefe 



(C 
(C 

cc 



( 54 ) 

Thefe might be neceflary in the Difciples, tho' 
they were not fo in Him; unleis they could 
pretend to Divine Power, in the iam« j manner, 
that He had it; or unlefs they were as (lire that 
their Faith would never fail. — - But " He mar- 
ges them with Unbelief only, and not with 
neglect of Fajiing and Fraying as the Rea- 
fon, why they did not cure the Diibrder. " 
Tho' Unbeliefs firft and moft plainly charged, 
yet the others follow, and are fufficiently men- 
tioned. " Nor did theDifciples afterwards 

ever faji and pray (that we read of) in order 
to cure any Diftempers, or to caft out any 
Devils!' We read, that St. James exhorted 
Jick Perfons, to call for the Elders of the Church, 
that they might pray over them, and to this he 
encourages them, by promifing, that the Prayer 
of Faith fiall fave the Sick *. At leaft therefore 
they prayed to " cure Diftempers. " And they 
might ufe this Means in cafting out Devils too ; 
for the Silence of Scripture in thefe Circumstan- 
ces, will hardly be allowed to prove the contra- 
ry. Befides, are we obliged to fuppofe, that 
Prayer and Fajiing were immediately neceflary 
before fuch Cures ? Perhaps, they were fo. 
For my own part, I believe them generally to 
have been fo. But the Objection vanishes, if 
we fuppofe them only to have been antecedently 
neceflary to procure, and to keep up, that mira- 

* In this manner is St. Peter related to rz\(e Tab i/ ha to life ; be 
kneeled d<ru.n and %r axed, and turning to the Body, /aid, &c. Adts 
ix. 4u. 

culous 



(55) 

culous Faith, which is the fpecial Gift of Gorx 
In this Senfe, we are fure the Apoftles complied 
with thefe Conditions. Nor can I fee, what 
hinders this Gentleman's thinking, " that our 
<c Saviour gave this Direction to inform His 
" Difciples, that this Faith — was to be fought 
" for by flagrant Devotion, that it might 
" never be wanting to them." This is Dr. Whit- 
by's Interpretation : And fuch a Defign is per- 
fectly agreeable to Infinite Wifdom, and to the 
Occafion of the Direction itfelf. 

The Conjecture of the Phyfician at firft 
View looks ingenious enough, cv arjocrs;^ v^eue, 
in conftant fajting, inftead of ov 7r?o<revxy jL vv\- 
?eia. But Fajiing and Prayer are too often 
mentioned together in Scripture to allow us to 
think of altering the Text, without any Au- 
thority, or Neceffity. Nor will even this be 
an Anfwer, as St. Mark makes this Sentence 
to be, to the Queftion propofed by the Difci- 
ples. 

But this Gentleman choofes to drop his 
Friend's Emendation, and propofes a new In- 
terpretation of his own, which is, cc that the 
Phrafe, by Fajiing and Prayer, is prover- 
bially ufed, and implies great Difficulty only, 
and that our Lord defigned to oppofe to the 
ufual length of Time, and Difficulty of 
Cure, the Speed and Eafe, with which he 
had removed this Diftemper." P. 47, 48. 
As he " refers this to the Reader's Judgment," 
I hope I (hall not give any Offence by declaring 

mine . 



cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 



( 56 ) 

mine ; that it is a ftrained Expofition ; that it 
is hardly to be reconciled with the Relation in 
St. Matthew, and not at all with St. Mark's - y 
and that, if the common literal Senfe be not 
abfolutely unintelligible, there is no room to 
confider, whether one fo foreign mould be 
received. It might have been expected, that 
fo learned and ingenious a Writer mould have 
given us fome Authority, one Inftance at 
leaft from any Author of Credit, of this Phrafe's 
being fo ufed. But this he has not done, and 
I believe would be much puzzled to do. For, 
as to the Proverb, nee prece, nee pretio, it is far 
from fimilar or parallel ; prece here no more 
fignifying what the Scriptures mean by Prayer, 
than pretio does fafiing. We have an EngliJJi 
Proverb, not unlike this Latin one. We fay a 
thing can neither be got for Love, nor Money. 
Words, which carry a very different Idea, from 
a Diftemper not being cured by Prayer nor 
Fajling. 

The next Inftance of a Demoniack we are to 
view, is that mentioned by St. Matthew, St. 
Mark, and St. Luke* with but little Variation ; 
Out of whom the Legion of Devils were calf, 
and fuffered to enter into the Swine. This the 
Author of the Enquiry confiders, p. 48. — 53. 
And indeed, if he can reconcile this to his 
Scheme, I think, we muft be obliged to yield 
up the Point. " For in the Inftance of this 
" Miracle before us, we find, that the Devils 

* Mat. viii. 28. Mark v. 2. Luke viii. 27. 

fpake 



cc 

(C 

cc 

cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 

cc 






( 57 ) 

ic fpake out of the pofleffed Perfons, they were 
" fent out of them, and they entered into the 
fc Herd of Swine : Perfonal Actions as well 
as Speeches are afcribed to them, which can 
never be afcribed to mere Phrenzy and Mad- 
nefs : For had there been nothing more thaii 
Madnefs, then, when it ceafed in the Men, 
it would have had no Influence on the Swine ; 
whereas that, which went out of the one, and 
entered into the other, muft have a diftinct 
Being and Exiftence of its own *." Thus 
are the Circumftances of this Stoty fliortly and 
excellently fiimmed up by a Writer, from 
whom I took the liberty to borrow a Paffage 
before. And if thefe Difficulties can be an- 
fwered to Satisfa£tion, I believe all others may 
be more eafily got over : There being no other 
Account, where the Operation of evil Spirits 
is fo plainly and particularly defcribed. Let 
us therefore examine, what we find objected 
againft the literal Meaning, and what is reply'd, 
in Anfwer to the feveral Queflions, which will 
arife from the whole Hiftory. 

From the Accounts " of this unhappy 
Man," this Gentleman " obferves, ift, 
here was a Perfon not in his right Mind; 
running about naked -, plucking afunder his 
Chains or Fetters - y no one could tame him $ 
— Thefe are all ordinary Symptoms of Lu- 
nacy or Madnefs, &c." I grant, that this 
Demoniack, fuppoiing him really fuch, might 

* Miracles of Jefus Vindicated, ubi fupra. 

H well 



( 58 ) 

well be faid to be not in his right Mind : But I 
deny, that it therefore follows, that he was a 
mere Madman. Enough has been faid already, 
to difprove any fuch Confequence. Nor " are 
" thefe all ordinary Symptoms of" common 
" Lunacy'' Surely, whether Madmen can be 
cured or not ; if once taken, they may be 
bound with Fetters. If they can't be tamed ; 
yet there is no fuch Difficulty in confining them. 
And therefore I think the Author of the Quef- 
tions and Anfwers to the Orthodox, in the 
Works of Jujlin Martyr, had good Reafon to 
attribute this extraordinary Degree of Power, 
which appears in the Inftance before us, not to 
the Per/on pofieffed, but to the Devil himfelf *. 
But we are told, p. 76. " That thefe Expref- 
" fions, no Man could bind him, no not with 
" Fetters, can mean no more than this, that 
" the difordered Perfon had been often bound 
" with Fetters arid Chains, and he had often 
" broke lcofe." Yes, certainly, they may mean 
more, and, in their plain Meaning, <&#mean 
more. And though the Senfe this Gentleman 
gives might take Place, in cafe the literal one 
were unintelligible 5 yet, when there is no fuch 

• $u*ft. XLI. " \i it be the Property of God to give 
" Strength, how could the Devils enable the Man to break his 



«' Chains," &c? We fee, the Queflion fuppofes fome Supernatural 
Power. The Anjhuer is, 'O ru <ruu.u\ taueta-^t* « ^*»/*«» rvf 

of/jfjef*? Xj N hxtfio-o-fit ru ^uryict >£ r*s 
'ham <n»t'rpi£t t£ /iiffao-o-i ru cttrpu x) 
ty-Q ru oetifstuiutli vao<rvfyt rS JW/6cy&» 

Difficulty, 



0t»*[A,ir t wfos to «JWo-0*i cW]ftc«> x^ &xfpi<ro-u> ru ^uryiu xj ruq 
ru; <*' Wn ? u xj if Su* yfxQ 






(59 ) 

Difficulty, there can be no Neceffity to allow 
it. However even here the Obje&ion returns. 
What mere Madmen do we hear of, who, hav- 
ing been often bound with Fetters, and Chains, 
have Strength enough as often to pluck afunder 
the Chains, and to break the Fetters in Pieces f 
It is natural to imagine, that if he had got 
loofe once or twice (as we have known a late 
Inftance of this in one not mad) by the Means 
of human Strength or Art : This could not 
have been often done; and it muft have put 
his Keepers, when once they had got him again, 
upon furer Means to have fecured him effectu- 
ally. 

The Enquirer, p. 50. lays a good deal of 

Strefs on the Obfervation, that the Man, into 
whom ma?iy Devils had entered, is fometimes 
reprefented, " as poflefled by one only Spirit/' 
But, for my own Part, I can't fee, what 
this has to do with the prefent Debate, or what 
real Ufe it can have. By the Evangelijls 
fpeaking fo indifcriminately, we muft fuppofe, 
that they did not imagine it a Point of fuch 
Confequence. Thefe Variations are, in them- 
felves, trifling ; and fuch, as few of the beft 
Writers are entirely free from *. As this is no 
Prejudice to the Miracle, which it was the Bu- 
finefs of the Go/pels to record and teftify 5 fo 
neither is it to-- the 'literal Sen fe of it, which it 

* We have many Inftances of this change of Number, in 
Dm. xii. 

H 2 is 



( 60 ) 

is my Defign to vindicate and fupport. Our 
Queftion is not, whether one or more Devils 
were caft out ? But, whether there were any 
at all? 

But, from hence the Gentleman collects, 
" That this Account of many Devils was no- 
" thing elfe but the Man's Imagination, and 
" not the Truth of Things : For to call out 
t£ one Devil, when a Legion was in him, was re- 
" ally doing no fervice to the Perfon afflicted." 
Still I muft confefs my felf at a Lofs to under- 
ftand, what can be the Purpofe of this Re- 
mark, or what could induce him to make it. 
For was only one Devil called out? But, every 
one of the Evangelijls, when they record their 
being cajl out, fpeak of them in the Plural. 
And St. Mark v. 12. fays, all the Devils be- 
fought Him, &c. How then was " The Account 
" of man •; Devils, not the Truth of Things V y 
How could it have been more plainly fet down, 
even on Suppofition, that it had been the Truth 
of Things ? And I obferve farther, that this is 
fo far from being " nothing elfe but the Man's 
" Imagination," That St. Luke recites it, not 
as the Man's W ords, but as his own Reafon or 
Explication of the Name Legion. For thus 
we read in his Gofpel, viii. 30. And Jesus 
asked him, what is thy Name ? And hefaid Le- 
gion : Becaufe many Devils were entered into 
Him. 

In the 4th Obfervation, p. 51. There are 
two or three Miftakes, which have been evi- 
dently 



( 6i.) 

(Jently confuted already. On the Strength 
therefore of what has been faid, I (hall venture 
to contradid them, and to affert, that " to 
" have a Devil and to be mad is" not <c the 
" fame thing " that ? this Man was" not 
cc confidered merely as a Madman-" and that, 
when he faid his Name was Legion, this was 
not " the Anfwer of a mere Madman" but 
the involuntary Confeflion of wicked Spirits. 

tc Taking him for a Madman, could any 
" thing be more natural, than what pafled ?" 
The Anfwer is eafy. Many Particulars of his 
Conduct have no Relation to Madnefs : And 
others, which might poffibly have proceeded from 
this, are much better accounted for, on theSup- 
pofition of his being a Demoniack. Of this 
lafl Sort we have an Inftance in this Pap;e. " It 
" was — natural for him, confidering him as 
{C a yewy in his mad fit, to ask that the Devils, 
" which were in him, might be permitted to 
<c enter into the Herd of Swine, which he 
<c faw juft before him. The Sight of them 
" Would naturally put the odd Image into his 
" Head." Not to infift upon the learned Dr. 
Lightfoofs Reafons for believing him to have 
been a Gadaren, and not a yew, -f* we will 
fuppofe this a probable Account. But is it not 
more fo, to imagine this a Petition of evil Spi- 
rits ? What can be more fuitable to their Na- 
ture and Difpofition, than a Delight in doing 
Mifchief ? What ftronger Pi&ure can we have 

f Vid. Whitby on Mark v. 2. 

of 



( 62 ) 

of this Temper, than this before us > that when 
they were going to be deprived of the Power 
of hurting Men's Bodies, they defire leave to 
damage them, in their PoJfeJJions? Befidesthe 
excellent Obfervations of Theophylaff on this 
Hiftory, and Dr. Hammond's Reafons for 
Chrift's not forbidding the Confequences, tend 
fo much to the Honour of God's Power, and 
Juftice, and Goodnefs; that they, of themfelves, 
mightily incline us to believe, that Senfe to be 
the true one, from which they are drawn "f*, 

We have alfo in this Page two Pafiages, 
which, I apprehend, are very unnatural and un- 
intelligible, if we take the afflicted Perfon to be 
nothing more than a Madman. The firft is, 
jiis worJJjipping Jesus, and faying, 'what have 
I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God moft 
High ? I bejeech thee torment me not. Now 
thefe Words, if afcribed to an unclean Spirit 
are eafy and plain. The Devils knew him to be 
the Chriji. They knew him alfo to be come to 
deftroy them utterly -, and to have often dif- 
played His Power in cafling them out. This 
muft be granted, if we allow them no fuperior 
Knowledge to Men. But then how natural is 
it for Beings in thefe Circumflances, confcious 
of their Guilt, and feeing their Deftroyer, to 
be apprehenfive of Punifhment? And how 
well do thefe Words exprefs at once their Con- 
viction and Fear? Whereas if we put thefe 
in the Mouth of a mere Madman, there will be 

f See thefe in Whitby, on Mark v. 14. 

this 



(63 > 

this glaring Inconfiftency, that we fuppofe fuch 
a one, in the fame Breath, declare his Belief 
in the true Nature and Bulinefs of our Lord* 
and his utter Ignorance thereof. Which Con~ 
tradition 'tis very hard to imagine even a Mad- 
man guilty of. The firft Part, it is certain, 
betrays no Diforder : Nothing can be more 
confiftent and rational. What Authority or 
Warrant have we therefore to interpret the 
Words, which immediately follow, in fuch a 
Senie, as nothing but the moft exceffive Raving 
can juftify ? Do but take the whole of this 
Cafe. Our Lords Miracles had raifed a Fame 
of him. A Man, who had been long afflicted, 
and who had heard this Fame, and thence 
knew him to be the Chrijl, met Him, fell down 
at His Feet, worjhipped Him, declared his 
Knowledge, and Conviction, and yet in the 
fame Moment, faid, he had nothing to do with 
Him, and begged Him not to torment Him. 
Imagine this Affliction to have been Madnefs, if 
you will. Yet, this was not upon him, when 
he firft met our Saviour. Nor is here the leaft 
Intimation, that it afterwards fo Jiidde?ily feized 
him. He muft be fuppofed at firft to come 
with Hopes and a Defire of being cured : He 
is alfo fuppofed to have heard of our Lord's 
Cures. How could he therefore think of 
being tormented by Him ? How could he 
think, " he had nothing to do with " one, 
whom he had juft owned to be, " the holy One 
of God, who " was already fa famous for 
i His 



(6 4 ) 

His curing all manner of Difeafes.?" Enqi 
p. 69. 

Thefe are Difficulties attending this Suppon- 
tion ; and which I can't but think much harder 
than any, which follow the common Applica- 
tion. Others will appear by and by, when we 
fhall have Occafion to refume the Confidera- 
tion of this Text. 

No lefs hard to account for, if we reject the 
literal Interpretation, is our Lord's Anfwer, 
wherein He gives them leave to go. This is 
clear enough if underftood, -as fpoken to the 
Devils. No Objection can be raifed, but what 
may be eafily anfwered. But the Enquirer 
muft excule me, if I cannot think his Mean- 
ing fo free from it " All this." he tells us, 
p. 52. " is no more than. concerning Himfelf 
" with the fantaftick Humour of a Madman, 
" but humouring him, while he cured him." 
But, in my Opinion, this " is concerning 
" Himfelf with" it greatly. Befides, fuch a 
Comment has no Countenance from the Style 
of Scripture, nor from the Nature of the Cafe. 
Not from the Stile of Scripture, which affords 
us nothing parallel, which never reprefents our 
Lord as directing an Anfwer to no Body, but on- 
ly feeming to anfwer Beings not prefent, in order 
to humour a Madman, who conceived they were. 
- — Nor from the Nature of the Cafe ; there be- 
ing no End or Uie of His thus hu??iouri?ig him. 
This indeed, in the Application of natural 
Remedies, may be fometimcs neceflary to faci- 
litate, 



( 65 ) 

• 

litate the Cure. But Miracles never ftand in need 
of any fuch to forward their Succefs. And there- 
fore we have no Reafon to believe our Lord did 
it here. 

But the Confequence fhews, that this Speech 
of our Lord's was not barely " humouring 
" the Man while he cured him," but that it had 
a real, a-manifeft, and moft furprizing Effect. 
I'he Devils went out of the Man, and entered 
into the Swine: and the Herd ran violently 
down a Jleep Place into the Lake, and were 
choaked. This the Gentleman owns, p. 52. to 
be " the main Difficulty." Let us fee how he 
gets over it. " All this Legion of Devils 
" was nothing but the Madman's talk." — We 
faw before, that St. Luke himfelf confirmed 
this talk, by affigning the Reafon of this Name: 
Becaufc many Devils were e?itered into kirn. 
And we have the Teftimony of our Author 
himfelf, that " all the three Evangelifts agree 
" in telling us, that the Devils entered the SwineT 
How then is this " nothing but the Madman § 
"talk?" To proceed: 

If therefore by any Accident the Swine ran 
down the Precipice, whilft the Man or Men, 
were under Cure, whether drove down, or 
frighted down by the Madmen, this would 
folly anfwer all the Story." No, moft cer- 
tainly it would, not. Whether or no to 

have a Devil, and to be Mad, mean the fame 

Thing; to have a Devil, and to be accidentally 

frighted, will never be allowed to do fo. For 

I then 



<c 

cc 
<< 



( 66 ) 

then it may follow, that, in many Inftances, 
here was nothing but an uncommon Fright, 
and confequently no occafion for any Miracle. 
I would not be underftood to charge the Enqui- . 
rer with intending this Confequence, the con- 
trary to which he has afferted, both in the En- 
trance, and Conclufion of his Piece. And there- 
fore I muft look on this, as a Sign of the Di- 
ftrefs he was in ; and farther, as an Interpreta- 
tion he feems not fatisfied with himfelf. For, 
as if he fufpe&ed it, he immediately offers a- 
nother. 

But fuppofing this Conjecture will not 

fufficiently account for the Expreffions of the 
Evangelifls, I conceive, that there can be no 
greater Difficulty in this Cafe, than there is 
in one Man's Diftemper paffing into another 
Man, &c. " Difeafes communicated by 7/z- 
feblion muft here be fet afide, Madnefs not be- 
ing fuch a one. And other Diftempers can't 
pafs into another Man, but by Supernatural 
Infliction, which can't be pretended to be the 
Cafe here. Let us illuftrate this by the Hiftory 
of Gehazi, to whom the Leprofy of Naaman 
was to cleave, 2 Kings v. 27. Since this is the 
Inftance this Gentleman pitches upon, p. 53, 
and chufes to compare with the prefent Cafe. 
Here the firft Difference that occurs, is, that 
tho' the Lepro/ies of Naaman and Gehazi were 
the fame, in kind, yet they can't be thought 
one and the fame Leprcjy. It did not " pafs from 
the one to the other," nor was it immedi- 
ately 



cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 



C 67 ] 

ately communicated. Whereas, if by Devi 'Is •, 
in the Gofpels, we muft mean Madnefs, it is 
certain, that it was the f elf fame M> adnefs, from 
which the Man was delivered, which feized the 
Swine : Since the fame Devils, which went out 
of him, are faid to have entered into thefe. zdly, 
'The Leprofy of Gehazi was plainly a Judgment 
upon him for his Covetoufhefs, which God was 
not only pleafed to permit , but dire&ly i?jfic~led. 
But, it would be ridiculous to imagine this of 
the Swine -, nor have we fufficient Warrant to 
fay any fiich Thing of the Owners of them. 
And our Lord, by two of the Evangelifts, is 
only faid to have, permitted, or given the Devils 
leave to enter into the Herd. Which implies 
nothing active in our Lord, as Grotius has ob- 
ferved. So that, we find thefe two Cafes very 
different. Nor will the Scripture Account of 
Gehazi 's Leprofy at all help us to " refolve the 
<c Inftance before us," or to conceive how the 
fame Madnefs, under the Notion of Devils, 
could leave the Man and feize the Swine. 

At prefent, I take my leave of this Inftance, 
till this Gentleman gives me caufe to take it in 
hand again, and to confider his Explication of 
fome other Circumftances relating to it, and 
what he has offered in reply to the Argument 
arifing from hence. I now attend him to view 
the Cafe of the Pythonefs, Adh xvi. 16. which, 
P % 53> 54> he fays, " is that of a Perfon that 
<c pretended to tell Fortunes; and engaged the 
" Attention of the People, bv fpeaking inward- 

I 2 " ly. 



C 68 ] 

ly. This was called a Spirit of Divination ■-, 
and when fhe was difcovered, {lie was difa- 
bled from playing this Trick any longer, by 

St. Paul's faying to her, / command thee 

to come out of her. No more was, or could 
be meant, than to put a flop to the Trick 



u 

cc 
U 
cc 
cc 
cc 

<c the Woman ufed. She was not zDemoniack 
M in theSenfe of thofe, that are mentioned in 
" the Gofpels." This is the whole of this Gen- 
tleman's Account, which I can't but think very 
different from St. Luke's. Here fhe is reprefent- 
ed not as a mere Fortune-teller, but as pofjejjed 
with a Spirit of Divination, or, as it is called 
in the Old Tefament, a familiar Spirit ; in the 
manner the Dclphick Pricftefs ufed to be ** 
i dly, We have not the leaft Intimation in the 
Text of any fuch Cheat's being di [covered, and 
therefore this could not be the occafion of what 
St. Paul faid, &c. On the other hand, as the 
Devils in the Go/pel were forced to confels 
Christ, fo this Pythone/s bore witnefs to His 
Difciples. Had fhe been only a Cheat, how fhall 
we account for this Proceeding, which could 
have no other tendency, than to divert the At- 
tention of the People from her ? ^dly, It was 
fo the Spirit himfelf, that Luke defcribes St. 
Paul, as turning and faying, / command thee, 
5cc. And I know not what Warrant the En- 

■ See Hammond and Whithy, in locum. " Python was a 
" Name of the City Deiphos, where Oracies were delivered by 
** the DfviJ.V Hente rn'ipcc nv$u\<>-. •« Hrjjcbius, Suidas, and 
"PLayoiii-.us a^iee in this, that ryfbm 1$ hxpiivtot'p£cBf\(Xat" 

quirer 



( 69 ) 

quirer had to change the Perfon, and to direcl: 
thefe Words of the Apoftle to her. ^.thly, The 
Charge itfelf, / command thee in the Name of 
Jesus Christ to come out of her, and the E- 
vent, he came out the fame Hour, is fo exactly 
the Language of the Go/pels, when Devi Is are 
faid to be caft out, that I think, we can't, with- 
out Violence, underitand them of any Thing 
elfe. The only difference is the addition of 
thofe Words, cv too oyo^i 'i^<r^ KpiTXi which is 
conformable to His Direction and Promife, 
Markxwi. ij. Laflly, there is then no Reafon 
to queftion but fhe was properly a Demoniack, 
i. e. one poffeffed with an evil Spirit, as thofe 
were, that are mentioned in the Gofpels. In- 
deed, in what manner the Devil affliBed her 
we are not particularly told. But that in gene^ 
ral fhe was thus affiicled, St. Paul's Concern 
feems to imply; $ux,7rovviGeis Si o Uct^hoq, jc, t, A. 
This Word denotes Grief, which might arife 
either from Pity or Indignation, the for- 
mer relating to the Woman, this laft to the evil 
Spirit. In this Senfe, St. Luke ufed this Word 
before, A5ls iv. 2. $ia,7rov%[jL£voi $ia to $3cL<rx.etv 

civTcvg tgv Actcv. We fee then here a Woman 

pofleffed with an evil Spirit. This was cafl out 
by the Apoftle, in the fame manner, as others 
are faid to have been. Can this be underftood 
to mean either Madnefs, or the Epilep/y ? Nei- 
ther is pretended. Can it be explained by a 
Power toj do Tricks, and to deceive, without 
fuppofing fome real P off eJJio?i? It does not ap- 
pear, 



( 7° ) 

pear, that the Word was ever ufed in any 
fuch Senfe. Befides, this Account entirely de- 
ftruys the Miracle, and can't therefore be ad- 
mitted. 

Much this fame we find in the Enquiry, p. 
54. of the Women, who had the Spirit of In- 
firmity, and who is faid by oar Saviour to 
have been bound by Satan. u She was never re- 
<c puted a Demoniacky but only to be fo bent in 
" her Body, as not to be able to lift herfelf up." 
This indeed was her Diforder : But if it pro- 
ceed from an Evil Spirit, fhe was a Demoniack : 
And it fiirprizes- me to hear this Gentleman 
fay, " me was never reputed " fuch. What 
the Jews accounted her cafe, we can't fay. 
But the prefent Bifhop of Lichfield has (hewn 
it to he the Opinion of St. Augifiine, of Ader 
and Bartholin? the Phyficians, and of Grotius, 
that an evil Spirit was the i\uthor of this Dif- 
eafe *; He alfo tells us, that Thcothaues Cera- 
ttiws, a Greek Homilijt in the 1 ith Century, 
corrects the Opinion of common Naturalifts, 
and favs, that St. Luke, as skilled in Phy- 
jick, did not impute this Infirmity to mere 
natural Caufes, but to the Influence of an 
evil Spirit in concurrence with them §." To 
theie we may add Dr. Hammond, who para- 
phrafes a Spirit of hifinmty, Luke x'm. 11. 
" A fore Difeafe, inflicted on her by the Devil" 
And Whitby on V. 16. " A Spirit of Infir- 

* Vindicat. of Miracles, V.I. p. 321. — 326. 
S Ibid. p. 338. 

mty 



cc 
C( 
(C 
(C 



( 71 ) 

mity is nothing but an infirm Difpofition or 
Habit, in the Jewiih Phrafeology ; and the 
Chriftian Writers are full of the fame man- 
ner of Expreffions, &c." My Lord cf Lich- 
field is fo ftrong to my Purpofe, that I will 
give the Anfwer in his own Words. " The 
Words, a Spirit of Infirmity, might poffibly 
have been understood, by an Hebraifm, of 
the very Infirmity itfelf, if our Lord had 
not afterwards informed us, that Satan had 
bound, or contracted the Nerves or Sinews 
of this Woman ; and had not thereby 
fhewn, that by thefe Words, a Spirit of 
Infirmity, was meant an Infirmity, or fuch 
a Weaknefs of Body, as bowd it together, 
that was inflicted by an evil Spirit -f*." Since 
therefore this Expreffion, whom Satan hath 
bound, muft determine the Meaning of the 
other, let us fee what the Enquirer fays to it. 
<c —That Word would have been ufed, whatever 

was the true Caufe of this Indifpofition • 

Satan is nothing elfe but Adversary — Thus 
our Saviour fays to Peter, get thee behind 7ne 

tC Satan And fo to be bound of Satan, when 

tC applied to an Infirmity, means no more than 
cC that, which was an Adverfarv to Health, be 
<c it what it would." P. 55. So that by Satan 

f Ibid. p. 317. Exactly in the fame manner fays Grotius, pofTet 
quidem ttviv^x Hebraeorum more pro ipfo morbo accipi, fecun- 
dum ea quae alibi diximus : Sed cum infra aperce dicatur a Satanai 
immuffim hoc malum, praeftat ita intelligi, quomodo nnZpu. a'x«Ao» 
dixit Marcus ix. 17, Damonium quod Ioquendi facultatem impedi- 
ret. In loc. 



we 



( 72 ) 

we are to underftand any Difiemper, or any 
Accident that may cauie it. Bat what one In- 
fiance have we of either of thefe being called 
by this Name ? Satan in general fignifies an 
Adverfary, and the yews applied it to any Ene- 
my. This is no Reafon, that it mull be ap- 
plied in fo lax a Senfe in the Place before us. It 
is certain, that the moft frequent Signification 
of this Word in Scripture is, the Devil ; and 
in the few Places % where it means only an 
Adverfary, it is ft ill applied to Perjbns, and 
never once to Diftempers, Accidents, &c. So 
that the Criticifm I am confidering appears ar- 
bitrary, and without Foundation. And "if, 
in Cafes of fuch Infirmity ', " The yews would 
" fay that Satan bound/ 1 p. 56. 'Tis manifeft - 
from the Quotation out of Lightfoot, that they 
only meant to attribute it to evil Spirits. And, 
that this their Notion was univerfally wrong has 
not hitherto been proved. And at this Diftance 
of Time it muft be hard to prove it. 

But it is farther objected, that " the Woman 
<c here feems to be a devout, religious, good Wo- 
^ man : Siie was in the Synagogue before her 
c< Cure, and as ibon as fhe was cured, (he glo- 
" rifled God. Our Saviour bears this Teftimo- 
" ny to her, thaty/^ was a Daughter of Abra- 



* Our Lord's rebuke to Peter is owned to be one Inftance of 
this Figure. But I fee no Reafon, why i Cbron. xxi. I. Satan, 
ivbo flood up again/} Jfrael, and provoked David to number Ifrael t 
fhould be only " fomebody that was an Enemy of the lfraelites in 
the Event, " fhould not be understood of the Devil. The LXX 
iranflates it hdQoXcc, 

4 ham*, 



( 73 ) 

c < ham ; by which he meant to commend her 
<c for her Faith, and good Difpojition of "Mind." 
I have no defire to detract from this Woman's 
Character. But, in juftice to my Subjedt, I 
can't but obferve, that Grotius gives a quite 
different Reafon for thefe laft Words of our Sa- 
viour, cc becaufe the Name of a Son ovDaugh- 
" ter of 'Abraham was among them in the high- 
" eft Efteem." He refers to fome Places for 
the Truth of this, and then adds, " thislnter- 
" pretation is plainer and truer than their's, 
<c who make them relate to the Faith of the 
cc Woman *," But be it allowed that fhe was 

as goody as this Gentleman will have her, • 

What follows ? That fhe was not bound by 

Satan, literally fpeaking ? What Grounds have 
we to draw this Confequence ? To be delivered 
to Satan was, I own, fometimes a Punijhment. 
But who can fay, that God never permitted him 
then to poffefs and afflicl the Bodies of good Per- 
fons ? Job was one Inftance of this ; and the 
Woman, whofe Cafe we are upon, for ought 
I know, might be another. The Gentleman 
afks, cc Why then fhould we imagine the De- 
vil, or the "Prince of Devils -f, to have been 
in her fo many Years?" I aniwer, we a- 



cc 



* Non contentus hominem pecudi opponere, quod fatis fuerat, 
adjicit filiam Abrahami, quod nomen apud illos in maximo erat 

pretio Haec interpretatio fimplicior & re&ior quam eorum, 

cpxijidem Fasminae fpeclatam volunt. in loc. 

f I know not the Reafon of this Explication. Satan being 
often in Scripture ufed, as a common Name for the Powers of 
Darknefs. 

K fcribe 



( 74) 

fcribe her Diftemper to Satan, becaufe our 
Blejjed Saviour Himfelf has done fo before us. 
If the Reafon be afked for this, / cant tell, 
God knoweth : But one Thing I am fure of, 
that, as He permitted it, this was not without 
the higheft and the beft of Reafons. — " Might 
" we not have Grounds to think, that [the 
" Devil] would have perverted her Mind, and 
" not her Body" &c. No doubt, he would 
have done it, if he could. But, fuppofing her 
a good Woman, me might eafily have Power to 
prevent this, tho' me could not the other. God 
might fee fit to permit the Devil to torment her 
Body, and yet enable her to preferve her Mind 
from all his Affaults. In this Cafe, He is ever 
ready to affift His faithful Servants. And can 
we then conclude, becaufe Satan could not ac- 
complifh all his malicious Defigns upon her, 
that he did not gratify his natural Love of Mif- 
chief at all ? " This Cafe then was " more than 
" mere Infirmity >" And thus, we have " In- 
<c fiances of Perfons ,: really " Demoniacks, " 
where there is no apparent Epilepfy or Mad- 
?iefs. 

The next Texts will not keep us long, A£ls 
viii. 7. Unclean Spirits, crying with a loud voice, 
came oat of many that were pojj'efjed with them, 
i. e. fays this Gentleman, p. 56. " he cured 
" Men that were raving!' If he will under- 
stand it fo, there is no help for it. Certain it is, 
there is noNeceffity for this Interpretation: Nor 
can the Words, without fome Force, be capable 

of 



<c 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 



(75 ) 

of it. — But to go on, —On Matth. ix. 32, 
and 33 ; and xii. 22, which recite the Cure of 
a Demoniack dumb, and of another blind and 
dumb, we have this Remark. cc The Poffeflion 
being the fame as being mad, the Circum- 
ftances which attended it, mew how the 
Man was affedled ; e. g. in the Cafe juft men- 
tioned, the Madman was a blind Man, and 
dumb, either thro' natural Infirmity, or elfe 
fallen through his Diftemper." The Princi- 
ple he proceeds upon has been {hewn to be 
groundlefs : Neither are thefe Circumftances to 
be coniidered as belonging to the Man, other- 
wife than as they were occafioned in him by the 
Devil. They were part of the Evils, by which 
he afflicted him. St. Luke xi. 14. appears to 
make this the whole of one PofJeJJion ; Ka). fy 
g;t£otAA^v ociijLtcvtcv, x* avto rjv x&jQgv. tyivQo c5g t% 
icufjLovla ijrtX$rQv]og y iAciArjtTiv c xct)@og. We need 
not indeed, with Origen, attribute this Dumb- 
nefs to the evil Spirit, perfonally : But furely the 
lead: we can understand is, that he was the 
Author and Caufeofit, in thePerfonfo affect- 
ed. And the fame is Sufficiently clear, by im- 
plication, in the Paffages before us. The re- 
covering Sight and Speech, are reprefented as 
the immediate and dired Confequences of ca- 
lling out the Devib, which fairly and ftrongly 
implies, that the Lofs of both was owing to 
him. As therefore it would be abfurd to talk 
of blind or dumb Madnefs, and contrary to Ex- 
perience to fay, that this makes Men blind or 

K 2 dumb-, 



( 76 ) 

dumb \ we have here a good Argument, that 
by the Devil, in the Places under Confiderati-^ 
on, can't be meant mere Madnefs. It muft im- 
port fome Being to which thofe Diforders may 
be affigned *. As to the latter Words, " or 
" elfe fullen thro* his Diftemper," my Excep-r 
tion to them is, that this Explication tends, in 
fome meafure, to fet afide the Miracle ; which 
the Gentleman, as well as my felf, is concern- 
ed to fupport; fince Sullennefs, of what kind 
foever, may well be conceived to be cured with- 
out any Miracle. And, if this be allowed, a- 
nother may pretend, as reafonably, that the 
Blindnefs was Objlinacy, and the Madnefs coun- 
terfeited, and thus the whole Miracle will be 
deitroyedat once. 

" And if at any Time a determinate Num- 
ber of Devils are faid to have poffefled any 
Perfon, e.g. Mary Magdalene, out of whom 
went feven Devils, Luke viii. 2. Mark xvi, 

9. The Meaning is, that fhe had affirmed 

in her Melancholy, that fhe had fo many De- 
vils in her, juft as the Madman faid, that he 
had a Legion of Devils in him." P. 57. 
This is mere Conjecture, and, I fear, an unfor- 
tunate one. For we faw before, that it was not 
the Madman only, who faid this. St. Luke 
confirmed it, and gave a Reafon of his own for 
fo extraordinaiy a Title. And, with regard to 
Mary Magdalene, we are no where told^ that 

* Vid. Grotius, Hammond, Whitby, 

flie 



CC 

cc 
cc 
*c 
cc 
cc 
<c 
cc 



( 11 ) 

/he ever laboured under any Melancholy, or that 
flie ever affirmed any fuch Thing, as tha&Jeven 
Devils were in her. It is plain from the Ac- 
counts of both the Evangelijls, that this Re- 
mark, out of 'whom , He had cajl } or went, fe- 
ven* Devils, was made by them, in their own 
Names -> probably, to diftinguim her from the 
other Women of this Name, mentioned in the 
Gofpel. Whatever Difficulty may be then in 
this Place, we can't be thus helped out. But 
really there can be no more, than in the other 
Account of the Legion. And, as in this, Pof- 
fejfion is pointed out as plainly, as Words can 
defcribe it, I fee noReafon to look out for any 
figurative Conftruclion of that relating to Mary 
Magdalene : Efpecially, fince whatever Diffi- 
culty be in either Cafe, it may be attributed to 
our Ignorance of the Power of wicked Spirits^ 
and of their manner of afting. 

Of the vagabond Jews Exorcifts, and what is 
related, Acts xix. 13, &c. to have happened 
to them, this Gentleman gives this Conftrufti- 
on,p. 57. " The mad Man fell upon them, and 
cc tore their Clothes off their Backs, and 
" wounded them." But furely, that Anfwer, 
Jesus I know, and Paul I know -, but who are 
ye? is not the Anfwer of a Madman, but is per- 
fectly confident and rational. And I muft own it 
to be a Difficulty that flicks with me, that almoft 
every one of this fort of Madmen, mentioned 

* 7, c. In the Jcv;i/b Phrafeology, a great many, 

in 



( 7« ) 

in Scripture, fhould, as it were, combine, in 
giving Honour to our Bleffed Lord, and in 
bearing Witnefs to His Power over them. This 
too often happens, to be accounted mere 
Chance, and it is certain, nothing could be 
more contrary to the Notion of Madnefs. Be- 
fides, this Speech is moft clearly put into the 
Mouth of the evil Spirit ; as diftinguifhed from 
the Perfon po fie [led with it. \\7tokpi3-\v $1 to 

wvtvpta, to TTovqpoVy «?re, — ^ iCpaAAcpctvog iw cvj- 

rxg o civ3-pu7ros> \v a p tv 7rvivp& tv irovtjpov, 
x, r, A. 

The Enquirer, p. 58. thinks ' it cc worth 
<£ while to confider a little the Practices of thefe 
" vagabond Jews." As I have before fpoken 
what I think of them, I propofe to be very fhort 
on this Point. It may be however proper to 
repeat my Opinion, that they were different 
from thofe Exorcifis who ufed the Name of 
the God of Abraham, and the God of Ifaac, 
and the God of Jacob, This does not appear 
to be any Trick. And this Gentleman very 
rightly tranflates Jiiflin Martyr fo, as to make 
their Succefs probable, \t<ra$ v7rolctyy,cQcti, pro- 
bably he will obey,] which is more than we 
have Reafon to believe of the others, the Strol- 
lers. To thefe only the laft Words r^yj ph rot 
k, t, a. feem to relate. Thefe two forts of Ex- 
orcijls Grotius has clearly diflinguifhed; and ob- 
ferves, that whereas the Herbs, and Scents, 
and Chains, ufed on this Occafion, by the one, 
were borrowed from the Gentiles, the invoking 

the 



( 79 ) 

the Name of the God of Abraham, &c. was 
originally a Jewijh Cuftom 5 to which God 
might often vouchfafe to grant Succefs *, even 
when ufed by thofe who knew him not. How;- 
ever, thefe Invocations were, 'tis plain, ufed, 
and that to drive away Devils -, and if we may 
credit not only Origen, but fnjiin, T'beophilus, 
and Irenceus, they were often effectual, The 
Authority of all thefe Writers with regard to 
Faffs, fhould, methinks, be of fome Weight ; 
and I much queftion, whether our Surprize or 
Conjectures, at this Time of Day, be fufficient 
to fet their Account afide. We have feen, that 
no lefs Men than Grotius, and Dr. Hammond 
have offered a Reafon for the Succefs, that fo 
much caufes this Gentleman's Wonder, P. 60. 
$nd he may fee, they attribute nothing to mere 
Sounds, and Charms of Words, but all to God, 
thus bearing Teftimony to His true Name, 
Thefe Exorcijms therefore fhould not be con- 
founded with the Arts of the Vagabonds, for 
whom I do not contend. Nor can I difcern 



* Grot, in Mattb. xii. 27. 01 vie) I put] Non Apoftoli — 
fed populares Pharifeorum atq; Difcipuli : neq; inter eos illi qui 
herbis, fuffitibus, & vinculis adverfus Daemonas utebantur (quod 
nonerat inititutum origine Judaicum atq; a Solomone deduclum, 
quod vult Jofephus, fed a Gentibus defumptum, ut recle docet 

Tryphonem Juilinus) fed ij qui daemonas ejiciebant invocan- 

tes Deum Abrahami, &c. Ejufmodi ergo exorcifmi eventum 

fsepe fuum habuerunt ; non quod vis ulla in fyllabarum pronun- 
ciation effet fita, fed quod verus Deus illis potiffimum nomini- 
bus nofci appellariq; vellet, atq; ideo vim fuam turn demum ex- 
fereret, cum apertifTima locutione conftaret ipfum, non aliquem 
Gentilium Deorum, effe invocatum. See this fame Reafon in 
Hammond ad loc. 

1 how 



(8o ) 

how the believing, or cc endeavouring to ac~ 
11 count for " thofe, can deferve fo fevere a Re- 
flection, as we find in the Page before us ; how 
this " is to promote the Cheat, and to encou- 
" rage the World to confult Inchanters, and 
" Witches, and Wizards, and Necromancers ;" 
unlefs it could be affirmed, that thefe act in the 
Name of the God of Abraham, a?td the God of 
Ifaac, and the God of Jacob ; or that calling up- 
on this is any magical Operation. 

My prefent Defign does not require me to 
enter upon a Defence of the Ephefan Letters, 
which the Author of the Enquiry ^. 61, with 
Reafon enough calls "ridiculous Words, fenfelefs 
" Sounds, fit to cheat the Ignorant with." We 
may however very fitly obferve, that Plutarch, & 
fober and good Writer, alludes to the Cuftom 
of commanding Demoniacks to read them over *, 
without the leaft Mark of Diflike or Sufpicion. 
All that I would collect from this, is, that there 
zxefxLck pofieffed Perfons mentioned by an Hea- 
then Writer, as Cafes that were common, and 
at which he exprerTes no manner of Surprize. 
Nor can we prove, that they were not truly, 
fuch as he reprefems them. The Charms here 
ufed, however fenfelefs, rather imply they 
were. Since, as has been obferved, thefe ori- 
ginally and properly have a relpecl, not to Di- 
ftempers, but PojJeJJions. 

* "fi<rrfp yap cl ftocyoi t«? cot.njt>ovi£op&&z > xtbtvisci ret tQia-iet, 
y^x fA[Acc]u Tap? aV|«s xetlcthsyitt xj ovofjjs^JHf — Plut. Sympof. 
L. 7. qu&f. 5. ad fin. 

I have 



cc 



(81 ) 

I have now gone thro' what this Gentle- 
man has offered, by way of Objection to the 
literal Meaning of the Demoniacksy and to efta- 
blifh the Suppofition of their being either Epi- 
lepticks, or Madmen : I am now to propofe fuch 
Objections as occur againft this Scheme, and to 
eonfider what is faid, in the Enquiry, by way 
of reply to them. 

Firfty the Scripture and ecclefiaftical Wri- 
ters, make a conftant and a plain Diftincti- 
on between thefe two Things, the curing of 
DifeaJeSy and the cajling out Devils" Enq. 
p. 62. And does this Gentleman deny this ? 
And is it not, if it be true, a ftrong Proof that 
thefe two ought not to be confounded ? If we 
fuppofe them to have been really diftindt, how 
could the Scripture more fully reprefent them fo, 
than by this Method ? Were this only obferva- 
ble in one Inftance or two, there might per- 
haps have been room for fome Doubt: But the; 
Stile of the Holy Writings is in this cafe fo uni- 
form, as not reafonably to allow of any. ■ ■ ■■- 
Let us come to Particulars. Matth. iv. 24. 'They 
brought unto Him all fick People \ that were ta- 
ken with divers Difea fes and Torments, and 
thofe which were pojfejfed with Devils, and thofe 
which were Limatick, and thefe that had the 
Pal/yy &c. I mull firft take notice, that the 
Enquirer , in citing this Text, has omitted the 
Words,tf W 'Torments; whether thro' Carelefsnefs, 
or by Defign, I don't know. We have no 
Reafon to fufpect their being genuine. They H-tri 

L are 



( 82 ) 

are only found wanting in two Copies, and thefe 
of no Character for Correctnefs. For, as to 
Theophylafili Dr. Mill tells us, he omitted them 
induftrioufly, and out of Regard to his particu- 
lar Opinion *. In which he was undoubtedly 
wrong. Had his Notion been never fo true, 
and he never fo ftrongly afllired of it, he nei- 
ther could have Authority, nor be at Liberty, 
to alter the Sacred Text. 

Enq. p. 63. " What is ufually called Poffefji- 
on of Devils, is no more to be diftinguiihed 
from Difeafe or Sicknefs, than the Palfy is, 
which is put in the fame manner as Lunacy 
is, and contradiftinguifhed from Difeafes. 
In Truth, the proper rendring is, he cured 
all that were taken with diverfe Difeafes, e- 
ven Demoniacks, Lunaticks, and Paraly- 
ticks." Let the excluded Words be here in- 
ferted, and we may venture to admit this ren- 
dring. Thefe particular Cafes muft then be 
thought the chief In fiances of the divers Dif- 
eafes and T'onnents. And therefore the Demo- 
niacks may be defigned to be included under 
thofe who were tormented, and may ftill be here 
diftinguiihed from the divers Difeafes. How- 
ever, which is more to our Purpofe to obferve, 
they are and mujl be diftinguiihed from thofe 
which were Lunatick -f*, and thofe that had the 

* Omifit Theophyl. de induftria, quod cttovtoifyfAsrtJs puta- 
rit oc^ua.u »V«, ut apparet ex commentario. Not. ad loc. 

■f i. e. as Dr. Hammond has here paraphrafed it, " affected 
" with any Difeafe, on which the Changes of the Moon had in- 
'■ fiaence, whether Madnefs, or Falling-Sicknefs". 

3 Palfy. 



cc 
cc 
cc 



PaJjy. To which we find two Anfwers, p. 
64, 65. Neither of which I conceive fufficient. 
TheophylaB did not read in his Copy thofe 
Words, and thofe which were poffejjed with 
Devi/s." Mill fays, that he omitted them, 
as in his Opinion fuperfluous *. Here again, 
he was undoubtedly wrong. " It is plain, 

" they are wanting in fome MSS." Only in 

two — " In fome Copies, which have the 

" Words And thofe, which were poffeffed 

" with Devils, the following ones — And thofe 

" which were lunatick are omitted." I find 

in Dr. Mill but one, and this of no Note—" But 
" fay that the common Reading is the true one, 
"" it amounts to no more than this, that our 
" Saviour cured all forts of Madnefs, whenfo- 
" ever it arofe, whether it were from Melan- 
" choly, or from any other Caufe." If De- 
vils, or their Pofjefjion, be allowed to be a 
Caufe, this Interpretation perhaps might be ad- 
mitted. Other wife it appears to be making 
thofe Cafes one and the fame, which the Evan- 
gelifts have clearly and exprefly diftinguifhed : 
And I fee no Reafon, why the Par ah ticks 
might not as well be taken in too ; fince it has 
here no other Mark of Difference, than the 
Demoniacks. 

The Gentleman cites three other Texts, and 
obferves of them all " — The Senfe is very clear : 

* Miffo tfy&ttfAmfyiA/iriJS, ceu fuperfluo, quod lunaticos haberet 
Theophyl. pro Daemon iacis, ut'appaiet ex Com. Mi Hit Prole- 
gmn-. 1059. 

L 2 "He 



ft 



C 8 4 ] 

He gave the Difciples Power over unclean 
Spirits, and not only that Power, but likewife 
to heal all other Diftempers. As to Himfelf, 
" our Saviour cured the fick, and likewife all 
" forts of Lunacy." Let us now compare this 
Account with the Texts themfelves. The firft 
is Mat. x. 1 . He gave them Fewer againjl un- 
clean Spirits to caft them out, and to heal all 
manner of Sicknefs and Difeafes Here one 
would think unclean Spirits can't be interpreted 
of any Difeafe, when it is fo exprefly oppofed 
to all manner of them. But, as in citing the 
Jail: Text, the Enquirer left out two Words of 
Importance^ fo in his Expofition of this, he 
has added one, which the Text itfelf will not 
warrant. All manner of Sicknefs, he explains, 
all other Diftempers. This Word other is 
entirely his own. This Senfe therefore which 
depends upon it, may be faid to be His, but is 
not St. Matthew's. 

Mark i. 34. He healed many that were fick of 
divers Difeafes, and caft cut many Devils. 
And, Luke iv. 40, 4 1 . He laid his Hands on 
every one of them [fick with divers Difeafes] and 
healed them, and Devils also came out of many 
crying out, and faying, &c. We have cited the 
Gentleman's Interpretation of thefe, in which I 
cannot agree with him ; becaufe it is making 
the Evangelifls ufe a direct and abfolute Tau- 
tology. Madnefs is allowed to be a Difeafe, p. 
63. Epilepfy is certainly one : If therefore thefe 
be all that is meant by Devils, there had been 

no 



( «5 ) 

no Occafion, after the mention of our Lord's 
healing many that were feck of divers Difeafes, 
to have added, and cajt out many Devils, What 
Senfe is this, he cured many that were Jick of 
divers Difeajes, and likewife many that were lick 
of fome particular Difeafes, fiich as Lunacy ', &c ? 
Befides, St. Luke's Words are yet more em- 
phatical. We fee a different Way of fpeaking 
in his Relation of the Cure of Diftempers, and 
of the cafting out Devils. Of the former he 
only lays, t&epdirwcev dvrovg - y but thefe latter 
he fpeaks of perfonally, as adive Beings, and 
accordingly puts Words into their Mouths, 
sfcypXtTo Si k, ScufAovict <Lttq 7roXXoov jcpelCpvTa, >L Ae- 
yovTu y x y r, A. Would a corredt Writer have 
faid this, if thefe had been no other than Dif 
eajes, and therefore included under the former 
Part of the Sentence * ? 

A fecond Objection this Gentleman fets 
down, p. 65. in the Words of Dr. Whitby, 
which he anfwers particularly -, and therefore 
it may not be amifs to fet down the whole of it, 
that the Strength of it may appear. " The 
fc Difference between Demcniacks and Luna- 



* Mr. dwells obferves that " the Greek z* ixxoftosraf, is fre- 
'* quently ufed of ejecting Devils, but never of Diftempers that 
'• are healed." Critic. Exam. Part I. p. 96. And J believe the 
Enquirer can't fhcw, that it is ufed of any Diforders, but thofe 
under Confideration. The fame may be faid, of ZUoate, Mat. 
yiii. 16. applied to Spirits, in Oppofition tb-l&pdfa'ftrtf', applied 
/call that ivere fick. So Ch. x. i. MarklW- l£» Thefe are alio 
clearly diftinguifhed, MarAxvi. 17, 18. \E« tu Ivluuctri pa A«- 

fAo'mct ixQahSa-i fat appa'trTeq %tv<zq iii^tr-nri. 'Seealfc, Luke 

yi, 17, ig. ix. 1. A3s xix. u. 

" ticks 



( 86 ) 

,c ticks is evident from the Circumftances relat- 
ing to the Devils to be, or that actually were, 
caft out. E. g. Chrift fuffered not the De- 
vils to fpeaky beeaufe they knew htm to be the 
Chrift : , Mark \. 34. Lukeiv. 41. They faid, 
Thou art the Chrift \ the Son of God : They 
fC expoftulate with Chrift, faying, what have 
" we to do with thee ? Art thou come to torment 
us before the Time? And pray, that he would 
not torment them : They ask His leave to 
enter into the Swine \ and being entered, they 
lf hurry them into the Sea ; and beg, that they 
may not be fent out of the Country ; they 
acknowledge that their Name was Legion. 
Now to make all thefe Sayings the Effects of 
a Difeafe, or to conceive, that Chrift fpoke 
thus to a Difeafe^ is too great an Evidence of 
one that is himfelf difeafed." 
Wit and Reflections apart, let us confider, 
what is replied to the feveral Parts of this Ob- 
jection. Andfirft, when our Lord fuffered not 
the Devils to Jpeak, beeaufe they knew Him. 
This Gentleman fays, p. 65, 66. " He checked 
the Demon iacks whom he cured, juft as He 
likewife does His immediate Diiciples and 
Followers, if at any Time they publickly 
and openly declared Him to be the Chrift. ,, 
But this Reply appears founded on a Miftake, 
viz. That beeaufe this Speech may be imputed 
to the Perfon poffeffed, therefore it muji be fo. 
Whereas, though fometimes there may be a 
NecefTity for this, here there is none. Devils 

are 



CC 

cc 
<c 
cc 

cc 



CC 

cc 



cc 
cc 

(CC 

cc 

cc 

cc 



( 87 ) 

arc Beings capable of knowing Jesus to be the 
Christ, andalfo of ufing the Man's Speech, 
or fome Power of their own, to utter what 
they knew. And therefore as the literal Senfe 
is no way abfurd, it ought to prevail ; and 'tis 
unreafonable to look out for a Figure. Our Sa- 
viour might rebuke the Devils for the fameRea- 
fons, which are affigned for his reftraining the 
Men : As alfo, for one Reafon peculiar to thofe, 
that He would not receive Tejlimony from De- 
vils. 

In Anfwer to rebuking the Devils, Luke iv. 
41. The Gentleman, p. 66. fets V. 39. He 
rebuked the Fever, and thinks no more can be 
concluded from the one Place, than the other. 
And, indeed, if there had been no other Cir- 
cumftances to help us, this Reply would have 
been very juft and true. But, in the Place be- 
fore us, we have fuch. The Devils here re- 
buked are real Beings: They are rebuked for 
Speeches actually attributed to them ; which 
are never attributed to Fevers, and which there 
is no manner of Reafon to believe neceflary to 
the Perfons affiled. The Objection therefore 
remains in full Force. 

To that Speech of the Devils, thou art the 
Chrifl the Son of God, the Enquirer anfwers, 
p. 67. " If the Man that was poffeffed, or 
mad, made fuch Declarations in Confequence 
of his Diftemper, it may I think, with the 
fame Propriety be attributed to the Diftem- 
" per, as when St. Paul fays, Rom, vii. 17, 20. 

c : It 



(88) 

€t It is no more I that do it, but Sin thai dwell- 
<c eth in me! % Now, firft, the Declarations 
here made, were no Effedr. or Confequence of 
Diftemper, and are therefore not to be im- 
puted to it. This Gentleman owns, in the 
preceding Page, that much the fame were alfo 
made by our Lords " immediate Difciples and 
" Followers," whofurely were not mad. zdly, 
I grant, that Difeafs, as well as Virtues, and 
Vices, may be confidered, and treated as Per- 
fons: But then the Profopopeia mull: be plain 
and manifeft, and can't be miftaken. Thus, 
in the Paffage above, there is no danger of un- 
derftanding Sin in a Perfonal Senfe ; no one 
has ever underftood it fo. We all know, that 
its Being is but feigned and imaginary. Where- 
as, the Cafe of the Devils is very different. 
Thefe are certainly real Perjons, capable of 
acting, and fpeaking, what is afcribed to them. 
And therefore here there is not the leaft Occafion 
to have recourfe to Figure, when the literal 
Senfe is fo very intelligible and proper. Befides, 
we find the Cure of many other Diftempers re- 
lated in Scripture ; but none of them are re- 
prefented as Jpeaking, or crying out. Which 
makes it highly probable, that had the Pofef- 
fions been only common Difeafes, we fhould 
have heard nothing of this Way of Speaking. 
It ought alfo to be remembred, that we ob- 
ferved before, how inconfiftent andunreafona- 
ble it is to impute fuch Declarations of 'Truth 
and liobernef conftantly and perpetually toMad- 
nej's. The 



( 89 ) 

The next Part of the Obje&ion, the Gentle- 
' man examines; p. 68. is the Devil's Expoftu- 
lation with Christ, faying, let us alone, what 
have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazar- 
eth ? .Art thou co?7ie to dejiroy us ? I know thee 
who thou art y the holy One of God. Luke iv. 34. 
Mark i. 24. I fhall not repeat what I have al- 
ready urged againft the Suppofition of thefe 
Words being applied to any but the Devils, nor 
the Anfwer given to the Obfervation, that the 
Evangelifts fpeak fometimes of one, and fome- 
times of more Devils ; on which this Enquirer 
here again lays a great Strefs. And I come di- 
rectly to his fecond Reply, which we have, p. 
69. " That the Evangelifts fometimes impute 
u that to the Cauje of a Difeafe which is proper 
cc and peculiar only to the Man who is dis- 
tempered : They imputed that to the Devils \ 
which the Man alone could do. — e. g. Mark 
iii. 1 1. Unclean Spirits when they saw Him, 
fell down before Him, &c." Now though 
it was the Man only, who vifibly did this, yet 
it can hardly be called the a£t of the Man alone, 
exclufive of the unclean Spirits ; as it is imputed 
to thefe in Terms, and as the leaft that can be 
"underftood is, that it was done, as certainly 'tis 
eafy to conceive it mi^ht be done, through their 
Influence. Even in this Text their Power is 
fuppofed. To impute an Effe5i to its proper 
Caufe and Occafion, is no hard Figure, though 
another Injlrument be ufed ; but to affign it to 
what never was, nor can be, a Caufe of it, is, 

. M I 



cc 
cc 
cc 

cc 



( 9° ) 

I apprehend, Language unknown to Scripture. 
In thefe Cafes therefore it will not be fufficient 
to fay, that thefe Actions may be imputed to 
the Man alone, or that the Man muft have im- 
mediately performed them. 

If therefore we ufe this Text to explain the 
Expoflulations mentioned above ; at leaft we 
muft fay, that thefe were utter'd under the In- 
fluence of Devils, and by their Direction. 
But, in Truth, we can collect nothing from this 
Place, to make us reject the literal Senfe of the 
others. If, in this, there be Actions attributed 
to the Devils, which we cannot eafily under- 
ftand of thefe -, yet, in the others, there is no 
fuch Difficulty ; nay, without manifeft Incon- 
fiftency, we cannot apply them to any one elfe. 
The Speeches here are very proper and natural, 
if fuppofed to proceed from the Devils ; but 
otherwife they cant well be reconciled. 

The Remark of the Author of the ^uefiions 
and Anjwers to the Orthodox has been produced 
before. The Enquirer fays, p. 70, cc the Re- 
" verfe of this is as true, that the Scriptures at- 
" tribute to Demons the acts of the Demoniack" 
We grant, that both thefe Obfervations are true, 
provided we do not underftand the laft, exclu- 
iive of the Demons themfelves. And we find 

them both allowed by Grotius * " Which 

" fhews that in thefe Cafes, we are not to re- 

* Bene ad hunc locum [Mark v. 4.] Scriptor refponfionum ad 
Orthodox. Ita contra, Cap. iii. u. Dsemoni afcribitur id quod 

" gard 



(9i ) 

<c gard the Letter, but the real and exadt Mean- 
<c ing of the Sacred Writers." This no doubt 
is chiefly to be regarded : But, in order to find 
this out, I believe it a good Rule, not to depart 
from the Letter, unlefs it be clogged with any 
plain Abfurdities. However, in this very Page, 
this Author has thought fit to leave his Infe- 
rence, and builds a great deal on the very Let- 
ter ; I mean,- in accounting for all the Diffi- 
culties in Mat. viii. 29." Here he fays, " It 
is generally fuppofed, that in this Story, it 

" was the Devils which cried out Art thou 

come hither to torment us before the time ? 
But there is no Neceffity for this Conftruc- 
tion ; and it is plain, that both St. Mark and 
St. Luke exprefly afcribe this Declaration to 
the Man himfelf." And indeed, it feems to 
have been a Point quite indifferent with them, 
to whom they immediately afcribed it. For, 
having fo plainly reprefented the Man as poflef- 
fed with many Devils, they might leave it to 
every Reader to colled:, that at leaft the Man 
made this Declaration under the Influence of 
thefe wicked Spirits. This at leaft it feems necef- 
fary to fuppofe. For otherwife, there is in this 
whole Speech fo much Inconfiftency and Inco- 
herence, that a general Suppofition of Madnefs 
will not account for it. Should we grant he 
was a Madman \ yet it appears from his wor- 
Jhipping Jesus, and owning his Convi&ion of 
His Divine Nature and Miflion, that this was 
a lucid and calm Interval, and therefore we 

M 2 have 



(< 

CI 



( 92 ) 

have no Reafon to interpret the reft of his 
Speech in fuch a Senfe, as Diffraction only can 
juftify. This Suppolition then being attended 
with fo great a Difficulty, and the common one 
being eafy and fuitable to the Nature of the 
evil Spirits, there can be fure no Doubt which 
to prefer. 

However, this Gentleman offers, p. 71. a 
Criticifm to explain the Reafon of the Man's 
making this requeft. " The Men who had 
<c felt the Pain and Anguifh arifing from being 
" fetter d and chairid, defire that Jesus would 
<c not put them to that Torment again. ,, But, 
what room was there for fuch a Sufpicion ? 
They had heard of the Fame of Jesus, which 
His miraculous Cures had railed and fpread. 
They accordingly declare Him to be the Son of 
God. But, had they heard of any one Inftance 
where He had^WPerfons in their Condition, 
and thus vexed or tormented them ? If Madnefs 
be here pleaded, I muft again anfwer, that 
Reajbn and Raving are not very confiftent. So 
that if the Words under Confideration muft 
be applied to the Man afflicted -, it is moft pro- 
bable, that they were the Words of a Man not 
dreading, but defiring a Cure. For obferve the 
Context. He came oat of the Tombs, exceeding 
fierce, a Terror to all Paflengers -, and yet, as 
foon as hefatv Our Saviour afar off] he knew, 
and acknowledged, Him to be the Son of God - y 
he voluntarily met Him, and worjhipped Him. 
How is all this confiftent with the fuppofed 

Fear 



(93) 

Fear of being chained again ? Had this been 
his Concern, inftead of thus meeting Jesus, he 
furely, when afar off, would have attempted to 
fly from Him, or to terrify Him, as he had 
done others. Thefe Difficulties wnifh on the 
common Scheme. Even the Devils knew their 
Conqueror, feared His Power, and trembled at 
His Prefence. 

Another Difficulty is, that the Devils be- 
fought our Lord, that he would not command* 
them to go out into the Deep, Luke viii. 3 1. 
or, as St. Mark has it, that He would not fend 
them away out of the Country, The Enquirer's 
Reply to this has been in a great Meafure con- 
sidered already. He thinks it " all the Effect 
" of high Madnefs; and natural on thatSup- 
<c pofition." P. 73. And furely if it is Mad- 
nefs, it is Madnefs in a much higher Degree, 
than the Man appears at this time to have been 
poffefTed with. This Gentleman does not tell 
us, what he underftands by the Deep, or the 
great Abyfs. But St. "John clearly explains this ; 
and who fo fit to explain one Sacred Writer, as 
another ? Rev. xx. ^3. We read that an Angel 
laid hold on the Dragon, the old Serpent, which 

is the Devil and Satan A?id cajl him into 

the bottomlefs Pit iiq rnv oiSvo-o-cv. As 'tis not 

difficult to conceive them acquainted with this 
their Doom, we fee what Reafon they had to 
be apprehenfive of it, and to deprecate it. But 
what Authority have we to induce us to believe 
that the Madmen knew any thing of this Place 

1 of 



( 94 ) 

of Punifhment prepared for the Devil and his 
Angels ? And, if they did not, how {hall we 
account for their fo directly alluding to it ? As 
to the Words in St. Mark, \^oo Ttjg x&qcts, they 
may indeed be parallel to thofe of St. Luke, 
and mean no more than a Requeft to continue 
longer on Earth. However, it muft not be 
omitted, that both Grotius and Whitby explain 
the Words of that particular Country, and gave 
the following Reafon for the Devils defiring to 
abide there, becaufe of the Numbers of the 
Apojiates from the Jewijlo Faith, over whom, 
they were particularly fuffered to exercife their 
Power, as they were afterwards over the Apof- 
tates from Chrijlianity. 

" And when this Mifchief was thus done 
by the Madman, could any thing, after they 
were brought to a right Mind, be more na- 
tural, then for them to defire, to be taken 
along with J 'ejus, when He left that Country/* 
Anfwer, The Evangel Jls do not make the Man 
at all concerned l;i doing this Mifchief ; much 
lefs, doing it in the manner this Gentleman 
fuppofes, by " running among the Herd, and 
<c driving them down the Precipice." For the 
Action of entring into the Swine, whatever it 
may fignify, is not attributed to the Devils, 
till after they were forced out of the Man -, and 
therefore can never properly, with any Senfe, 
be imputed to him. Is it then a more natural 
Suppofition, that his Defire of being with 
Jesus was not owing to any Fear he had of the 

People's 



(95 ) 

People's Hatred, and revenging themfelves on 
him, for the Lois of their Swine, but of the evil 
Spirits coming upon, and pofleffing him again. 
And thus may we beft underftand our Lord's 
Refufal, importing, that he needed not to be un- 
der any fuch Apprehenfions; that the fame 
Power, which had delivered him, could in all 
Places preferve him. 

The laft Difficulty relating to this Cure, is 
about Matth. viii. 29. Art thou come hither to 
torment us before the Time ? This Gentleman 
reprefents it thus; " When it is aiked, what 
" Time ? the common Anfwer is, before the 
" Time of the Day of Judgment, until which 
<c the evil Angels are referved in Chains under 
Darknefs, 2 Pet. ii. 4. Jude 6." We fee then 
that this Opinion has fome Countenance from 
Scripture, and well agrees with what is herein 
faid of the Devils. Nor does this Author deny 
this. He is only " apt to think, that this Paf- 
" fage may be more juftly and confiftently ac- 
" counted for thus," viz. by taking the Mean- 
ing of it to be, " art thou come hither — un- 
feafonably, fooner than was delired or ex- 
pected, to vex us ? Or, — art thou come 
thus, after this manner untimely to torment 
us ? ' But fome Queftions, afked before, will 
here return. How could it be thought, that 
our Saviour was come to vex them ? He was 
" known fufficiently thereabouts, and famed 
" for curing all Diforders: " But was He famed 
for tormenting any one ? How then could Per- 

fons, 



(96) 

fons, who fo well underftood His Nature and 
Office, betray at the fame Time fuch grofs Ig- 
norance of His way of acting, and entertain 
liich undue Sufpicions of Him ? Or how is this 
His coming to be thought unfeajonable, orjboner 
than was expedied and dejired, by thofe, who 
when they Jaw Him afar off, met Him, of their 
own accord, in a quiet, fubmiffive Manner* 
and (if they muft be thought Madmen) very 
probably, with Hopes and Delire of being 
cured ? 

We have now done with this Miracle. The 
Enquirer, p. 74, " fubmits whatever he has 

" faid to the Judgment of the candid Rea- 

" der." I do the fame, only begging leave to 
add, that if there are fome Difficulties attend- 
ing this Cafe on all imaginable Schemes, as 'tis 
faid there are ; on our Side, they are entirely 
owing to our Ignorance of the Powers of Devils; 
on his, they arife from a manifeft Repugnancy 
to the Accounts of the Evangelifts. 

This Gentleman has given us a third Objec- 
tion to his Scheme in thefe Words; " Chriil 
u fometimes puts Queftions to thefe Demons, 
cc afking their Names-, fometimes he com- 
" mands them to bejtknf : And fometimes to 
" come out of a Man, and enter no more into 
" him. Fid. Mark 1.2 5. Lukeiv 31. Mark ix. 
" 25." There is nothing in his Reply to this 
new, or that has not been confidered already. 
He makes all thefe perfonal Add reffes and Pro- 
perties to belong either to the Man affected, or 

to 



( 97 ) 

to Demons, only as the fuppofed Caufe of fuch 
and fuch Diftempers. Of this laft Particular we 
(hall fay more by and by. Of the other, we need 
only add, that it has been proved ; that, in ma- 
ny Inftances, what is laid of, and to, the De- 
vils, can't be applicable to the Men ; and that 
where they may be fo, as they are exprefly at- 
tributed to thefe Devils, and as thefe are doubt- 
lefs real Beings capable of them ; we have no 
Warrant to apply them to the Men, unlefs we 
confider thefe as poffefled by them, and under 
their Influence. 

Befides thefe Texts, there are a few others, 
relating to this Subject, unconiidered by the 
Enquirer, One or two may not improperly be 
mentioned here. Luke iv. 35. We have the 
following Account of the Cure of a Demoniack, 
when the Devil had thrown him in the midji, he 
came out of him, and hurt him not. My^h 
Qxd^ctv cIvtov. Thefe laft Words {hew, that 
this is not fpoken of a Dittemper. Had there 
been nothing more than this in the Cafe, there 
had been no occafion for fuch a Remark. For, 
can a Man ever be hurt, by the very Act of 
being cured, and much more miraculoufly cu- 
red, of a common Diftemper? This therefore 
had been fuperflucus, and confequently, in all 
probability, had not been added by St. Luke, 
had not he Dn jrder proceeded from fomeBe^ 
ing, who might naturally be thought to leave 
the Man with fome Reluctance and Violence, 
and to have a Power to hurt him. 

N Ano^ 



(98 ) 

Another Text is, Acts x. 38; where St. 
Peter, giving Cornelius an Account of Jesus, 
fays, He went about doing good, and healing all 
that were opprejjed by the Devil, k Ico/lS/joz 
7rav]ci<?xg KcdcbSwc&crtvQf/AvGvg vVo t£ oiaJoo&x, 
all that were under his Power and Tyranny. 
This may well be thought a Paraphrafe of the 
Word Saipovt&fjLtvoi. We here fee, not only, 
what the true Notion of the Scripture Demon is, 
but in what very ftrong Language the Pojjejji- 
ons mentioned in the Gofpel are afcribed to 
him. 

Before I leave this Subject, I beg, in my 
turn, to afk a few Queftions : And firffc, if 
thefe Demoniacks were no other than Madmen* 
or Epilepticks, from whence proceeded the com- 
mon Opinion, that thefe Diforders were owing 
to Demons t This, I own to be one of thofe 
Difficulties, which are Matter of mere Curiofi- 
ty, and of no Importance to the Determination 
of the Queftion. But fo are thofe objected to 
the literal Meaning. And if our Curiofity muft 
be gratified in one Cafe, why not in the other ? 
It is equally as proper an Enquiry, why there 
were fo many Perfons, at lean: vulgarly ima- 
gined to be, poffeffedvX that Time ; as, why we 
have fo few In fiances before, or why fo much 
Power was then permitted to unclean Spirits? 

Farther, if Superftition, or any other Caufe, 
fhould be allowed fufficient to account for this 
Prejudice in the common People ; yet, whence 
were all their Pharifees and Doctors deceived ? 

I£ 



C 99 D 

If thefe had not believed the Truth of thefe Ca- 
fes, they would, no doubt, have been forward 
enough to have objected againft them. And, 
in fo many Inftances, had they all been Mi- 
ftakes, it muft have been eafy to have feen the 
Falfenefs of the vulgar Notion. 

But if thefe alfo were thus led away with a 
groundlefs Fancy, what were the Naturalifts 
and Phyficians then doing, who were particu- 
larly engaged in fearching into the Caufes of 
Diftempers, and whofe Intereft and Credit it 
was, to overturn fuch an Hypothefis ; that they 
did not detect this Pretence, and rightly inform 
the World ? If this had been done, probably 
this Language had been foon out of Ufe. — St. 
Luke was one of this Profeffion ; and the late 
learned and ingenious Dr. Freind * obferves of 
him, that on this account, his Language " is 
" more fimple, and more correct, as well as 
" more phyjical? And yet he is as large and 
copious as any of the others, in Narrations of 
Demoniacks. 

Lafily, " Why would Jefus [Himfelf] 
countenance fuch a Notion as this, if there 
were really no fuch Things as Demons, nor 
Perfons poffefled by them ? Why would He 
not rid Men of fuch pernicious Opinions, and 
plainly tell them that thefe Pofj'ejjions were 
nothing elfe but Lunacy or Epilepjy, or what- 
" ever other Name the Diforder had ? " This 



Vid. Hiftory of Pfajick, V. I. p. 222, 223, 224. 

N 2 Ob- 



C I0 ° 1 

Ob;ecT:ion is made, />. 76, 77, of the Enquiry ; 
it is owned to have fome Weight in it ; and a 
Reply is there offered. This (hall be examined 
presently. It may be proper to (hew firft, in 
how ftrong a manner our Lor.d countenanced 
this Notion. He did not barely forbear to dis- 
prove it - y but He reafoned upon it ; and His 
Language on fome particular Occafions fhews, 
that He believed it. When His calling out De- 
vils was afcribed to Beelzebub, in His Anfwer, 
He argues on the Suppofition, that PoJfeJJions 
particularly belonged to this wicked Spirit, were 
his own proper Work, and contributed to fup- 
port his Power and Intereft. What is all this 
to mere Diftempers ? If it be faid, that this was 
an Argument ad Homines, I anfwer, that as 
this may be built on true Premiifes , fhould we 
grant it to be fuch, we can't hence conclude, 
that Christ difbelieved the Suppofition He ap- 
pears fo plainly to allow. But, if the Phari- 
sees did not deferve to be undeceived, would He 
have fuftered His Difciples alfo to continue in 
Error ? And yet, when He had a fair Oppor- 
tunity offered Him to remove this their Preju- 
dice, we find, He falls in with it, and confirms 
it. Luke x. 17, 18. When the Seventy re- 
turned with foy, faying, even the Devils are 
fubjedt to us, thro thy Name ; He anfwered 
them, J beheld Satan as Lightning fall from 
Heaven , and at the fame Time, He gave them 
Power to tread on all the Power of the Enemy. 
This is no Argument ad Hominem. It bears 

an 



( IGI ) 

an evident Relation to their Suppofition, and 
feems fully to juftify it. As if our Lord had 
faid, " ye need not wonder at the Devil's being 
" fubjefi to you thro' My Name. The Time 
" is come, when their Reign on Earth muft 
" end, and their Tyranny be totally deftroy- 
" ed*" 

The Reply to this whole Reafoning is this, 
that " the Defign of the Sacred Writings" is 
not " to correct the Miftakes of Men in Phy- 
" Jick"— That they fpeak even of God cc in 
" the Language of the Vulgar," as having 
Eyes, and Hands, and Ears, that they fpeak of 
the Motion of the Sun, and the reft of the Earth; 
—-That the Hypothefis of Demojis ferved the 
Purpofe of our Saviour, and what was foreign 
to it He avoided, p. 77, 79. I anfwer, That 
neither of thofe Inftances are parallel to that 
we are examining. This is neither a Point 
purely indifferent, as one of them is, nor, like 
the other, is it fufficiently guarded from Mif- 
application. If the Scriptures fometimes fpeak 
of God as having Parts or PaJJions, the better 
to adapt the Difcourfe to our Capacities ; there 
can be no Danger of Mifunderftanding thefe ; 
fince it, in many other Places, fpeaks of Him 
as a Spirit, without any Shape or Likenefs 
whatever. Whereas the Suppofition of Poflefji- 
ons, if it bean Error, is, as we have feen, very 
often laid down in Scripture, but never once 

* Vid. Grot, Hammond, Whithy, &c, in \jqc. 

contra- 



( 102 ) 

contradided therein. Neither is it g, Point of 
fuch IndifFerency, as the other Inflance of the 
reji of the Sim y &c. is. It is not merely a Phy- 
fcal Miftake, but one that naturally tends to 
very pernicious Confequences, and to lead Men 
into all manner of Superftitions. And therefore 
it feems to be highly agreeable to our Lord's 
Purpofe, to have rooted the Notion out of the 
Minds of His Followers. He came to dejiroy 
the Power of the Devil, and can we then ima- 
gine, that He would leave them under any un- 
due Apprehenfions of this Power ? Were not 
the Fears, nay, the Idolatry of the Heathen 
World, much occafioned and kept up by the 
Notion of thefe Pojfejjions ? And would not 
then " the Caufe of the one God, in Oppofiti- 

" on to " fuch Ci Idolatry have been better 

<c promoted^' by refuting this Notion, and tel- 
ling-Men at once, that thofe Fears were vain 
and groundlcfs ? We have therefore Reafon to 
think, that had thefe commonly receiv'd Opi- 
nions been all an Error, our Blefed Lord 
would never have given them any countenance, 
but, on the contrary, would have oppofed 
them. 

By God's Permifiion, I have now gone thro* 
this Gentleman's Scheme, according to his own 
Method, and left nothing pf Moment in it un- 
examined. The Reader has now the Scripture 
Account of this Matter before him, and is left 
to judge impartially, which Senfe is moft wor- 
thy of his Choice. One Thing I beg leave to 

add, 



( io3 ) 

add, fubmitting it to his moft ferious Confide- 
ration : Whether any mere Difficulty has not 
too great a Regard paid it, when, to avoid it, 
we have recourfe to fuch very lax and figurative 
Interpretations ? And whether thefe do not give 
occafion to the Enemies of any literal Part of 
the Gofpel to interpret it away, or to reprefent 
the whole as an unintelligible Figure. They 
have their Difficulties too, or at leaft will pre- 
tend to have them *. I would not however be 
underftood to fix fuch a Confequence, tho' it 
appears a natural one to me, on the Enquirer. 
This would not be fair, as he has not given any 
Reaibn to believe he faw, or defigned it : And 
to charge Men with all the Confequences, 
which may be deducible from their Opinion, i9 
neither coniiftent with Peace, nor Charity +. 

We are now in the 2d Place to take a view of 
the general Difficulties, which attend the lite- 
ral Senfe, and which _ gave occafion to this De- 
bate. Thefe are thus fummed up in the firft 
Page of the Enquiry. C£ How comes it to pafs, 
that we read of fo many Perfons, juji at 
that particular Time, under the Power of 
Devils? Whence is it that we feern fo rarely 
to meet with Accounts of the fame Diforders- 
among Men, either before or after the Times 
of J ejus Chrift f Whence was it, that God 
permitted fo much Power to fuch. unclean Spi- 



c< 
etc 

ii. 
<< 

CC 



* How Woolfton argued on this very Subjedt, See Bifhop Smat- 
broke 's Vindicat. V. I . p. 344. 

f See Archbifhop Sbarpis Sermon on Rom. xiv. 19. 

4 " rits 3 



( io4 ) 

" rits, who delight in doing Mifchief ? " In 
anfwer to which Difficulties, I will firft confi- 
der the State of the Fact, and fee whether we 
can't get fome Abatement of them, from hence. 

Then, view the feveral Reafons, which 

have been given to account for this Difficulty, 
— Lajlly, fee, whether any ill Confequences 
can juftly arife, mould we even acknowledge, 
that it can't be clearly accounted for. 

Let us enquire, whether we can get any Help 
from viewing more narrowly the State of the 
Fact. — Was this exadtly as it is here reprefent- 
ed ? Do we " fo rarely meet with the Accounts 
" of the fame Diforders, — either before or 
after the Times of Jefus Chrift ? " With regard 
to the Times of Heathenifm, we have, in a 
great meaiure feen the contrary. This Gentle- 
man owns, that there " were always Cafes Jiip- 
" foJedioheyo&fie&bytbeGods" p. 78. And 
we have fhewn, how probable, nay how cer- 
tain, it is, that many of thefe were real Cafes of 
Perfons poffefled by Devils, under the Difguife, 
and Titles of the Pagan Deities. Their Oracles 
I muft infill upon as a clear and ftanding In- 
ftance. And I will add, that this Notion of 
Demoniacks, among them, was not the Notion 
only of common ignorant People, but of the 
greateft Philofophers. We need only mention 
Plato, who reafoned upon it. For thus Cle- 
mens Alexa?idrinus introduces him, as attribu- 
ting a peculiar Dialect to the Gods, and conclu- 
ding this from Dreams^ and Oracles^ and from 

the 



( io 5 ) 

the Demoniacks, who do ?iotfpeak their own Lan- 
guage or Dia/cc7, but that of the Demons^ who 
were entered into them *. We fee here the Sen- 
timents and Judgment of this wife Man. He 
fpeaks of thefe, in Terms which cannot be ap- 
plied to Madnefs, &c, and as of Cafes, the 
Truth of which he made no doubt of. And 
yet, had they been erroneous, he mufl certain- 
ly have had Opportunities to difcover them; he 
certainly had Abilities to dofo; and there is no 
room to think, he wanted an Inclination to 
find out, or to fpeak, the Truth. 

Among the Jews, I hope, I may have leave 
to call Saul an undeniable Inftance of Pojjefjion. 
Others there undoubtedly were, as has been 
fhewn above. 

To come then to the Times after our Savi- 
our. — Here we have Evidence enough. Thefe 
Cafes were fo far from being rare or unufual^ 
that we meet with them in almoft every Au- 
thor. Plutarch's Teflimony to the Reality of 
them in his Days, we have iccn already. He 
lived about the Year no. Lucian, who flou- 
riflied about the fame Time, tho', as his man- 
ner is, he treats the Subject in a icoffing Way, 
yet bears fufficient Witnefs to the common Per- 
iuafion, and mentions fome, who deliver the 

* 'O nXoLTM 3 X? foTq BtoTq tfW PiiKlcv CtfTOVSfAU Tim. [AtzXiTX fAfSt 

utto rm cvtqolrm Tcx.fjux^{fjua<^h tu Tan xpwpav, uXbaq at, xai 
«W7o T6)v octtfjuovctivlw* , o) ivy (tvToit a" fyQiyitAcu <puvi)v 4a i J»<*A*x- 

rey, otx^u t»\ tuv IxiurwAaiv okifjucfuv. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. 
Ed. Par. 1631. p. $38. 

O Demo- 



( io6 ) 

Demoniacks from their terrors *, — And im- 
mediately afterwards, he plainly alludes to thefe 
Cures of our Saviour, faying. And thefe 
Things I need not fpeak, every one knowing, that 
That Syrian of PaUfline, fkilful in thefe Mat- 
ter 's, recovered as many as were Epileptick, &c. 
— And again he adds, the Jick Man himfelf is 
Jilent, but the Devil anfwers, either in the Lan- 
guage of the Greeks or Barbarians, or of what 
Country foever he be, by what Means, or from 
whence he entered into the Man : But He, exor- 
cifing the Devil, and alfo threatning him, if he 
did not obey, drives him out. I might here add 
the Teftimony of Porphyry -f-, and of Philo- 
flratus, who makes Apoflonius Tyanaus, in or- 
der to rival Jesus Christ, caftout an unclean 
Spirit -, but I chufe to come to Authors of more 
undoubted Credit, the ancient Fathers and A- 
pologifts. And, I am fenfible, that here I muft, 
in fbme meafure, anticipate the Enquiry the 
Gentleman propofes to make into the Senfe of 
thefe ; which I mould not do, if it were not ne- 
ceifary to a true Account of the State of the Dif- 

* -— Oo~oi t«$ autfAovuvlxi; 0C7txXXciT%<rt rut $u\hOLTm , ara» 
c-ctQZs thfhv\t<; j^ Tot, <pai<rpoC\x. t£ tccvtm »'x iyA #p>3 biyuv, ciXh% 
trcct^tq ?<rct(ri rot Xupov rev c* 7775 IlxXctww, rh in) tiztch <ro<pHr- 
Tt)* t o<rfeK 5r#p#A«£wi» xa.TctytW\ov]eii srpoc tw trtXrpWi x^ tu o<p$uX- 
fbot dloif£t<Poi/]ci<; y xj aVftf JT</w»5TA«tr/^e»«5 to fip>*, ofjueoi; ccv\?i)<rt f 
*2 at7ro7Tef/j7ru aprias ■■ ■ ■ © yAv *6<ru» eturoq <riv7r<£ t axif/uuv 3 
urrottpUtTcci, tXXtjt *£*", >J ftccpGctpifyv, v, «6tv ett ctvros y t cxai rt ^ 
o6tt i7rn*Qt¥ £j tov dtfyunw 3, ojpxa? i^Uyut, ti St jav nuorSsw, 
xj cCxuXSv, iltXduvu rtv Jkipovoi. Lucian in Philopfeud. Ed. Par. 
p. 333. 

f It may be feen in Eufeb. Pr#p. Evang. L. IV. c. 23. 

ficulty, 



( 107 ) 

ficulty, as well as to put out of all Doubt the 
literal Meaning of the Scripture Demoniacks, 
I (hall only fet down a few Teftimonies, which 
feem moft clear and exprefs, out of the many*, 
which might be produced to this Purpofe. 

We begin with J 'ufiin Martyr, who, in his 
Dialogue with T'rypho, ufes this Argument -f~, 
as you may even now, ifyoupleafe, be eajily con- 
vinced by the things done before your Eyes ; For 
by this very Name of the Son of God, thefirfl- 
born oj every Creature, who was born of a Vir- 
gin, and was made a Man liable to Sufferings, 
and crucified under Pontius Pilate, by the Peo- 
ple of your Nation, and died, rofe again, and 
afcended into Heaven, [in His Name] every De- 
vil being adjured, is conquered, and obliged to 
fubmit.— And in another Place, this Author 
gives the following Reafon for praying to be 
prefervedyr0#z wicked and deceiving, orwander- 

* Whoever would fee more, may confult, Whitby s General 
Preface, to the Epiji. p. 26, &c. 

•f* 'Slq xj wv cm tujv wit' e'l^ty yivoybiiw p£ov v'f/jZc iriirQwett, lot* 
SAjjtj. Kark y> rS o\o'/WI©- <xuxh thtx liS rS 3-s», xj 7rpvTo- 
roicii 7ru<rtK kThtsius, xj 2iL£ srafO^a ymu0£/](^, xj sra&jTa ytvofjutva 
ayfyaxa, xj su»ya§i{\<§>* ix) HovTia HfaUm vito ra "hot,** Cfjuuv, x£ 
aVoflayo'/]®-', xj it\u,i;oL{\<& ix. vtxf&iv, xj awCa/]^ *»§ tov uqcLvov, 7toii 
JkifA/oviov ifyfKitp (fyov vticecrui, xj v7roTtttr<rtTUi. Ed. Par. p. 3 I I. — 
Oj xj ryv tS ovo fjbul&t iy\v xj Tec octifjuoviX Tp//xj<, xj G"V[Ji/t*et ifyfuctty- 
fdflet ttecTot t» ovdfAx1<&''li)<rij Xotfb rS $-«vp«y0Ei/](§K* in) Tlo/iis ITiAet t& 

TH yi*0[AZVtS i7TtTQ07ru T>)$ 'ifc^kia?, V7TCT0t<rCrtT0H f &<; xj gal rttm 7rZ<rt 
QcCVifO* tiVXl, 071 IlaT>)p UVTH TCtrOtVTTjV tabiKiV CC'JTuJ JvVCtfAWy U?t Kj 

rot ^oci^juonx yTolaVo-sepJ ru ovofActri etwra, xj t>j t« ytvof/uivx jraSa? 
uvtS eUovo^'iot. Jbtd. p. 247. ■ K«t vvv ifAtis el 7ri,sivoS\i<; 

liei rov sot,vye>>UAu> fV* Uov7i8 U^xm 'l»j<rai» Kvgicv jj/xwv, rot obu- 
piQviec TTotvlet xj wttvfjiioclei ffcwf* *|ofx{£<w1*$, b7TOTot<r<roptvot Hft~v s%o- 
f«v. Ibid, p. 302. 

O 2 ing 9 



( 108 ) . 

tng, Spirits. At the Power of His Name, even 
the Devils tremble, and at this Day, being ex- 
orcifed in the Name of Jesus Christ, — be- 
come fubjetJ. So that it is from hence manifejl 
to all Men, that His Father hath given Him fo 
great a Power, that even the Devils are Jubjeffi 
to His Name, and to the Difpenjation of His 
Pafijion.—— And again he fays, and now we that 
believe in our Lord Jesus, that was crucified 
tinder Pontius Pilate, exorcifing all Devils, and 
wicked Spirits, have thcmJuhjeSi to us. 

c Theophilus of Ant ioch writes thus, Demoni- 
acks are fomttimes even to this Day, exorcifed 
in the Name of the Living God, and thefe de- 
ceitful Spirits confejs them/elves to be Devils, 8cc. 
*. Lrenceus, fpeaking of the miraculous Pow- 
ers given to the true Difciples of Christ, and 
exorcifed by theni in His Name, mentions the 
difpoffeffing evil Spirits in the firft Place, and 
very fufficiently diftinguifhes it from the Cure 
of Difeafes. Some, fays he, certainly and tru- 
ly ejeffi Devils -, injbmuch that thofe who are 
thus healed and cleanfed, are often converted to 
the Faith, and remain in the Church. And af- 
ter reciting the Gifts of Prophecy, communica- 
ted to others, he adds, and others heal the Sick, 
by Lmpofition of Hands, andreflore them whole ||. 
But of all ancient Writers, none is more ex- 

prefs 

* Ot 2cti[Jt.ovSi]t(; Inert *} /4J#p« rS hufo i£cf>t'i£ov1ca kxtx T» ovo- 
fjbtt]<&> Td {>*}<&• B-tSy H3 bpoXoyiT uvtoc. rot TPiay« xnt*[AXTX tlvXi 
fuipevtt;. Ad. Autol. Ed. Ox. 1. 2. p. 77. 

j O* fjutv yxf Sxipovuq i^xvva<n fiiGx'ws ^ oito$a)$, *>?s ve^axtq 



( 109 ) 

prefs to this Purpofe than Ttertullian in his 
Apology, who appeals to the very Eyes and Ears 
of the Enemies of Christianity, and makes 
the following very remarkable Challenge. " Let 
there appear before your Judgment Seats one, 
who is certainly pojfejjed with a Devil ; that 
Spirit, being commanded by any Chrijlian 
to fpeak, will as truly confefs himfelf to be a 
cc Devil, as in other Places he falfely calls 
" himfelf a God. Even fo, let there be pro- 
<c duced one of thofe, who are thought to fuf- 

* c fer from a God If thev do not own them- 

felves Devils, not daring to lie to a Chrijlian ; 
fhed the Blood of that Chrijlian in the 
fame Place, as of a moft fhamelefs Deceiver. 
— If on the other fide, they are truly Gods, 
why do they bely themfelves, and confefs 
the Name of Devils? Do they this in 
" Obedience to us ? Then is your Deity now 
" fubject to Chriflians *." Minutius Felix 
comes next in order of Time, and gives us 



tJv %uyav exiSfcias luvrccty t£j vynTq ctTroKeiB'tfzla'iv. Adv. Hasref. 
1. 2. C. 57. 

* Edatur hie aliquis Tub tribunalibus veftris, quern Dasmone agi 
conftet, jufTus aquolibet Chriftiano loqui Spiritus ille, tarn fe Da> 
monem confitebitur devero, quam alibi Deum de falfo. JEquc 
producatur aliquis ex iis, qui de Deo pati exiltimantur, qui aris 
inbalantes numen de nidQre concipiunt, qui ructando conantur, 

qui anhelando profantur Nifi fe Dasmones confeffi fuerint, 

Chriftiano mentiri non audentes, ibidem illius Chriftiani procaciffimi 
fanguinem fundite — Si altera parte vere Dei funt, cur tez Daemonia 
mentiuntur? An, ut nobis obfequantur? Jam ergo fubjecta 
Chriftianis divinitas veftra. Tertul. Jpologet. $ecl, 23. 

much 



(no) 

much the fame account in much more elegant 
Laiaguage. After he has largely defcribed the 
Nature and different Operations of impure 
Spirits and Devils, with regard to their Ora- 
cles, Prophets, &c. he goes on, " all this, as 
is known by mod, by feveral among your- 
felves, the very Devils confefs of themfelves, 
as often as we drive them out of Bodies by 
the Tortures and Force of our Words, and 
the Vehemence and Warmth of our Invo- 
cations Believe them, when they teftify 

themfelves to be Devils, and thus confefs the 
Truth. For being adjured by the true and 
only God, Mifery and Horror feizes them 
within the Bodies, [they poffefs] and they 
are either forced to depart out of them im- 
mediately, and at once, or by Degrees to 
leave them ; according as the Cure is for- 
warded by the Faith of the Patient, or the 
Favour of the Exorcift *." No lefs ftrong 
to this Purpofe is Origen, in his famous Dif- 
courfe again ft Celfus ; in Anfwer to whom, 
when he objedled againft thefe Cures of the 
Chrijlians, as made by Invocations of certain 
Demons y the Father fays, " that they do not 



* Hsec omnia fciunt plerique, pars veftrum, ipfos Dasmonas 
de femetipfis confiteri, quoties a nobis tormentis verborum, & 
orationis incendiis de corporibus exiguntur — Ipfis teftibus cffe eos 
Daemonas de fe verum confitentibus credite. Adjurati enim per 
Deum verum& folum, inviti, miferi, corporibus inhorrefcunt, et 
vel exiliunt ftatim, vel evanefcunt gradatim, prout fides patientis 
adjuvat, aut gratia curantis afpirat. Minuc. Fe/. Ofiav. Ed. 
Ludg. Batav. p. 30, 3 1 , 

" think 



( *II ) 

c * think to prevail by [fuch] Invocations, but by 
<c the Name of Jesus, together with reciting 
cc the feveral Particulars of His Hiftory. For 
<c the mention of thefe have often forced the 

" Devils out of Men." And again, <c So 

" great is the Power of the Name of Jesus 
againft Devils ; that it has Succefs, even 
when named by wicked Perfons, as Jesus 
taught faying, many Jhall fay to me in that 

JDay, &c. Mat. vii. 22. It is plain, that 

Chrijlians ufe none of the Arts of Enchan- 
ters, but the Name of Jesus Christ, and 
the other Do&rines, &c -J-." Cyprian is full 
of fuch Teftimonies. I mall only quote one from 
his Letter to Demetrianus, who was, as fome 
think, Proconful of Africa, but, according to 
others, a Judge or Connfellor in Carthage ; cer- 
tainly a Man of Power and Authority, and a 
bitter Enemy to the Chrijlians. This Letter 
therefore is of the fame Kind as an Apology : 
In it, we find the good Bifhop applying to him 
thus : " O ! that you would but hear and fee 
" the Gods of the Gentiles, when they are ad^ 
" jured by us, and tormented with our fpiri- 
" tual Scourges, and call out of the Bodies, 

yjirx *«? ot7ruyfi?\kec<; ruv srjpt otvrcv Woy'wv. rccijrcc ykc teydu!Lst t 

xoMetKii; Tttq a<3CifA.ovccs 7ti7Folr)Kti ectfyvTra)* xaeurQwui retra- 

tok jjiiiv yt dvvx]xi to ovofAX t« 'lyes kcctu tuv £a,tu.£vM t lac, \<r^ 
zTt jcJ vno (pxvhav *vou<,cc£q '/loivov cCwuv, oxs* ^Uq-kuv 'li)<r3$ 'i\zyi 
> ' <rct<pt<; on Xyiftuvol xPffjuicc (/ttherv) ina^uv %oa>/ju(vn hrvf^x- 
ivc-i, a.X'h'x ru ovdf/tccri rS 'IvoS, kxI ecWav ho'ym nimstu^Uui 
kutu tjj\ S-ikv yp«4>»jV Orig. COM. Cdf. 1. I. Ed. Cantab. 
p. 7. Vid. I.7. p. 334. 



( H2 ) 

<c they poffefTed, by the force of our Words, 
" when crying out, and lamenting with an 
" human Voice, arid feeling the Strokes of a 
" Divine Power, they confefs the Judgment 
" to come. Come, and know the Truth of 
what we fay. And, fince you fo pretend to 
worfhip the Gods, believe at leaft the very 

Gods, you worfhip You fhall fee us fup- 

plicated by thofe, whom you fupplicate, 
feared by thofe, whom you fear, whom 
you adore. You fhall fee thofe ftanding 
<c bound under our Hands, and trembling like 
Captives, whom you reverence and wor- 
fhip, as your Lords. Surely even thus you 
muft be afhamed of thofe your Errors, 
when you fhall fee and hear your Gods, on 
our queftioning them, immediately betray 
what they are, and not able, though you 
are prefent, to conceal thofe their Cheats and 
Delufions §." Arnobius's Teftimony to this 
Point has been produced before. We may 

§ O fi audire eos [Deos gentium] velles et videre, quando a 
nobis adjurantur, et torquentur fpiritalibus flagris, & verborum 
tormentis de obiefiis arporibus ejiciuntur, quando ejulantes, et 
gcmentes voce humana, et poteftate divina flagella & verbera fen- 
tientes, venturum judicium confitentur. Veni et cognofce vera 
efle, qux dicimus. Et quia fie Deos colere te dicis, vel ipfls, 

quos colis, crede Videbis nos rogari ab iis, quos tu rogas, 

timeri ab iis, quos tu times, quos tu adoras. Videbis Tub man u 
nolM Hare vinclos, & tremere Captivos, quos tu fufpicis et ve- 
neraris ut Dominos. Certe vel fie confundi in litis erroribus tuis 
poteris, quando confpexeris et audjeris Deos tuos, quid fint, inter- 
rogavionc nottra fhtim prodere, & pradentibus licet vobis, prafti- 
gias illas & fallacies fuas non poflecelare. Cyprian. Op. Ed. Ox. 
p. 191 . Vid. ctiam ad Donat. p. 4. & de Idol. Vanit. p. 14* 

therefore 



cc 
i< 
<c 
cc 

CC 

cc 



cc 
cc 

cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 



( "3 ) 

therefore pafs to LaBantius, who fpeaks in 
exaftly the fame Language, and who (hall be 
the laft Author cited, on this Occafion. He 
fays, that the Spirits " adjured by the Name 
of God, depart out of Bodies, And that be- 
ing, as it were, fcourged by the Words of 
good Men, they not only confefs themfelves 
to be Devils, but alfo declare their Names 

Which they moft commonly do before 

their Worfhippers Becaufe they can nei- 
ther lye to God, by whom they are adjured, 
not yet to good Men, by whofe Voice they 

<c are tormented." And again, " How great 

a Terror this Sign is to Devils muft be known 
by any one, who will fee, how being ad- 
jured by Chri/l, they fly out of the Bodies 
they pofTerTed. For as He himfelf, when 
He lived among Men, caft out all Devi Is 
with His Word, and reftored to their for- 
mer Senfes, Men, whofe Minds were diftrac- 
u ted by the Aflaults of evil Spirits : So do His 
" Followers now caft the fame impure Spi- 
<c rits out of Men, both in the Name of their 
tc Mafter, and by the Sign of His Paffion * " 

P Thus 



* t Cujus [Dei] nomine adjurati, de corporibus excedunt. 

Quorum [juftorum] verbis, tanquam flagris, verberati, non mo- 
do Dzemonas fe efle confitentur, fed etiam nomina fua edunt. 
-^ Quod plerunque coram cultoribus fuis faciunt — Quia nee Deo, 
per quern adjurantur ; nee juftis, quorum voce torquentur, men- 
tiri poflunt. DeOng. Error. Cap. xv. Ed. Spark, p. 193, 194. 
• ■ Quanto terrori lint Dasmonibus hoc lignum, fciet, qui vidc- 
rit, quatenus adjurati per Chriftum, de corporibus, qua; obfede- 

rint. 



cc 
tc 
cc 
<c 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 



cc 

* 

cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 

cc 
cc 



( >H ) 

Thus we fee, the Accounts of the belt Wri- 
ters of the three firft Centuries are very uniform 
in this Matter. How this Gentleman, in his 
fecond intended Enquiry will be able to get 
over, or to explain them, fo as to make them 
agreeable to his Scheme, I muft confefs, I am 
not able to imagine. The Difficulty is furely 
great : The Points attefted are open Faffs : 
There can be therefore no room for any Char- 
ges of Enthujiafm\ which does not relate to 
Fac7s, but Opinions. As little Reafon have we 
to fufpecl: any Mi/takes. The Cafes are repre- 
fented as very numerous : Their Enemies were 
called upon to examine into them : They were 
called upon, in Controverfial Writings, and in 
folerrin Apologies : The Truth of Chrijlianity 
was in a manner put upon it, as a certain and 
undoubted Teft : This Fact was of fuqh a 
Nature, as to be, in the higheft manner, re- 
flecting on the Heathen Religion, and dero- 
gatory to the Honour of their fancied Deities, 
If it could therefore have been dirproved, would 
not they, who were fo very zealous for thefe, 
have gladly taken hold on fuch an Occafion, 
to have vindicated them, and laid fo juft a Re- 
proach on Christians ? 

The prefent Bijhop of Lichfield calls the 

rint, fugiant : nam, ficut ipfe, cum inter homines ageret, uni- 
verfos Daemones verbo fugabat, hominumque mentes emotas, et 
malis incurfibus furiatas, in fenfus priftinos reponebat ; ita nunc 
fecta tores ejus eofdem fpiritus inquinatos de hominibus, et nomine 
magiftri fui, et figno paflionis excludunt. Id. de 'vera Sapient. 
L. IV. c. 27. f. 397. 

Apologies 



r *«5 1 

Apologies of the antient Fathers u fbme of the 
" very beft of their Productions 4V' And in- 
deed, there was need enough of their being ex- 
act and correct in thefe. No lefs than the Lives 
and Safety of all the ChriJIians, or of many of 
them, depended thereon. Let us confider 
a fet of Men, holding a Faith contrary to the 
Profeffion of the Civil Govemours, who there- 
upon mifreprefented and reviled it ; and, when 
this would not do, attempted to ftop the Pro- 
grefs of it by Perfecution and Torments. Se- 
veral of thofe Sufferers, at once to vindicate 
their Religion and Characters, and to obtain an 
End of their Miferies, prefent folemn AddreiTes 
to the very Chief of their Enemies -, all of 
them agree in afferting a Fact, as common and 
well known \ dare the others to look into it, 
and make Trial of it ; put the Succefs of their 
Caufe upon it 5 and make a voluntary Offer of 
forfeiting their Lives, if it fhould fail.— And can 
we, in thefe Circumftances, think fuch a Fad: 
falfe ? Could Men ever {hew a fuller AiTu ranee 

of the Truth of any * ? But perhaps the 

Apologifis were themfelves fome of the Enqui- 
rer's Demo?iiacks, Madmen. No thefe very 

Works contradict fuch a Suppofition. They 
are written in the Spirit of Truth, Sobernefs, 
Calmnefs, and Decency. Befides the Event of 
fprne of them abundantly juftifies their Un- 



■f Vindication, &c. V. I. p. 65. 

J Vid. Nicolii Conference, V. II. p. 147, 148. 



P 2 der- 



( n6 ) 

derftandings, as well as the Truth of their Af 
fertions. Madmen, we may be fure, would 
not have been liftened to : And any Falfhood 
would have been far from doing Service, would 
certainly have aggravated the Malice of their 
Enemies, and given thefe a real handle to afflict 
them, ftill more. Whereas, many of thofe 
Apologies quenched the Violence of the Fire of 
Perfecution, and obtained Refcripts and Decrees 
in favour of Chriftianity. We may there- 
fore receive for undoubted Truths, whatever 
Facls they all advanced in this manner : We 
may depend upon their Care in making Affer- 
tions, the Falfhood of which they would foon 
have anfwer'd with their Lives. 

How long the Power of cajling out Devils 
continued in the Church, I cannot fay. There 
is Reafon to think, it remained after the other 
miraculous Gifts were ceafed. For, as Arch- 
BiJJjop billot fin obferved, " The Power of 
" cafting out Devils, which was moft com- 
mon (for every Chriflian had it) continued 
longeft ; and there was Reafon it mould con- 
tinue, fo long as the Devil reigned, and the 
Pagan Idolatry was kept up, to fhew that 
the Spirit of Chrift was fuperior to the Devil, 
and would finally overcome him, and over- 
throw his Kingdom ; — and this appeared, in 
that they were able in the Name of Chrift 
to caft him out, wherever he had taken 
Poffeflion, which God permitted to be very 
" frequent in thofe Times, for the more glori- 



cc 
cc 
cc 
<c 
<c 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 



" ous 



( **7 ) 

fi ous Manifeftation of His Power in cafting 
" out the Prince of the World. But when the 
" Powers of the World became Chriftian, and 
the Heathen Idolatry w r as every where over- 
thrown, and Satan's Kingdom every where 
deftroyed, then this miraculous Gift alfo 
ceafed, there being no further occafion for it*." 
From this State of the Fact we find, that 
the Foundation of the Difficulty before us is far 
from being altogether certain ; that we do not 
fo very rarely meet w r ith In fiances of Demo- 
niacks before, or after, our Saviour's Time ; 
and consequently, that it muft lofe much of 
its Force. However, I own, this does not en- 
tirely remove it. The Inftances before Chrift 
were but few, in Comparifon to thofe about 
that Age : And we have long been without any 
of undoubted Evidence. I (hall therefore next 
propofe fome Solutions of this, fome Reafons, 
which learned Men have given to account for 



it. 



We have two of this fort in Lightfoot, which 
are the fame offered by Bartholine the Phyfi^ 
cian, viz. Becaufe the Jews at that Time 
were arrived to the Height of Impiety, and bev 
caufe they w r ere exceedingly addicted to Magick 
Arts *f\ There appears to be fome Force in this 
laft Reafon efpecially. That they were really 
fo addicted is clear, from St. Luke's Account 

* Tillotforis Sermons, laft Edition, 1735. Vol. III. p 488. 
f Vide Barthtline de Morb. Bib/ids, quoted in Bi/hop Smalbroke^ 
Vindicate V. I. p.343. and Light/. Vol. II. p. 175. 

of 



( n8 ) 

of the Value of the Books, relating to fuch cu~ 
rious Arts, which were burnt at Ephefus only, 
by the Jews, who believed. Atts xix. 18. &c. 
And, nothing is eafier to fuppofe, than that 
Magic, as it is really applying to the Devil for 
Aid, and calling him to ufe his Power, might 
be fuffered by God Almighty to have this 
dreadful Effect. 

A late very good Writer * has affigned ano^ 
ther Anfwer, which he thinks plain and eafy. 
That then only were thofe Beings known 
and heard of, becaufe then only thofe Pow- 
ers were exercifed, which alone were able to 
bring their Doings k to Light. The Difeafes 



<c 
cc 
cc 

cc 

" werevifiblej but the Caufe of them wasun- 
<c known; till He, who wrote the Cure, made 

cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 



it evident by His Power what it was. And 
poflibly fhould the fame Power again revive, 
we might again hear of juft the fame Effects 
of it. We know little byourReafon, or our 
Senfes, of the Being of evil Spirits, or of their 
Power, and therefore are apt to make no 
reckoning of them in confidering the poffible 
<c Caufes of thofe Effects, which we daily fee 
<c before us ; but fhould any one fay, that even 
" now a great many of thofe Difeafes, which 
<c afflict Mankind, are caufed by evil Spirits ; 
<c fome modern Writers would find much 
" more ufe of their Talent for Ridicule, than 
<c of their Reafon and Understanding in con- 



* Difcourfe of our Saviour's miraculous Power of Healing, &c. 
1730. p. 24. 



fating 



cc 
cc 
a 
cc 
<c 
«c 



( 119 ) 

" fating him." According to this Account, 
Poffeffions were never peculiar to any Age. 
There may be many fuch at this Day. And, 
if it be thought mere Suppofition and Conjediare 
only, ftill fuch is a fufficient reply to a mere Dif- 
cidty. Nor can this be fupported, without 
(hewing the Impoflibility and Falfenefs of it. 

The learned Prelate \ fo often mentioned be- 
fore, has helped us to another Solution, which 
is, " That the Devil might have been permitted 
by God to exert himfelf in an unufual man- 
ner, at and after Jesus's Advent, in order to 
be more fignally triumphed over by the Savi- 
our of the World, and thofe that were de- 
legated by Him to convert Mankind to His 
Religion *." And, what is there in this, 
but what is very probable, and very confiftent 
with our Notions of God ? Can we conceive a 
wifer End of His acting, than the Advancement 
of His own Glory, in order to the Salvation of 
Mankind ? Or can we conceive any more 
likely way of promoting this, than fuch a fignal 
feniible Victory over his grand Enemies, the 
Powers of Darkneis ? Could there be a more 
clear and expreffive Reprefentation of that 
great and final Conqueft, which he came to 
finifh ? Or, could there be a more certain and 
convincing Argument, to turn the Nations of 
the World from their idolatrous Worfhip to 
Him, then to {hew them, in a vifible manner, 
that the Beings they adored were, by their own 

* Vindication, &c. Vol I. p. 34^. Y id. Ti//otfin r ubi/upra. 

Con- 



( 120 ) 

Confeffion, Devils, fubject to His Name, and 
.caft out by the Power of it ? 

None of theie Suppolitions are once men- 
tioned by the Enquirer; though I can't but 
think, that, both in regard to the Authority of 
their refpective Authors, and their real intrinfick 
Weight, they all deferved to have been well 
confidered. Sure I am, that the Difficulties, 
with which his Scheme is clogged (I need not 
repeat them) are not capable of fuch plain and 
rational Solutions. 

But really we are not obliged to give An- 
fwers to fuch Queftions as this Gentleman here 
asks, nor fhould it be the leaft Concern, if we 
could not give any. For fhould it be granted, 
that the whole of the Difficulty he objects, re- 
mains, and that no Anfwer hitherto given, 
could be admitted as fatisfactory ; yet, what is 
the Confequence ? That the Go/pel fhould be 
rejected ? He does not pufh the Matter fo far ; 
though Wooljion did. And furely, a Book of 
fuch Authority is not prefently to be given up, 
merely, becaufe we may not be able to anfwer 
every Doubt, which may arife about any Part 
of it. The Difficulties of Scripture are acknow- 
ledged by the very beft Friends of it, by an in- 
fpired Writer Himfelf. But none amount to 
the leaft charge of Contradidion, Impiety, or 

Untruth Or, are we, on this Account, to 

disapprove and reject the literal Sen fe of the many 
Paflages confidered ? But firft, it would be ad- 
vifeable to make fure of another Senfe more 

i eafy 



( 121 ) 

eafy and clear. This is far from being the 
Cafe of the Suppofition I have examined. We 
have feen, that it has greater Difficulties at- 
tending it, gives room for more Cavil and 
Contention, and is fo far from fatisfying a 
thinking Man, that it appears irreconcileable to 
many Places of Scripture, and hardly confift- 
ent with the Simplicity and Plainnefs of the 
Go/pel Style, in general. And for ruch an In- 
terpretation, the literal Senfe, though its Diffi- 
culties were more and greater, is by no Means 
to be left. 

Let us view a little clofer, the Qnejlions at 
prefent afked; and we (hall find them fuch, as 
it is reafonable to think, Men cannot anjwer 
perfectly. Did they relate only to common 
Diftempers ; yet *, as thefe may rage more at 
one Time than another, fo it would be no Ob- 
jection to the Truth of them, if well attefted, 
in any particular Age, that they have not been 
heard of before, or fince. Nor could we fay, 
why God fuffered this to be fo. But there is 

* In feveral hundred Year?, the Small Pox never appeared in 
|b« Grecian Empire. Tretn&s Hijlcry of Phyf. V, i. p. 274. 
Vid. Vol. 2. p. 1 88 et fecj. 

We have alfo in the lame ingenious Author an Account of the 
Sweating Sicknefs, " a Diitemper, which was never heard of be- 
" fore 14S3. in any Age or Nation ; and which after rerurning 
" now and then for the Space of fome Years, has ever fince en- 
" tirely disappeared. Vol. 2. p. 332, &c. 

He alfo obierves, that " the Lues Venerea broke out as late 
" as the 16th Century," and contends at large, that it was ;;w, 
and unknown both to the Greeks and Arabians. Ibid. p. 336, 
£sV. As like wife is die Siuri'ey, p. 387. 

Q^ fame- 



( 122 ) 

ibmething ftill more extraordinary in the In- 
itance of Demoiiiacks. A Suppofition of fome 
Power more than natural is here made. And 
therefore the Difficulty objected will at laft come 
to this, " why God Almighty thought fit to 
punim (and that Jupematurally) one Age, 
or Generation of Men, in a Manner, in 
which, lie neither before nor fmce y has pu- 

nifhed any others ?" And what Mortal 

can, without evident Prefuppofition, pretend, 
or expect, to enter deep enough into the Coun- 
fels of infinite Wifdom, to affign a certain An- 
fwer to this ? The Queftion mould be allied 
with great Humility and Modefty \ or other- 
wife it will hardly be excufable. All we can 
do, by way of Reply, is to give fome pro- 
bable Account, a Reafon not inconfiflent with 
the Divine Attributes ', for which Things may 
have been thus ordered. But we go much too 
far, and wade vaftly out of our Depth, when 
we are poiitive, that any Reafon mtijl be the 

true one Certainty therefore, in the Cafe 

before us, ought not to be expected. If any of 
the Anfwers already given be probable, they 
are Jufficient. Nor mould the Want even of 
this create any Sufpence or Uneafinefs in the 
Mind. Such Difficulties as thefe are no un^. 
ufual Things, no formidable Objections— — 
Nay, it appears to be Matter of our real 
Thanks and Praifes, to find ourfelves, defend- 
ing as we are of the Divitie Punijhments, free 
from thefe fevere one? felt formerly $ to find 

4 the 



( 123 ) 

the Power of the Devils, in any Meafixre, re- 
trained, and his mifchievous Devices fo far 
confounded. 

Still we are, in too juft a Senfe, fubjecl: to 
theie. God yet permits wicked Spirits to af- 
fault us : And we are yet liable to yield, and 
too often give them the Victory. Let me 
therefore conclude this EJJay with one ufeful 
practical Admonition 3 in which I dare fay, the 
Gentleman, I have been oppofing, will concur 
with me. This is, that we here prove Exor- 
cijis to ourfelves ; that, by Prayer and Fajling, 
by Care and Vigilance, we prevent their ta- 
king Pofleffion of our Minds ; or, if it be too 
late to do this, that we ufe the fame Me- 
thods immediately to drive them thence : And 
particularly, that we guard againft that too 
common Device, the leading Men, under 
the Pretence of Impartiality, to be partial 
againft the Caufe of Religion, and the Truth 
of Scripture ; and from doubting to disbelieve 
them, without enquiring into the Foundations, 
on which they ftand. Herein, if we are not 
wanting to ourfelves, we mall afluredly be fuo- 
cefsful : We need not fear their Number, Pow- 
er, or Delufions : We know, who has pro- 
mifed, and this He is able alfo to perform, that 
if we rejift the Devil, he will flee from us. 



FINIS. 



/• All ~ - "9 

■ ■ 5 

A 

SERMON 

Preach' d before the 

University of OXFORD. 

- — i , ! — 

Luke XIII. 31. 
— Behold \ 1 cafi out devils y ~ 

T His is a declaration of that power, 
whereby our Savior compell'd evil 
fpirits to leave thofe unhappy per- 
fbns, whom they had corporally poffefs'd. The 
mifery of fuch poffeflion , and the bleffing of 
a releafe from it, are recorded by the Evan- 
gelifts i fo often , in fo plain and diftinguifh- 
ing a manner, that their meaning might feem 
abundantly fecur'd from miftake. Even the 
2 bittereft enmity againft Chriftianity, in it's 

1 Matt. IV. 24. VIII. 1 6, 28 and foil. IX. 33. X. 8. XII. 
24, 28. XVII. 15 and foil, compar'd with Mark IX. 17 and 
foil, and Luke IX. 39 and foil. Mark 1. 25,26334,39. V- 2. 
and foil. VI. 13. XVI. 9, 17. Luke IV. 40, 41. VIII. 27 and 
foil. IX.i. X. 17. XI. 18 and foil. 2 Julian, apud Cyril. 
1. 6. p.191. edit.Spanh. Even Lucian, whiFft he indulgeth 
himfelf in his ufual raillery, fheweth 3 that the difpoffeflion 
of evil fpirits was not uncommonly fpoken of in his time : 

Phiiops. p. 337. A 2 more 



4 The ufual interpretation 

more early ages, cou'd not ftifle an acknow- 
ledgment, that the fa<5b, referr'd to in the 
texty were really fuch, as they are reprefented 
in the Gofpels. Yet, amongft perfons, who 
afliime the Chriftian chara&er, fome have not 
fcrupl'd to charge the portions of facred hi- 
ftory, which thofe fads are the fubje&s of, 
with abfurdity, or mere accommodation to 
vulgar error. Under the fgecious colour (and 
what impofture hath not taken the fpecious 
colour?) of difabufing credulous mortals, rec- 
tifying their fentiments and removing their 
apprehenfions of danger, where no danger is, 
they have attempted, by a peculiar kind of 
exorcifm, to ejecfl both the poflefTors and the 
pofTefs'd out of the volume of Scripture. In 
purfuit of this benevolent undertaking, they 
maintain, that the original words, which, in 
our tranflation, x are render'd— devils— fignify 
( not any particular order of fpirits i in power, 
fuperior to our cwn ; or in temper, perpetual- 
ly difpos'd to mifchief, but) only the fouls of 
men, which have left the body, and are kind- 
ly affe&ed to them, who ftill are in it. This 
interpretation leadeth it's authors to conclude, 
that, wherever any grievous fufferings of men 
are imputed to the influence of fal/uns or Sou- 

i And, not improperly, as the fequel will evince. 



0/aaimones <& c . afjerted. f 

[aovi*> the whole narration muft vanifh in fi- 
gure, or fink in condefcenfion to popular, er- 
roneous perfuafion. And this conclufion is like- 
wife fupposd to receive additional flipper t, 
from the inconfiftency with divine attributes, 
which it's patrons pretend to difcover, in the 
contrary opinion. But, the falfe criticifm and 
falfe reafoning of the whole fcheme will be 
expos'd, by proving, 

First, That the notion, ufually annex'd to 
Scupovts and Soupm*, in Evangelical hiftory, is 
confirm'd by the ufe of the fame words, in the 
writings of eminent heathens: 

Secondly, That thofe paflages of the 
Gofpel, wherein are exprefs'd the vehement 
malignity and power of the Beings fo call'd, 
ought to be underftood in the literal, obvious 
meaning of the expreffions : 

Thirdly, That by the literal expofition, 
here aflerted, the juftice, wifdom and goodnefs 
of God are fo far from being contradi&ed, as 
to be fignally difplay'd. 

And, First, the notion, ufually annex'd to 
Scupms and Swum*, in Evangelical hiftory, is 

confirm'd 



6 The ufual interpretation 

confirm'd by the ufe of the fame words, in the 
writings of eminent heathens. 

I. In thefe writings, then, (and to theft 
our adverfaries appeal ) the terms, under con- 
fideration, are fometimes l equivalent to Sw 
or Q-eiav, when the grammatical number is the 
fame, and denote the divine Being, abfolutely 
fupreme. But, 2 they are molt commonly ap- 
ply'd, in the plural number, to reprefent create 
ed Beings, originally fuperior to man. Be- 
fides the paffages, wherein this notion of them 
is dire&ly requir'd, many others fupply fuch me- 
diums, as clearly fuggeft it. They are defcrib'd, 
for lflftance, as ' firft imployd in the creation 
of men , by divine appointment ; and after- 
wards, as guarding and conducting each in* 

i Plato in Politico p. 272. extr. edit. Steph. Hierocl. p. 
2S0. edit.Cant. Diodor. Sic. I.3. p. 143. ed. R'hod. j*£lian. 
V. H. 1. 6. c. 12. adde J. Poll. 1. 1. c. 1. 2 Plato in Synv 
pof. p. 202. Iamblich. de Myft. iEgypt. feci:, 1 ji, c.22,30. 
edit. Oxon. Porphyr. Epift. ad Anebon. p. 1 & feq. fere 
fingulis. Iamblich. de Myft. iEgypt. feci:. 1. c. 3, 4, ?, 7. 
fedt.II. c.i,2. Max.Tyrius di(T. z6. p. 271 -4 -6* edit.Cant, 
Iamblich. de vitaPythag. 08. p. 28. & c.xi. p. 84. & C32. 
p. 177. edit. Kuft. Porphyr. de vita Pyth. p.39. ed. Kuft. 
3 Plato in Timaeo, p. 41. -ibid. -42-69-71 -7?. Confer. 
Apul. p. 58? & 690. edit. Par. Plato in Politic. p.27i.extr. 
ibid. 274 -5. Idem de Republ. 1. 10. p. 617- 620. Idem in 
Phxdon.p.107. Porphyr. Ep. ad Aneb. p.penult. Hierocl. 

dividual 



^aaimoneS &c. ajferted. 7 

dividual of the race, from their ent'rance into 
this world ) 'til their departure out of it. 

The philofopherS, who plac'd them in thefe 
points of view, muft, in confequence of their 
own tenets, fuppofe thofe Beings to be indu'd 
with advantages of nature, which exalt them 
highly above the human fpecies. And l Plato, 
in particular, colledteth from the offices here 
affignd them, that, upon a comparifon with 
men, they muft be intitul'd to the fame pre- 
eminence, which the fliepherd is allow'd to 
have, when compard with the flocks, over 
which he prefides. 

In regard to this their fuperior order in 
the creation, as well as their important com- 
miffions , they are call'd z mw&pxjtfns too ^yi^ca 

SoUULOyt 3 ^Ist'PnpB'ftiVOVTB^ §101$ Wt 7fUp a\l§-pQ07TG0V % 

xcq ayS-pawis tit <sp£yi Sew — 4 ipfttySs tea) ay%\oi 
tuv ottfJLtyipivTW cw&paTntf — 5 &te£iKctx$i, fo&ntg&M, 

p. 276-8. Arrian. in Epi£t. l.i. c. 14. Dionyf. Hal. A. R. 
1. 2. c. 63. edit. Oxon. Menand. apud Clem. Alex. Strom. 
lib. ^. p. 717. edit. Oxon. 1 Plato de leg. lib. 4. p. 713. 
2 Plato in Politico, p.272 extr. 3 Plato in Symp. p.202. 
Porphyr. de abftin. 6cc. 1.2. fed. 38. edit. Cant. 4 Pla- 
to in Epinom. p. 984 6c feq. Plutarch. T. 2. p. 361. edit. 
Parif. — p. 416. fere extr. — p. 417. Hierocl. in aur.carm. 
p« 240. edit. Cant. 5 Iamblich. de myft. iEgypt. fed:. 1. 






tirm? 



8 The ufual interpretation 

XJoOlS TB (C 7»lf C* T&> KSFfAU) 7TUC1V c/fttSe&f&TC? , HyHOl 

Thefe characters are too fublime, to be 
drawn for human ghofts. And, tho* they are 
ftaind with mixtures of error; yet, upon ap- 
plication of fuch corre&ives, as may be fairly 
admitted, they teftify a prevailing perfuafion 
of the exiftence and minifterial office of gooci 
angels. If they were not, indeed, copy'd from 
fome part of the facred originals ; yet, in a 
comparative view of them and the r texts fub- 
join'd, feveral traces of likenefs will be offer d 
to an attentive mind. 

Whenever, then, philofophers have fo far 
conformed 2 to poetic language, as to give the 
name Jaipom to the ghofts of men 5 it cannot 

c. 13,2.0. 6c fed. III. c.i 5. feci. VI. c. 3, 6. Confer. Diog. 
Laert. 1. 3. fegm.79. 1 Pfal. XXXIV. 7. XCI. 11,12. 
CIII.20. CIV. 4. Dan. X. 13. compare Tobir XII. 12 and 
foil. Matt. XVIII. 10. Luke I. 19,26 and foil. XVI. 22. 
A&. X. 3. Heb. I. 7, 14. Rev. V. 6. VIII. 3, 4. XVII. 1. 
% Vide Platon.'de Rep. 1. 2. p.377. In Hierocl. p. 38. the 
ghofts of men, *a*9-«$s >$ ifirj ngriM&titiq, are calPd }aipms% 
m htipntt tea} bnrwfwttc : and are immediately afterwards di- 
ftinguiih'd from the 01 <J>tsei AAIMONES. 

from 



0/AAIMONE2 <&c. afferted. 9 

From hence be juftly collected, that they dit 
bwrid the natural difference between thofe 
Beings. Rather ftiou'd it be prefum'd, in or- 
der to maintain confiftency in their fentiments, 
that they thought the fduls of the good, upoii 
departure from the body, * were advanc'd to 
fuch a nearnefs of fimilitude with the molt 
Excellent creatures, as might juftify a commu- 
nity of their names. Thro 1 this cdflftru<5tioii 
of their words, they are reconcil'd to them- 
felves ; and their conceptions of things fpiri- 
tual become, in fome meafure, confonailt to 
the clearer difcdveries of revelation. For, by 
the Gofpel we are plainly taught, that the 
pious will be blefs'd with fo happy % a change, 
upon the fecond union of their conftituent 
parts, as to be thereby render'd * equal to the 
angels. 

Thus far truth and tradition confpire, in 
regard to the favorable notion, annex'd to Sou- 
pom and Scupivion 

1 Vide Platon. Cratyl. p.398. & Max. Tyr. p.282. Con- 
fer. Procl. in Plat. Theolog. p. 64. edit. Hamb. 6c Plu- 
tarch, de orac. def. p. 415". Iamblich. de myft. JEgypt* 
Sect. II. c.2. In Hierbcles they are call'd IZAITEAOI and 
Jsoaaimones— p. 4 o. 2 1C0f.XV.51 and foil. 3 Luke 
XX. 3 d. MarkXILi?. 

B But, 



I o The ujual interpretation 

But, this is not the notion, which thoft 
terms mod frequently fignify. For, the more 
contemplative heathens, allowing the ' eflen- 
tial identity of the Beings fo call'd, have con- 
fider d them alfo as accidentally diftinguifh'd, 
by contrary qualities. And, as their writings 
import fome notices of the holy angels - y fo do 
they difcover an equal degree of knowledge 
in reference to the deprav'd. Thefe are de- 
fcrib'd therein, z as malevolent and maleficent 
Beings; delighting (or feeming, at leaft, de- 
lighted) in the indulgence of cruel inclina- 
tions ; in promoting wickednefs, impoftureand 
mifery amongft men. 

' From the irreconcileable repugnancy be- 
tween moral goodnefs and a conftant difpofi- 
tion to fraud and wrong, * reafon taught phi- 

i Plutarch, de If. & Ofir. p. 360. Idem de orac. def. p. 
417. Iamblich. de myft. ./Egypt. Seel:. II. c. 7. Porphyr. de 
abft. &c. 1.2. feci. 38. Confer. Chalcid. in Plat.Tim. p. 319. 
& feq. edit. Fabr. 2 Plutarch. T.2. p. 361. Porph. epift. ad 
Aneb. p. ?. by i*>'& «5t*7jjA« <pv<n*i &c and ayvgw, feems 
to reprefent thefe, and their chief: whom, at the con- 
clufion of the fame epiftle, he diftinguifheth from the 
€C}a% Xaijww, and calleth ?rA«>@^. Iamblich. de myft. JE- 
gypt. fed.III. c.31. SedtIV.c.7. Sed.X.c.7. 3 Plato 
de Repub. 1. 2. p. 3 79 & feq. Iamblich. de myft. -/Egypt, 
fedti IV. c. 6. Hierocl. p«>83- 

lofopher« 



of aaimones &c. afferted. 1 1 

lofophers to infer, that this difpofition cannot 
be afcrib'd to the Deity. When the l fame 
authors, therefor, make the molt pernicious 
delufions, the favorite imployment of Seupovisz 
when they pronounce them the inventors and 
incouragers of fuch practices, as are moft in- 
jurious both to individuals and to communi- 
ties of men ; they muft, by neceflary confe- 
quence from their own reafoning about the 
Deity, be prefum'd to look upon $cupam 9 as 
extremely evil. And 2 Plutarch fuppofeth, that 
feveral inquifitive heathens (whom he citeth 
as confentient with Plato herein) were juftly 
led to this notion of thofe Beings, by various 
occurrences in the natural and moral world. 
Thefe occurrences exhibited the tokens of fuch 
power, as far exceeded human nature ; and of 
fuch wickednefs, as appear'd directly oppofite 

i Plato apud Plutarch. T. z. p.36^1. Idem in Phsedro p. 
240. Confer, idem de Repub. 1.x. p. 364. 6c p. 378 —381— 2. 
Where, indeed, he ufeth the word &e«, yet ^alpsm^ 'tis 
probable, are to be underftood by it. For, thus Proclus 

in Platon. Theol. p.64 — ««k« *«/ rxs AAIMONAS, cl jgsr'a^'a* 
JW«f« ra» ©EQN eioi — 0EOY2 atsvPipfim (fcil. Plato) TnT&ctyji. 
Plutarch. «fe< ilfyp. p-474« 6c de orac. def. p.417,419. Por- 
phyr. de abft. &c. 1. 2. feci. 40, 41, 58. Iamblich. de myft. 
iEgypt. feci:. III. c, 13, 16, 31. Sect. IV. c. 7, 13. Liban. 
decl. 43. p. 906. edit. Morel. 2 Plutarch. T. 2. p. 360. 6c 
feq. — 6c loc. fupra modo eit. Confer. Salluft. Phil of. c.12. 
edit. Amftel. 

B 2 to 



iz The ufual interpretation 

to the divine. In fearch of fatisfa&ion about 
them, ' the theorifts, 'tis not improbable, had 
recourfe to the remains of antient tradition ; 
and by colle&ing it's fcatter'd raies, they were 
at length indued to conceive ideas of that 
middle fort of Beings, which had much more 
ability than man, to execute purpofes intire- 
Jy unworthy of God. Theft Beings (befides 
the defcription of them already given ) are re- 
markably chara&eriz'd, in the fame authors^ 
f as exiles from heaven and from the divine 
prefence — as ivand'ring thro* the air, about 
fea and land ; and * ftriving with fuch affiduity 
#nd fiercenefs, as giveth them a refemblance of 
favage animals, to delude men int<5 ruin, and 
actually making fbme of the fpecies their prey, 

I Plutarch, de orac. defe&u, p. 41 y, 416, 417. Confer; 
Plato de Repub. 1. 1- p. 379 6c feq. z Plutarch. T.i. p. 
830. extr. & orac det. p.418 extr. &419. — & ibid, p.361. 
ZuxthttXtf H »£ <#**? <p*<n JlHyetj rvs baipsitct m \%ttn£tfun kuj 7rX%fi- 

Atyw V- y*P *& P* 10 ' ***** " nbmtt (Scribe Trirmft) 
TIovtos $"ts fc9»»«$ *&*f etmirrvat, ycutt VieiwSii (Lege is myU\ 

* Proclus in Hefiod. p. 4?. edit. Plantin. 0rph. 21%* ads 
Muo-.v.^i. Orac. Chald.XI. v.gi^.edit. Cler. Iamblich.de 
inyft. ./Egypt. feci:. II. c. 7. Confer. Pfell. p. 45. edit. Par. 
Plutarch, de orac. def. p.41 7,418,410. Iamblich. de myft, 
jEgypt. feet. III. c.13,31. Sallufl. Philof. c.14. 

In 



^Aaimones &c. afferted. 13 

In thefe images likewife, as well as in thofe 
of Saq&Ms confider'd above, it is not difficult 
to difcern that truth delineated in fainter co- 
lours, which the infpired writers have drawn 
in the ftrongeft. In their ftile, 'tis well known, 
who ! the prince of the power of the air is ; and 
who 2 the n&pojc&ti?gK} that ' kept not their firft 
ejiate y but fell from heaven. And the fame 
fpirit, of which the * ferpent and dragon are 
fometimes made emblems, is alfb defcrib'd 
by them, as * going to and fro in the earth ; 
6 walking about , as a roaring lion y feeking whom 
he may devour^ 7 and exercifing the avenging 
juftice of God on the wicked. 

Hence it appeareth, that profane authors 
do not contradict, but confirm, the ufe of 
Soupwis or Scupovictt in the facred. The In- 
quirer, then, who pretends to build his inter- 
pretation of thofe words, upon the monu- 
ments of the former, cannot evade the force 
of an evidence, which he himfelf hath inter- 
efted in the caufe. And tho* they have, con- 
feffedly, fometimes born a favorable fignifica- 

i Eph. II. 2. i —VI. 12. sJudetf. 4. Rev. XII. 9, 
14. -XX. 2. 5 Job II. 2. 6 1 Pet. V. 8. 7 1 Sam. 
XVI. 14,23. iCor.V. ?. 1 Tim. 1. 20. 

tioflj 



I4< The ufual interpretation 

tion, in pagan antiquity - y yet, this fupplyeth 
not any valid obje&ion to the eftablifhment 
of a contrary fenfe thereof, in holy Scripture. 
Words, 'tis obvious to obferve, have not un- 
commonly pafs'd from a general and indifcri- 
minate, to a peculiar and diftinguifliing, re- 
prefentation of things. Thus ayfsAc/, a name 
fometime promifcuoufly given to the higheft 
rank of creatures, hath been more eminently 
apply'd to them, who perfever'd in their pri- 
mitive ftation. And, if an example of hea- 
then authority may be more acceptable to the 
Inquirer, it will be fufficient, without accu- 
mulating more, to recommend iS&triGh or **- 
(pipit to his confideration. If no perfon of 
letters can difpute a change in the ufe of thefe 
terms, from a morally indifferent, to a bad 
meaning; why fhou'd it feem incredible or im- 
proper, that SalfjMv or ieuphtor* which had 
been the common appellation of created intel- 
ligences, fhou'd at length be appropriated to 
the leading rebels againft our Creator? And, 
as the name — ^tvY-conveyeth the fame idea, 
in our tranflation ■ the tranflation is juft, and 
the reje<5tion of it owing to ignorance, fafti- 
dious oppofition to cuftom, affedtation of un- 
ufual accuracy, or Sadducean disbelief. 

Thus 



of aaimoneS &c. ajferted. i j 

Thus far it feem'd expedient to comply with 
the Inquirer's method of attempting to fup- 
port his opinion j and to evince the agree- 
ment between Evangelical and external wri- 
ters, in the ufe of the words difcufs'd. 

The plain tenor of holy writ, indeed, fhou'd 
fuperfede the neceffity of anxious refearches af- 
ter fuch agreement, amongft real Chriftians. 
But, when the perverfe, who are ever inventing, 
or repeating, occafions of doubt and diffatif- 
faction, publifli their fancy'd difcoveries, with 
an air of triumph and uncommon learning ; 
it may be proper to draw thofe inftruments 
out of their hands, which they ufe unskilfully 
or unfairly 5 and to fhew, that a refolute ad- 
mirer of innovation will rather torture even 
the parties, which he fummons to his defence, 
than fuffer them to be uningagd in his con- 
reft with Scripture. 

And, when the Inquirer fhall think fit ( as 
he feems to threaten) to try his caufe by the 
teftimony of ecclefiaftical antiquity, he may 
expect to find it prov'd, that he hath only 
chang'd the feat of the debate, without chang- 
ing his fuccefs. 

But, 



1 6 The ufual interpretation 

But, the foundation of his cavils having 
been deftroy'd, by afcertaining the idea be- 
longing to the words, which he hath mifinter- 
preted; a way is open'd to the more unexcep- 
tionable admiffion of this Second proposi- 
tion, 

That the paflages of Gofpel-hiftory, where- 
in great malignity and great power over hu- 
man bodies are attributed to devils, ( for, fb 
they may now be calld ) ought to be literally 
underftood. 

II. Befides the fupport, which this conclu- 
fion receiveth from the preceding obferva- 
tions, afient to it is ftill more ftrongly de- 
manded, by the tenor of the whole narration 
concerning the poffefs'd. When we read, (not 
to mention other remarkable circumftances ) 
1 that evil fpirits, which had enter'd into men, 
were caft out — that they talk'd with Chrift — 
acknowledg'd His divine million — propos'd re- 
quefts to Him ; and return'd anfwers to quet 
tions propos'd; can it be thought, with any 
appearance of truth, that the Evangelifts in- 

i See the places cited at the beginning* 

tended 



of aaimones &c. averted. 17 

tended herein, only to defcribe the fymptoms 
and effects of fbme natural diforders? Can 
local motion, fpeech, reafon, choice, difcern- 
nient more than human, be affign'd, in a plain 
relation of fa&s, without the utmoft abfurdi- 
ty, to qualities ; where no intimation is given 
by the hiftorian, that he defigns to recede 
from the known , receiv'd fignification of 
words? Or, is it to be imagin'd, confidently 
with foundnefs of mind, that ■ tho' madneft 
cou d not, yet the mad might, know the perfon 
of Chrift, merely by His fame ? If the mad 
can be fuppos'd to have injoy'd intervals, fre- 
quent and lucid enough, for the attainment 
of fuch wonderful knowledg; yet, can it alfp 
be fuppos'd, that he gave proofs of his mad- 
nefs and of his knowledg, in the fame in- 
ftant? The Inquirer, indeed, liberally 2 gran t- 
eth him fagacity enough to difcern the fuper- 
eminence of Chrift, upon the firft view; and, 
by confequence, to perceive, that He was both 
able and willing to cure him. Do'th he not, 
then, permit the diftrefs'd, to imbrace this 
fair opportunity of being heal'd ? No t? fb 
capricious is this writers humor, that he recalls 
his former liberality, and allows his moft fa- 

1 See Enquiry p. 67 — 73. Luke IV. 33*34* VIII. 28. 
Mark I.i3~i6.V.6,7. Matt.VIII.29. 2 See Enq. loc. cit. 

C gacious 



1 8 The ufual interpretation 

gacious patient to betray fuch a degree of 
frenzy, in that very jun&ure, as to exprefs 
horror, at the fight of an acknowledge! de- 
liverer, and a defire of not feeling the bene- 
ficial influence of His power. So ftrong a pro- 
penfity to paradox prevails, we find, in fome 
writers, that if they fail of gaining it a fuit- 
able indulgence in the facred writings, they 
will, at leaft, indulge it in their own. 

The fame perfbn, 'tis true, who, in « one 
place of Scripture, is defcrib'd in a ftate of ob- 
feflion ; 2 in another, is call'd a lunatic. But, 
is it regularly concluded from hence, that the 
grievance, reprefented in thefe two forms of 
fpeech, was fingle, and naturally incidental to 
the fuffering party ? Or, may it not be more 
juftly affirm'd, in virtue and in favour of both 
accounts, that both are ftridtly true — that the 
cafe was complicated ; and that an evil fpirit 
had turn d a diftemper'd habit of body into an 
occafion of exercifing his cruelty in it ? This 
folution is even pointed out by the parent, 
who intreated our Savior to relieve his fon. 
For, according to his reprefentation of the dif- 
trefs, the young man was not only 3 a?A»jwa£o- 

i Mark IX. 17. compare Luke IX. 38, 39. 2 Matt. 
XVII. i?. 3 Matt, loco cit. 



^Taaimones &c. averted. 19 

/.$«©*, but alfo xdx&s 7nt%cov — labouring, at 
once, under the difeafe and the torments of 
the devil. 

When, again, we find ~ l Acupoviov £#«, £ \icar 
vztzcj, — it is z a miftake to fancy, that the lat- 
ter verb is only exegetical of the former phrafe. 
It is rather fubjoin'd, to exprefs an additional 
malady, which refulted from the other difafter, 
as it's immediate caufe. 

Thefe pafTages, then, which have been 
thought moft favorable to the Inquirer's hy- 
pothec's, being expounded with clearnefs and 
confiftency, according to the cuftomary import 
of words ; with what colour of reafon can a 
foreign and figurative fenfe be obtruded either 
on them, or other portions of the Gofpel, 
wherein fimilar fad:s are related ? 

Judgment and integrity will then, indeed, 
induce an interpreter to depart from the lite- 
ral, obvious meaning of language, when the 
nature of the fubjed: demandeth the depar- 
ture — when Scripture fuggefteth, at leaft, elf- 
where, fome reafon for the change j and when, 
.without it, a manifeft contradi&ion to the 

1 Joh, X. 20. a Mede, difc. VI. p. 19. 

C 2 plain- 



io The ufual interpretation 

plaineft truths muft unavoidably infue. But, 
what plea can be offer'd in behalf of expofi- 
tors, who will rather bid defiance, than pay 
due obedience, to thefe reftridtions ; and vio- 
late the rules of avoiding abfurdity, even for 
the fake of maintaining it ? 

By fiich licence, the ambiguity of Satan s 
oracles may be introduce! into the lively ora- 
cles of God ; and thefe, inftead of being ufe- 
ful for doblrin and inJlruBion in righteoufnefs y 
may be perverted to the promotion of confu- 
fion and every evil work. For, what is fo fa* 
cred, or fo important, in the fyftem of Chrif- 
tian dodtrines, as not to be thereby reducible 
to the level of indifferent things, or even to 
the catalogue of popular miftakes > 

If, for inftance, l wiv^a, axafapm may be 
transferr'd to the fignification of a bodily, na- 
tural diforder • **£jutf $$*& may ceafe to repre- 
fent a Divine Perfon. If mediatorial and pro- 
pitiatory a6ts are afcrib'd to a Savior of man- 
kind ; yet, thro' the Inquirers dexterity, the 
language, expreffive of tho'fe adts and that of- 
fice, may be (and hath actually been) refolv'd 
into mere conformity to the pradtices and fen« 

i Matt. X.i. & alibi. 

timents 



of aaimoneS &c. ajferted. 2 t 

timents of idolatrous nations ; amongft whom 
were Saviors, facrifices, and mediators, many. 

If, again, an Evangelift declareth the divine 
and human nature of Chrift, in faying, that 
the Word was made flejh-, an Artemonian eludes 
the proof by replying, that Word denoteth, 
in the original, only reafon or fpeech; and 
flejh, not the fubftance, but the accidents, or 
infirmities, of human nature. And, in reality, 
if the works of the prince of this world may be 
judg'd to reft upon no better foundation, than 
vulgar error; thofe alfo, by which the Prince 
of peace , and Redeemer of the world is diftin- 
gaifh'd, may, with equal eafe, be added to the 
number of imaginary characters. And, that 
fuch are the confequences of wantonly defert- 
ing the common purport of language, is too 
clearly provd by the wild, blafphemous reve- 
ries of the moft antient and later heretics. 

If, then, the ufual interpretation of Evan- 
gelical hiftory, concerning the malignity and 
power of devils, be not only not oppos'd, but 
even confirm'd, by external writers — if a ratio- 
nal, confident fenfe may be deduc'd from the 
ordinary acceptation of the original words — if 
the unneceflary application of an alkfiye, figu- 
rative 



ax The ufttal interpretation 

rative conftru&ion hath been inftrumental in 
impofing the moft monftrous and deteftable 
conceits upon writings, dictated by the Spirit 
of God - if thefe aflumptions are all, as they 
have all been prov'd to be, fo many truths; 
then, the laws of found judgment and found 
reafoning will evidently perfuade this conclu- 
iion - That the pafiages, wherein the cafe of 
demoniacs is defcrib'd, ought to be underftood 
according to the literal, obvious meaning of 
the expreffions. 

A pious concern, indeed, for the honour of 
the Deity, and a defign to correct an opinion, 
which is deem'd injurious to it, have been made 
the pretence for giving figure, in this cafe, a 
preference to the letter. But, allowing the 
patrons of figure the whole benefit of their 
piety, in the intention of their fchemes $ yet, 
the neceflity of forming and propofing them 
will totally difappear, when it is fliewn, 

Thirdly, That by the interpretation, here 
alfet'ted, the juftice, wifdom and goodnefs of 
God are fo far from being contradicted, as to 
be fignally difplay'd. 

III. Can, then, the juftice of God be re- 
concile 



(^aaimones &c. ajjerted. 23 

concil'd with a permiffion, that Beings, whofe 
nature is fo contrary to His own, fhou'd exer- 
cife a power fo extenfive, and fo hurtful to 
the reft of His creatures ? Or, do'th not this 
divine attribute lead us rather to prefume, that 
they are reftraind from executing their evil 
purpofes; and condemn d to fuffer, inftead of 
caufing, mifery ? The difficulties, which thefe 
inquiries may be fancy'd to contain, are folv'd 
by obferving, that the mifapplication of power, 
whereby wicked fpirits continually attempt the 
promotion of natural as well as moral evil, is 
not agreeable, but dire&ly contrary, to origi- 
nal inftitution — that this contrariety is the re- 
fult of their voluntary depravation — that the 
reftraint of a&s, fuitable to this fupervening 
depravation, is not more requifite to the idea 
of tectorial juftice in the Deity, than the ef- 
fectual prevention of criminal folicitations and 
criminal conduit, which are often mutually ex- 
perience amongft men. 

To thefe obfervations it may be added, that, 
tho' the delay of punifhment, completely ade- 
quate to guilt, muft be own'd by every mor- 
tal, who is not an intire ftranger to himfelf, 
to be confident with divine juftice ; yet, the 
damnation of the rebellious fpirits even now jlum- 

b'reth 



%± The ufual interpretation 

breth not ; feing, together with the conti- 
nuance of their exiftence, their torture is al- 
io continue!. For, belides a tormenting con- 
fcioufnefs of abfolute exclufion from the in- 
valuable bleffings of grace and glory, they 
are likewife reprefented as pofitively feeling 
the feverity of their fentence. l Chains ofdark- 
nefs — a gloomy, painful, difconfolate ftate, 
out of which no expedient can extricate them, 
is already their allotment; whil'ft their com- 
plement of mifery is 2 refervd, 'til the judg- 
ment of the great day. After this decilive pe- 
riod, it feems intimated, that they fhall be in- 
tirely fwallow'd up with their own torments; 
tho', before it, liberty is allow'd them to exert 
their malice againft mankind. In regard to 
thefe, then, the great authors of evil, divine 
juftice may feem plac'd in a fatisfa&ory light. 
Nor is it lefs capable of vindication, in regard 
to the calamity of the poffefs'd. For, if, amongft 
thofe fignal fufferers, there were fome noto- 
rious finners, the charge of injuftice becometh, 
in refped: of thefe, immediately invalid. Or, 
even granting them a moral character, more 
confonant to their obligations; yet, were they 
ftill only parts of their Creator's works, which 
might be apply'd, according to His good plea- 

i 2 Pec. II. 4. Judetf, 2 Locis ck. 

fure, 



0jf aaimones &c. ajjerted. 17 

fure, in fubferviency to general advantage. 
Even ordinary failings might juftify the afflic- 
tive treatment, which was only of fhort dura- 
tion : nor is the interpofition of almighty 
power requir'd immediately, in behalf of the 
affiidted. Tlie hand of the Lord is not therefor 
Jhortenedy becaufe it is not continually ftretch'd 
forth againft every ad: or attempt of Satan. 
He weigheth all the circumftances of the op- 
prefs'd, and knoweth the proper feafons and 
proper methods (to men ufually unknown) of 
refcuing, aiding and rewarding the objecfts of 
His mercy. And, even during the feeming fuf. 
penfion of His providential care, His confbla- 
tions may be fecretly difpens'd, qualify the fe- 
verity of the torture indurd, and improve the 
fufferer's ability to bear it. 

But, it may be obferv'd ftill more dire&Iy 
and appofitely to the prefent purpofe,That the 
Jewifh nation, when the inftances of obfeffion 
more remarkably occurr'd amongft them, were 
peculiarly expos'd to vengeance. Their errors 
were grofs, numerous and pertinacioufly re- 
tain'd; and their corruption of manners was 
aggravated by impenitence and obduracy of 
heart. What ground, then, is here left to 
build complaint upon, if the great avenger of 

D unre- 



z6 The ufual interpretation 

unrelenting offenders permitted the bodies of 
fome to be feiz'd by Satan, who had before 
refign'd their fouls to be led captive by him ? 

And, even in the exercife of this chaftife- 
ment, divine wifdom (which is accuftom'd to 
bring good out of evil ) found means of in- 
creafing the luftre and amiablenefs of the truth 
and grace, which came by Jefus Chrift. For, 
the prophecy, that He Jhoud bruife the fer- 
penis head, was then to be publicly verify'd, 
by a correfponding event. And, tho' it's full 
and final accomplilhment was referr'd to a la- 
ter period; yet did the accornplifhment com- 
mence, and gradually open it-felf to Jew and 
Gentile, in His repeated triumphs over the 
enemy, whom He had undertaken to fubdue. 
Herein was offer' d to both an opportunity of 
conviction, x that the kingdom of God was 
come-, whil'ft they beheld the rulers of darhiefs 
conftrain'd to confefs, and obey, a fuperior, ir- 
refiftible power. In each eje&ion of them out 
of human bodies, an abfolute dominion over 
them was demonftrated, before a multitude of 
witneffes ; and, by the fame means, was pro- 
duc'd a moft fenfible argument of Chrift's pro- 
ceeding fuccefsfully to anfwer the end of His 

i Luke XL 10. Mart. XII. 28. 

mani- 



MQ 



of AMMONE2 <&c. afferted, 17 

manifeftation in the flefh; whil'ft He thus e- 
vinc'd His ability to deftroy the works of the 
devil. 

Thefe fads, indeed, are therefor difputed, 
becaufe they appear to have been numerous. 
But, granting the number of the poffefs'd to 
have been unufually great, during the courfe of 
our Savior's miniftry -, yet, the inference, which 
this fuppofition recommendeth, is, That God, 
in the midjl of judgment , remembreth mercy ' 
and comforteth mankind with tokens of His 
love, whil'ft He teacheth them to revere His 
juftice. All other calamities, that are inciden- 
tal to us, have their refpe&ive feafons, provi- 
dentially determin'd: nor do'th our Creator's 
tendernefs towards His creatures allow His ju- 
dicial punilhments to prevail perpetually. And, 
when they have been with-held thro' a Ions? 
feries of years, men ought, 'tis true, in grati- 
tude, to acknowledg His clemency -, cannot, in 
reafon, maintain, that no fuch calamities had 
ever been felt, as might Jiave indanger'd their 
fafety. Inftead, then, of turning the remark- 
able examples of demoniacal obfeffion, during 
our Savior's life on earth, into an obje&ion 
againft the reality of the fadl ; impartiality of 
judgment requireth aflfent to the relation of 

D 2 the 



a8 The ufual interpretation 

the fad ; whilft piety calls for a reverential ac- 
knowledgment of divine goodnefs, in that ex- 
traordinary difpenfation. 

For, what is more declarative of divine good- 
nefs, than the fuppreffion of the fury and force 
of the apoftate fpirits, 'til that Perfon appear'd 
on earth, thro' whom their tyranny was to be 
vifibly chaftis'd, and, at length, abolifh'di* Ac- 
cording to this gracious appointment, the ma- 
lady was not fuffer'd to break out in it's ut- 
moft virulence, before the phyfician was ex- 
hibited to view, whofe command was fufficient 
to effed: a cure. Of the time, indeed, of 
His advent and it's confequences, the grand 
adverfary perhaps, thro' his acquaintance with 
prophecy, might be appriz'd. Senfible, there- 
for, that his kingdom was threaten'd with ap- 
proaching ruin, he might hereupon naturally 
colled:, and difcharge, his utmoft rage againft 
mankind; make his afiaults more frequently 
as well as vehemently, and the torments of 
the afTaulted more intenfe. And, in propor- 
tion to the violence T of the ftrong, muft rife 

l Matt. XII. 29. LukeXI.ai,2i, compar'd with If.XL. 
ic, where the words fcO* ptPD — feem moft properly ren- 

dcr\\~fiall come AGAINST THE POWERFUL — by THE 

powerful being meant • i%?$s t robujlm ille^ mention'd 
HI the GpfpeL See the learned Vitringa on the place. 

the 



^aaimones &c. ajfferted. xp 

the idea of that goodnefs, which provided a 
ftronger than him - One, more mighty to fave, 
than he was to deftroy. 

Upon the whole — This event might be fa 
far conducive to the general benefit of men, 
and promotion of the great ends of Provi- 
dence, in the incarnation of the Son of God, 
as it is apt to create a more lively fenfe and 
dread of the dangerous attacks of Satan ; and 
to raife a grateful admiration of that friendly 
and powerful arm, which fo vifibly and effec- 
tually interpos'd, to repel and reprefs them 
totally. In the falutary influence deriv'd on 
the body, by the word and thro' the name of 
Chrift, His divine authority might clearly be 
difcernd; and a firm perfuafion thence col- 
le&ed, that His influence woud extend it-felf 
with equal efficacy, to the deliverance of the 
foul. And, from this perfuafion the tranfition 
is eafy to the neceffity of believing in Him 
and obeying His laws, in order to be qualify'd 
to partake of that great, com pleat falvation, 
of which He declar'd Himftlf, by many infaUi^ 
lie proofs, to be the author. 

In fine - By the tenor of the preceding re- 
flexions we may be inftru&ed, to fufpeft the 

arts 



30 The ufual interpretation 

arts and defigns of pretenders to fuch difcove- 
ry, as the Inquirer hath propos'd. The ufe 
and intent of language forbid his interpreta- 
tion ; the ftream of antiquity is unfavorable to 
it. And tho* this floweth not unpolluted al- 
ways ; yet, impurities are not utterly infepar- 
able from it, provided affiftance herein be 
drawn (as it ought to be) from the facred 
fburces of revealed truth. The contrary me- 
thod of altering, or rather, corrupting Scrip- 
ture-notions, by the unexamin'd, or unduly ex- 
amin'd, evidences of pagan monuments, is e- 
qually J unreafonable and irreligious. But, this 
pra&ice is not peculiar to the Inquirer: nor 
is he alone in the fentiments, which he hath 
undertaken to defend. One venerable name 
he hath produc'd in favour of his caufe; and 
feveral others might have been cited with e- 
qual propriety, at leaft; becaufe equally, if not 
more diredtly, confentient with him. If he 
did not know, that z Pomponatius, } Vaninus, 

i UnreafonaHe — becaufe thereby, what is clear, plain 
and confiftent, is exchang'd for that, which is often ob- 
fcure, intricate, and full of contradiction : Irreligious — be- 
caufe it imports a preference of that, which is human, to 
that which is divine, 2 Tradt. de incantat. p. 10. & de 
immortal, animae p.i 3^. quern citat doctif. Deyling. Ob- 
ferv. facr. XXVIII. T. 2. 3 Dialog. 54. p. 406. 

1 Hobbs, 



of AAmckEX &c. averted. 31 

1 Hobbs, 2 Spinoza, and ? Bekker efpecially, 
had all patronis'd the fame opinion; he may 
perhaps, when he cometh to this knowledge 
congratulate himfelf upon the lucky coinci- 
dence of his own thoughts with the thoughts 
of men, diftinguifh'd by Angular penetration. 
If he was not a ftranger to their concurrence, 
their chara&ers might have juftify'd a fufpi- 
cion, at leaft, of the do&rin, and occafion'd 
a more accurate inquiry into the foundation 
of it, before it was efpous'd and publicly re- 
viv'd. But, difputes of irreligious tendency 
muft be kept up, in one or other form; and, 
when invention hath been exhaufted, in a va- 
riety of antifcriptural attempts ; old, fcattefd 
forces muft be rally'd, in order to maintain 
the ingagement. 

The obftinate, diverfify'd refiftance, indeed, 
to Gofpel truth, with which this age and na- 
tion are difgraced, may feem to argue, that 
this is the hour of it s enemies^ and of the power 
of darknefs: a power, which is then moft like- 
ly to be fatal, when it is induftrioufly and 
hardily ridiculd ; none being more expos'd to 

i Leviath. p c . 4. c. 45*. 1 Tra&at. theolog. polit. c.i. 
3 Le monde enchante liv. 4. c. 8, 9. 

fall 



gx The tijual interpretation &c. 

fall by it, than thofe, who think they ftand in 
greateft fecurity from it. 

The believer regards it in a proper manner, 
when he maketh it an argument of Jobriety 
and vigilance — of the neceffity of recurring to 
a fuperior principle for aid againft it ; and of 
begging, that, thro' the interpofition of di- 
vine grace, he may find a way to efcape unin- 
jur'dj in the exigencies of trial. 

God grant us fuch ftrength and protection, 
as may fupport us in all dangers, and carry us 
thro' all temptations, for Jefus Chrift His fake - 
To whom, with the Father and the Holy Ghoft, 
be univerfal and eternal glory.- 









A N 



E S S A 



ON THE 



DEMONor DIVINATION 

F 

SOCRATES. 

1 "H£7\f"V 



LONDON, 

PRINTED FOR T. PAYNE AND SON, 

k AT THE MEUSE-GATE. 
M.DCC.LXXXII. 



C s 3 



ADVERTISEMENT. 



TO a work fo trifling as this is, a 
Preface would be ridiculous. What 
the author thought neceffary to fay of the 
nature and importance of the fubjeft is 
included in the Efiay itfelf, or in the 
Notes annexed. Suffice it here to fay, 
that the folution now offered of an ac- 
knowledged difficulty, was firft fuggefted 
by the words of Xenophon, and that fome 
years ago. Had the hypothefis been pre- 
viouily formed, and the interpretation 
of the palTages adduced afterwards ac- 
commodated to it, the refult might have 
a 3 been 



16] 

been lefs worthy of attention : for what 
cannot a theorizer detort to his purpofe ? 
Subfeqnent reading and enquiry have 
confirmed the idea: and as the author 
has not difcovered, in any book that he 
has confulted, any further traces of it 
than thofe which will herein be produced, 
he conceives that it is in fome degree a 
new one. This is his reafon fororTeriner 
it to the public. 



J U »J *» R. N A R E S, 






ON THE 



DEMON or DIVINATION 



oF 



SOCRATES. 



TTZHETHER the admirable Socrates 
had or had not a fupernatural at- 
tendant, a prophetic Demon, by whofe 
warnings he was frequently afTifted ; 
whether he imagined himfelf to be fo at- 
tended, or wiihed only to imprefs that 
belief upon thofe about him-, or, laftly, 
whether a mifconftru&ion of his words, 
and an inattention to his ftyle of conver- 
fation, have not been the fole fupport of 
thefe extraordinary ideas ; are queftions 

B long 



•C * ] 

long debated, varioufly handled, and yet 
at this day confefTedly undecided (A). 
Several ancient treatifes, in which they are 
exprefsly difcufled, are (till extant-, nor 
are modern writers wanting who have de- 
voted their pens to the fame enquiry (B). 
Of thofe who, in all times, have inci- 
dentally touched upon the fubjecT:, a ca- 
talogue might ealily be drawn out to a 
formidable extent. Yet fo ftrangely op- 
pofed to each other, in this inftance, are 
hypothecs and evidence, probability and 
hiftorical faith, that, after all his read- 
ing, the mind of the enquirer ftill fluctu- 
ates in fufpence. 

It mult however be acknowledged, 
that the importance of the queftion is 
fufficient to juitify the diligence of in- 
veftigation beftowed upon it. We are 
accuftomed, not without reafon, to look 
up to Socrates with the higheft admira- 
tion. We behold him as one of thofe 
exalted characters, in the contemplation 
of which the good man feels an honefl 
pride, rejoicing, as a patriot in the great 

community 



[ 3 3 

community of the world, in that excel- 
lence whereby the dignity of the fpecies 
is aflerted. Socrates was the fountain of 
the pureft philofophy of Greece ; and the 
brighter!: example of that morality, of 
which he was the ableft teacher. Of 
fuch a man the mod trivial anecdotes ac- 
quire a dignity ; but thofe in particular 
deferve a diligent difcuflion which are 
connected with his fpeculative opinions. 
A proper zeal for maintaining the con- 
fiftency of a character fo diftinguifhed, 
makes us very unwilling to defcend into 
the dilemma to which a free-thinking wit 
of our own times has endeavoured to re- 
duce the whole difpute. " As for the 
human foul, fays Voltaire (the author to 
whom I allude), Socrates had doubtkfs 
been informed of its nature, by his De- 
mon. There are indeed, he adds, fome 
perfons who maintain that a man, who 
boafted of a familiar genius, mud have 
been either a knave or a fool ; but thefe 
are too nice in their ideas." Melanges de 
Pbilof* et Uterat* — If Socrates was 
B 2 either 



C 4 ] 

cither of thefe, he was wonderfully 
fucccfsful in eftablifhing an opinion of 
himfelf diametrically contrary to both -, 
and the dilemma, if a juft one, will em- 
brace a confiderable company, all of 
whom have been thought worthy of a 
better fame ; for what, on fuch a fuppo- 
iition, can he thought of the numerous 
followers of this philofopher, who re- 
garded both his principles and his abili- 
ties with the trueft efteem, and the moft 
enthnfiaflic admiration ? — But I am 
wafting time and words on that which is 
beneath a refutation. 

The queftion, however, is of fuch a 
nature as to demand great caution in 
thofe who would refolve it, fince either to 
cut the knot entirely by difcrediting the 
whole narration, or to elude the pre/lure 
of it by forced explanation and unfatif- 
factory refinement, is alike to make the 
very pillars of hittorical evidence, and 
confound every rule of criticifm and in- 
terpretation. The learned Olearius law 
this, and was willing rather implicitly to 

believe 



f 5 ] 

believe the whole, than to hazard the 
confequences of denying it. The con- 
cluding words of his treatife are to this 
effect : " Non dubito ad fummum prq- 
babilitatis gradum provehi earn, qu^ 
Socrati v\tx magiflrum adhsefifie ge- 
nium exiftimat, fententiam. Quae fi ca- 
dat, magnorum inter veteres virorum 
autoritates, Socratis virtus & integritas, 
ipfa, paene dixerim omnis hiilorige fides 
ruinam ejus fubfequatur, neceffeenV' 

A queftion that involves fo much, can- 
not be unworthy of examination : and if 
in the courfe of this EMay it mould be 
(hewn, that though the hiftorical narra- 
tion of thefe things wants neither founda- 
tion nor fidelity, yet the wifdom and in- 
tegrity of Socrates may remain unim- 
peached, neither the writer nor the reader 
will, I hope, repent of the moments 
bellowed upon it. 

It will be convenient to clear our way 

to this enquiry by a very brief review of 

prior opinions concerning it. Thefe may 

be reduced to two general] heads ; no 

B 3 notice 



[ 6 ] 

notice being taken of thofe who difcredit 
the whole, nor of the curious hypothecs 
juft mentioned -, which, if it abound 
not with philofophy or candour, has 
.ftt lead that merit which the author 
unfortunately efteemed too highly, that 
of novelty (C). The remaining opinions 
are, as I faid, of two kinds only, i . The 
firlt is that of thofe who are inclined 
to give implicit credit to the hiltory 
as commonly underltood, and to allow 
that Socrates was actually attended by a 
familiar Demon ; an opinion founded 
upon the words of Plato, fupported 
upon the principles of his philofophy, 
by the fuperltition of his followers ; and 
too eafily admitted afterwards by the Pla- 
tonizing Christians, whofe notions of De- 
mons were nearly coincident with thofe 
of the Academic (D). 2. The fecond, 
and of late ye.:rs, for evident reafons, the 
molt in falhion, is that of thofe who en- 
deavour to explain away the meaning of 
the word Demon; who would perfuade 
themfelves and others that the reafon, pe- 
netration, or wifdotn of the philofopher, 

with 



C 7 3 

with a certain felicity of conjecturing con- 
tingent events, is all that the expreffion 
implies. The Demonifts, if I may be 
allowed the expreffion, have been fun- 
di vided into two parties. For though 
the character of Socrates was, one fhould 
conceive, exalted enough to fecure even 
that of his familiar from fufpicion, there 
have not been wanting feme (E) who 
have included his Demon in the lift of 
malignant fpirits. 

To. give the reader, who may happen 
to be uninformed upon this curious iub- 
ye&c, an idea how ftrong the evidence for 
the literal or platonic acceptation of the 
hiftory has appeared, even to the mod ju- 
dicious and cautious critics, I need only 
mention, that Dr. Jortin (a man to whofe 
judgement and fagacity almoft every 
branch of literature has been indebted 
for illuftration) has confeffed himfelf "fo 
far a fanatic,' 9 as to incline to give it 
his affent, " though," he adds, with his 
ufual candid moderation, " without 
blaming thofe who are of another mind." 
Rem. on Eccl Hijl. vol. I. p. 95. 

B 4 But 



[ 8 ] 

But the admiflion of this opinion 
brings on too great a train of confe- 
quences not to produce fome hefitation ; 
and for the other, I can only fay that, 
if there be meaning in words, and crici- 
cifm be any thing berrer than an idle 
name of what has no exiftence, it is re- 
pugnant to the plained reafon, and on a 
multiplicity of accounts wholly inad* 
miilible. 

My own hypothecs will have fome 
objections to encounter, unlefs the two 
following propofitions be previoufly ad- 
mitted. But theie are, if I miftake not, 
too plain to occafion the flighted hefi- 
tation. 

i. That for the determination of any 
queilion concerning Socrates, whether it 
relate to his hiitory, or to his opinions, 
the authority of Xenophon is preferable 
to that of Plato. 

2. That a Jingle inftance of error, or 
of fuperfliticn, is by no means incom- 
patible with the character even of the 
grcatefl and beft of men* 

The 



I 9 ] 

The former of thefe afiertions is al- 
lowed even by thofe who in practice have 
the le. ft applied it ; and is indeed too 
clear to require much iliuftration (r ). 
To every one not wholly ignorant of the 
Greek philofophy it is known, that of all 
the numerous followers of Socrates, Xe- 
nophon was he who confined himfeif in his 
writings mod religioufly to the principles 
of his mailer. But, not with Handing tbis^ 
it certainly has happened that the tefli- 
mony of Plato has in t .is que (lion been 
received with perrecl reliance (G), and 
Xenophon himfeif made to lpcak a lan- 
guage which neither his exprcffions nor 
his arguments will admit, in order to fa- 
vour the preconcepjions to which foine 
paifages of Plato's writings have given 
birth. Had the former been fllenj upon 
the fubjecl, or had he fpoken flight ly or 
obfcurely of it, necefiity would have ex- 
cufed the recurrence to his rival; though 
even then that evidence would have 
been liable to fume exceptions. But 
Xenophon, as will appear mod fully 

when 



[ « 

ivhen his words (hall have been confider- 
ed, has treated it profefiedly, with clear- 
nefs and flrength of expreffion j and no- 
thing can account for the mifconception 
or the difregard of his opinion, but the 
refiftiefs power of prejudice, and an idea 
too haftily adopted, that theie two great 
followers of Socrates could not difagree 
in the relation of a fact refpeding him. 
The Platonic writers being the firft who 
di feu (Ted the quell ion, the fad: has been 
chiefly feen through the medium of their 
reprefentations, and the tincture of Pla- 
tonifm has remained upon it to this day. 

For the proof of my fecond propofi- 
tion, it would be rcquifite to dwell upon 
the failings of thofe men whofe excel- 
lencies are mod univerfally acknow- 
ledged. The talk, though invidious and 
unpleafant, would be in no great degree- 
laborious. A catalogue of the great 
men who have fuffered their imaginations 
to be feduced by the follies of judicial 
aflrology, would alone be of confiderable 
extent. We have -the confeflion of one 

defervedlv 



C it ] 

defervedly eminent, under his own hand, 
tq allure us, that he was among that 
number (H). But of all thole againfl 
whom a fimilar accufation may be made 
good, Socrates is perhaps the moil excufe- 
able, as we dial 1 fee more fully in a fubfe- 
quent part of this eflay. If the above 
proportions mould appear too eafy and 
obvious to deferve the attention here be- 
stowed upon them, let it be remembered 
how capable the flighted prejudice is to 
obftruct the admiffion of truth. 

Tp dwell no longer upon prefatory 
matters, the folution here propofed to be 
given of this famous queftion is founded 
on a fact very often denied, and that 
upon the very principles againft which 
the latter of the above prcpofitions is 
is aimed, " That Socrates believed in the 
gods of his country, and was not free from 
the fuperflit ions connected with that belief; 
particularly thofe refpecllng omens and di- 
vination" This fa&, as well fupported 
by hiftorical evidence as any thing in 
the hiftory of Socrates, has been fo ob- 

fcured 



{ " 3 

fcureci by falfe hypothefes,and a miftaken 
zeal for the character of the philofopher, 
that it was near being confined to obli- 
vion ; but it could not efcape the pene- 
trating eye of the illuftrious Bifhop 
Sherlock •, -with whofe words upon the 
fubjedt I (hall be proud to ornament my 
page. " The apology which Socrates 
made for himfeif is preferved to us 
by two the ableft of his fcholars, and 
the bed writers of antiquity, Plato and 
Xenophon \ and from both their accounts 
it appears, that Socrates maintained 
and after ted before his judges, that he 
worjhiped the gods of his country, and 
that he facrificed, in private and in pub- 
lic, upon the allowed altars, and accord- 
ing to the rites and cuftoms of the city. 
After this public confeMlon, fo authen- 
tically reported by two fo able hands, 
there can be no doubt of his cafe. He 
was an idolater, and had not, by his great 
knowledge and ability, delivered himfeif 
from the practice of the fuperftition of 
his country." Then follows the noble 

contrail: 



C V ] 

contrafi between the conduct and fenti- 
ments of this philofopher, and ihofe of 
the apoflle Paul, one of the fined pieces 
of eloquence that ever flowed from the 
pen of a writer not infpired. To which 
is fubjoined the following anfwer to a 
probable cavil. " The manner in which 
Socrates died was the calmeft and the 
bravefl in the world, and excludes alt 
pretention to fay that he diffembled his 
opinion and practice before his judges,,, 
out of any fear or meannefs of fpirit; vices 
with which he was never taxed,, and of 
which he feems to have been incapable." 
—Sherlock, voL I. difc. 4. pari 2. Nor 
can I fee any better foundation for a 
fuppofition that he indulged himfelf in 
the double doctrine, which many other 
philofophers thought proper to maintain. 
He does not appear, like them, to have 
had any difiinction of cfoteric and exote- 
ric principles, of a religion for the wife, 
and another for the vulgar. The plain 
truth, which accounts for this, and every 
other difficulty in the hiflory of his re- 
ligion, 



C 14 ] 

ligion, is this : His theological {pecula- 
tions were altogether of a general kind; 
nor did he ever allow himfelf to defcend 
into the examination of minute particu- 
lars concerning matters which he thought 
beyond the comprehenfion of any human 
faculties. His ftrong reafon induced 
him to believe, and enabled him moft 
admirably to defend, the exiftence of an 
intelligent Providence. His education 
furnifhed him with the names and offices 
of numerous deities, whofe exiftence, 
though he could not nor ever tried to 
prove, he never once prefumed to dis- 
pute (I). Such enquiries he thought 
prefumptuous, and had no good opinion 
of their utility. The idle fables related 
of them he probably rejected as the fig- 
ments of inventive brains *, but thefe 
might be falfe without affecting the ex- 
iftence of thofe beings, of whofe interpofi- 
tion in the conduct of human affairs he 
feems not to have entertained the fmalleft 
doubt. This evidently appears from 
every hiftory of his life, and from every 

rcgifkr 



[ iS 1 

regifter of his opinions. Such being his 
eftablimed principles, he was naturally 
led from thence to the belief in omens, 
dreams, oracles, and divinations, of every 
name and fpecies ; a belief which, as he 
took it up without any rigorous examina- 
tion, did doubtlefs, according to the inva- 
riable nature of fuch ideas, grow habitual 
and inveterate in his mind. In the firft: 
chapter of the memoirs written by Xeno- 
phon,the creed of Socrates is very exactly 
ilated $ in it, not the words, but the opi- 
nions of the fage, are delivered ; and I 
think it hardly poilible to read it through 
with attention, without being convinced 
that he had at lead as much faith in the 
religion of Athens, as in this eilay is at- 
tributed to him. 

The whole chapter is fo eafily read, 
and fo well worthy of a perufal, thatlfhal! 
extract but little for my prefent purpofe, 
choofing rather to refer my readers to 
Xenophon himfelf. " Concerning mat- 
ters of uncertain event, he fent his friends 
to enquire by divination whether or not 

they 



[ 16 ] 

they ought to be undertaken." — §. 6. Of 
this his practice, the writer of the account 
had the moil unequivocal knowledge, 
for he had experienced it in a caie of his 
own(K). "He thought that neither 
private families nor public bufmefs could 
properly be adminifiered without the aid 
of divination." — §.7. " Far from con- 
fining the knowledge of the gods to par- 
tial matters, as was done by fome, he 
thought them omnifcient and omnipre- 
fent-, and believed that on every fuitable 
occaficn in human life, they gave intima- 
tions to direct the conduct of men." — 
§. 19. If we want further proof, that 
Socrates was not above the common no- 
tions of divination, we may recollect that 
the occafion of his admirable difcourfe 
with Aridodemus on the exigence of 
the Gods, recorded in the fame book of 
memoirs, Was not only his neglect ot 
woi fhip, but his diiregard of the arts of 
divining. But why do I multiply autho- 
rities from a book abounding with them; 
a book lb certain to repay, in a multi- 
2 plici.y 



[ H 1 

plicity of ways, the attention of thofe 
who coniult it r Known it certainly is, in 
fome degree, to all who have advanced 
as far only as to the threfhold of academi- 
cal inftruction ; but fuch is it, that thofe 
who know it beft may derive fome ad- 
vantages from knowing it yet better ♦, the 
more it is confidered the more it will be 
admired, and the better will that heart 
be on which its fimple and elegant docu- 
ments are moft deeply engraven. The 
ftudy of the Life of Socrates will furnifh 
abundance of collateral evidence to the 
point here argued, and will tend to the 
fame good purpofes of morality. 

After what has been faid, it will apear 
no longer wonderful that Socrates, in his 
lateft days of life, mould be moved by an 
ambiguous dream to turn his thoughts to 
poetry, and addrefs an hymn to Apollo : 
—and that even his dying injunctions re- 
lated to the performance of a vow previ* 
ouily made to the falfe deity ^Efculapius; 
actions, in vain attempted to be ac- 
counted for on the notion of irony or 

C ridicule 



C 18 ] 

ridicule (L), yet too well fupported by 
hiftorical evidence not to be believed ; 
which therefore have embarrafTed, and 
ever will embarrafs, thofe who fuppofe 
him to have been ftiperior to every fpe- 
cies of fu perdition. 

Having proceeded fo far as this, I can 
hardly perfuade myfelf that my readers 
will not be before-hand with me in form- 
ing to themfelves the conjecture which 
I am about to offer; u That Socrates, by 
the exprej/ions ufually tinderftood to refer to 
his Demon, alluded only to Jbtne fpecies of 
divination perfectly analogous to the omens 
of his age and country j and it might at 
leaft pafs current as a probable hypothe- 
fis, could I give it no further fupport. 
But there is no need to abandon it in a 
ftate of fuch imperfection ; the exprefs 
teftimony of Xenophon is for it, and that 
teftimony fo amply illuftrated by the 
words of a fubfequent Greek writer and 
philofopher, that not the flighted doubt 
of its meaning can remain. 

" Socrates/' 



C 19 ] 

" Socrates," fays his beft and trued 
difciple, " was accufed of having intro- 
duced new deities ; an accufation which 
feems to me to have arifen chiefly from 
what was commonly reported as a faying 
of his, that the Deity • gave him intima- 
tions. But in fo faying, he introduced 
nothing more new than all others do that 
believe in divination ; who, when they 
employ auguries, and the like, to that 
purpofe, never fuppofe any knowledge 
of what is fought to refide in the bird, or 
whatever elfe it be that furnifhes the 
omen ; but that the gods, by the agency 
of thefe, declare it. The fame was the 
opinion of Socrates ; but they (not ex- 
prefling themfelves with accuracy) affirm 
themfelves to be advifed by the birds, 
&c. whereas he was always careful to re- 
fer the advice to that power whence he 
(and they alfo) conceived it really to pro 
ceed s therefore he faid that the Deity QA) 

* It fhould be recollected, that the Greek term 
fxifiotiov has an ambiguity, which in Englifli can- 
not be preferred . 

C 2 gave 



e * i 

gave him the fignal." In making this 
tianflation of the words of Xenophon, 
my endeavour has been rather to explain 
and illuftrate his meaning, and to ftate 
his argument clearly, than to adhere ex- 
actly to his exprefiions ; but that in fo 
doing I. have taken no unwarrantable li- 
berties, the original pafTage in the notes, 
which I would wifh every reader to con- 
fult, will fufficiently demonftrate(N) : 
in my opinion, unlefs- the argument pro- 
ceed upon the principles here attributed 
to it, there is neither found reafoning, nor 
any real defence of Socrates, contained 
in the pafTage. The refutation of the 
fame charge is repeated in the apology 
of Xenophon, in terms very fimilar to 
thofe here employed, but flill more 
ftrongly pointing to the conclufion which 
I deduce from them. " How is it," fays 
Socrates, " that I am guilty of intro- 
ducing new deities, in that I fay that the 
voice of the Divinity gives me notice what 
I (hall do } — All men, as well as myfelf, 
araof opinion, that the Divinity forefees 

the 



[ 21 ] 

the future, and to whom he pleafes fig- 
nifies it: but the difference between us 
is this •, they name the birds, the omens, 
&c. as the foretellers of what is to come : 
I call the fame thing the Divinity (or the 
Deity) ; and I think that, in fo faying, I 
fpeak more truly and more refpe&fully 
than thofe do who attribute to birds the 
power which belongs to the gods (O)." 
And fo far was this writer from annexing 
to the words in difpute any idea of a 
Demon, that in the very next paragraph 
he fubftitutes for them a god, and the 
gods, as expreffions perfectly equiva- 
lent. 

This furely is fufficiently ftrong ; but 
yet, to give it ftill greater weight, we 
find, in the elegant treatife of Plutarch 
upon the genius of Socrates (P), a pafTage 
fo (Irongly pointed to our purpofe, that 
a commentary, exprefsly written to il- 
luftrate it, could not more happily have 
performed that office. It is fair, how- 
ever, previoufly to remark, that the au- 
thor himfelf, if his opinion can be ga • 
C 3 thered 



[ 22 ] 

thercd from a dialogue in which the 
queftion receives no formal folution, ap- 
pears inclined to regard the Demon of 
Socrates as being actually one of thofe 
mediatorial agents fo confpicuous in the 
Platonic fyftem. In this dialogue a per- 
fonage, named Galaxidorus, is made to 
defend the very hypothefis here infifted 
upon, that probably the divination of 
of Socrates was a mere omen, and even 
one fo arbitrary and common as the acl: 
of fneezing (Q^). And for the mode of 
expreflion employed by the phiiofopher, 
he accounts exactly as Xenophon, when 
his words are rightly underftood, is founc} 
to have done ; but, fortunately for my 
argument, in terms ftill more explicit 
and decifive : u I turn," fays he, " to 
you, Polymnis, who exprefs a wonder 
that Socrates, a man, whofe peculiar merit 
it was, that, by unoftentatious fimplicity, 
he accommodated philofophy to the ufes 
of human life, fhould not have called this 
fign a fneeze or a found, if fnch it were, 
but in a ftyle of tragic pomp, the Deity. 
4 On 



C *3 ] 

On the contrary, I rather fhould have 
wondered, if a man fo perfect as So- 
crates in the art of fpeaking, and in the 
due application of proper terms> had faid 
that the fneeze gave him the intimation, 
inflead of attributing it to the Deity. As 
if any one fhould fay that he was wounded 
by a dart, rather than with a dart, by the 
perfon who threw it, or that the weight 
of any thing is eftimated by the fcales, 
inftead of faying that it is performed with 
the fcales, by the man who weighs with 
them. For a work is not properly to 
be afcribed to an inftrument, but to him 
who poflefTes the inftrument, and ap- 
plies it to its proper office-, and the fign, 
in the prefent queftion, is the inftrument 
which that power employs from whom 
the intimation proceeds (R)." What is 
this but the very dtftindtion infifted upon 
by Xenophon ? that other perfons, though 
they believed the divination to proceed 
from the gods, commonly mentioned the 
birds, &c. as the authors of it, confound- 
ing the inftrument of divination with 
C 4 the 



[ M ] 

the real agents in it; whereas Socrates 
was careful to maintain the dignity of 
the gods, even in his expreflions, by 
afcribing the whole to them. 

What might be the very omen which 
Socrates confidered as inftrumental in 
the direction of his affairs, is not an im- 
portant enquiry, nor likely to meet with 
much fuccefs (S). Galaxidorus re- 
ports that it was the accidental fneezing 
of himfelf or friends, on one hand or 
on the other. That it was fomething 
fimilar in its nature, feems*- fupported 
by very flrong authority. The reporter 
of it in this place is made to fay, 
that he had it from a Megaric philofo* 
pher(T). PofTibly this was the opinion 
of that fedr. in general •, a feci: remarkable 
for its flrid and logical precifion in the 
yfe of words. We are told alfo that it was 
originally circulated by Terpfion, one of 
the few non-heretical Socratics, and one 
of thofe actually prefent at the death of 
that great man, as we learn from the 
Phocdp of Plato. 

Thus 



[ *$ ] 

Thus have we dated and fupported 
a very clear account ; namely, that the 
divinations of Socrates were perfectly ana- 
logous to thofe in common ufe at the 
time in which he lived ♦, but that he, 
from a fcrupulous exaclnefs in his expref- 
fions (and probably alfo with a defire to 
inculcate, as frequently as poffible, the 
notion of a conftantly active and fuper- 
intending Providence) chofe rather to 
refer his divination always to its primary 
and original caufe, the gods, than to their 
fecondary and unconlcious inftruments, 
the omens by which it was conveyed* 
In confequence of thefe ideas, he ap- 
propriated to the fubjecl: an expreflion 
which, firft the malice of his enemies, 
and fi nee the miftaken zeal of his* 
friends, have wrefted to his difad vantage, 
as if he had pretended to a communica- 
tion with fome attendant Demon ; than 
which nothing could be more remote 
from his ideas (U). It appears, indeed, 
that he conceived the particular fignal or 
omen by which he was directed to be 

fomething 



fcmething in a manner appropriated to 
himfelf; or at lead more accurately 
obferved and attended to by him than by 
others. But in this there is nothing 
repugnant to the common notions of 
prophetic warnings in his and every age, 
nor in the lead fubverfive of what has 
been here advanced. From this repre- 
fentation of the matter, it will appear 
that there is, in the hiftory of this extra- 
ordinary man, nothing which can coun- 
tenance the vague and romantic notion of 
attendant tutelar Demons (W); nor any 
thing which can in the lead invalidate our 
conceptions of his ftricl integrity and open 
difpofition : a conclufion, which every 
lover of philofophy will doubtlefs em- 
brace with pleafure, if the arguments 
and authorities which form the founda- 
tion of it be efteemed of fufficient 
ftrength. 



NOTES. 



t *7 J 



NOTES. 



(A) /^\N E of the lateft writers upon 
\^P this fubjedl, who may cer- 
tainly difpute the palm of diligence with 
mod of his predecefTors, has declared 
himfelf incapable of forming a decifion 
upon it. His words are thefe : " In ta'nfa 
itaque rei obfcuritate, et difficultatum ex 
utraque parte ancipiti et gravi numero, 
certi quid definire tan turn non impofll-- 
bile eft : nee fcrendum segre eft, fi 
cauti,et ad regulas fidei hiftoricse attenti 
ledtores hiftorise Socraticze, judicium 
prorfus fufpendant, et hoc unum pro- 
nuncient, — non liquere. Certe fi ulla 

hiflorte 



C 28 ] 

hiftoria veteris particula eft, quse quam 
incerta vetcrum facta et fata fint, quam- 
que dubiam vetus hiftoria legentibus 
fe offerat, demonftrat, hoc de genio So- 
cratis argumentum eft, unde quam necef- 
farius fit Pyrrhonifnrus hiftoricus, fobria 
ratione inftitutus, quilibet, nemine mo- 
nente, intelligit." And again : " Ma- 
lumus l7Ts%Hv y quam vel ex una vel altera 
parte audacius conjiciendo veritatis et ve- 
rifimilitudinis tranfmigrare limites : rati 
et hoc in veteri hiftoria prodeffe, ut nof- 
camus, qua? fciri nequeant." Brucker, 
Hijlor. Crit. Philof, par, II. lib. II. cap. 
II. § 9. Another gives it as his opinion 
that it cannot ever be fettled : " Sur 
une matiere fi obfcure, et fi eloignee de 
nous, & qui depuis fi long terns eft en 
contestation, il ne faut pas pretendre 
etablir rien de fi aiTeure qu'il ne refte 
toujours quelque doutes et quelque dif- 
ficulties a combattre." Charpentier y Vie 
de Socrate,p. 115. 

(B) Of the ancients, Plutarch, Maxi- 
mus Tyrius, and Apuleius, have treated 

exprefsly 



[ 29 ] 

exprefsly of the genius or demon of So- 
crates. Maximus has fet apart two dif- 
fertations for that purpofe. iElian has 
afligned a chapter to it in his various 
hiftory; which is however little more 
than a memorandum extracted from the 
Theages of Plato. Of the moderns, the 
chief who have treated it at large are 
Olearius, in a differtation inferted in tha 
beft editions of Stanley's Lives of the 
Philofophers ; M. Fraguier, in the fourth 
volume of the Memoirs of the French 
Academy ; or the Choix des Memoiree, 
vol. III. publifhed at London ; and 
Brucker, in his Critical Hiftory of Philo- 
fophy. All the compilers of the life of 
Socrates of courfe have touched upon 
this fubjeft, of whom the chief are M. 
Charpentier in France, and Mr. Gilbert 
Cooper in England. M. Rollin has 
given to it the fecond fection of ch. IV. 
b. IX. in his Ancient Hiftory, being there 
employed about the hiftory of this phi- 
lofopher. To give a catalogue of thofe 
authors who have occafionally delivered 

their 



[ 30 3 

their fentiments upon this matter, would 
appear likeoftentation, and could not be 
of any great ufe. Thofe who wifh to be 
referred to them, will find that defire 
amply gratified by the learned authors of 
the modern difiertations above men- 
tioned. It ought not to be omitted that 
the Theages, and the Apology of Plato, 
are the parts of his works where informa- 
tion is chiefly to be fought. Mention is 
alfo made of the Socratic divination in 
the Euthyphron, the Theastetus, and per- 
haps elfewhcre. Cicero copies from 
Plato his account of it ; and from him 
we. learn that Antipater of Tarfus had 
made a large collection of the divinations 
of Socrates : but the work is loft. So 
ample reference will be made hereafter 
to the writings of Xenophon, that it is 
unnecefTary to fay any thing in this place 
of- his authority in the decifion of this 
queltion. 

(C) It is indeed mentioned by Ori- 
gen contra Celf. p. 280. (edit. Cantab.) 
that the whole account was by fome in 

his 



[ 3* 1 

his days dilbelieved. But though thefc 
incredulous perfons are there treated as 
calumniators, I do not recoiled" -that 
they are faid to have accompanied their 
unbelief with a farcafm fo illiberal. 

(D) The Platonic notions of demons 
are pretty generally known. Thofe to 
whom any information upon that fubje& 
may happen to be neceflary, will meet 
with it abundantly in the XVth difTerta- 
tion of Maximus Tyrius (edit. Reilke), 
in which it is endeavoured to be proved, 
that fuch agents as demons are fuppofed 
to be, muft neceflarily cxift, to preferve 
the chain of beings unbroken. That the 
departed fouls of good men were fup- 
pofed to hold this rank and office, we 
learn in Plutarch's treatife, already cited, 
By the vifion of Timarchus the Chaero- 
nean, in the Cave of Trophonius, we are 
informed that fouls differ in their degree 
of union with the body 5 that fome are 
entirely immerfed in it 5 but that others 
have a pure part floating without, of 
more or lefs magnitude, which is unaf- 
fected 



C 32 ] 

fe&ed by the paflions : this is by men in 
general called wfc but by thofe who are 
rightly intruded, the demon. It is eafy 
to fee, through the veil of this allegory, 
an opinion very fimilar to that which fup- 
pofes the demon of Socrates to mean his 
understanding only. 

(E) Namely, Tertullian, Laclantius, 
and Minucius Felix. Fortunately, M. 
Dacier was certain that the contrary was 
true. Une marque certain que Socrate a 
ete v entablement conduit par un bon ge- 
nie, c'elt qu'il a ete toute fa vie pieufe, 
temperant et jufte •, qu'il a toujours pris 
le bon parti en tout, qu'il n'a jamais fait 
tort a perfonne, qu'il a toujours fait la 
guerre au vice, et combattu les fauffes 
religions , et qu'il a travaille toute fa vie 
a rendre les hommes plus gens de bien, 
et a leur faire connoitre la verite et la 
juftice. Toute la difficulte eft de fa voir 
comment ce genie fe faifoit entendre a 
lui, &c. Argument de VApologie^ &c. 
To this latter aflertion the learned author 
will perhaps find as many diffentient 
5 readers 



[ 33 ] 

readers as to the former. But he appears 
to have been in a very pofitive temper 
of mind when he wrote the argument in 
queftion, for he tells us immediately after, 
H ecoit fans doute une infpiration." It 
may not be amifs to obierve, that M. Da- 
cier founded this implicitbelief, on a text 
of Scripture, which by no means leads to 
all that he would deduce from it, atleaft 
not necefTarily; namely, Math. XVIII. 
10. fee Camero and Groiius on the place. 
Whitby fays, " I do not think that the 
opinion concerning one particular angel 
having the cuflody of one foul as his 
charge, hath any good foundation in the 
holy Scriptures." The paffage in the 
Acts, ch. XII. v. 15. certainly proves no 
more than that the perfons to whom the 
appearance of St. Peter was related, were 
prepofTefTed with that opinion. 

(F) Olearius fays, " Ne tamen quod 
unicoPlatonis teftimoniohactenus niti vi- 
detur, inter fabulas rejiciendum penitus 
efle aliquis exiftimet, cum et alia multa de 
Socrate credatur finxiiTe, & negleda So- 
D cratica 



C 34 ] 

cratica fimplicitate ad Pythagoricas rrag* 
'joXoyictg, & /Egyptiorum commenta (quod 
acerbe in Epiftola ad /Eichinem repre- 
hendit Xenophon) fuerit proclivior. 
Ipjum qucque aud remits Xcnophonlcm, 
pur'icrl: doctrines Socratica feci at or em 
aq&rrimum" De Genio Sec. § 4. The 
pafTage above alluded to, in Xenophon's 
Epiftie, is this: to is xa/2v eifae Alyuifl* 
jjpoKrthp'MVj Xj TY,g Ylu^ccyoc^ TcpenmssSQ tc'Ilocc, 

U)V TO 7T.-p/T/0V PC, [A'/J \J.0.lUm : .7Tl XoOKpcffH 
YlXr/^zV tpC£ TVQMOttOOCi TCj G&fl QifclTYfe >.L7Y,g, 

Occafion will be taken, in a future note, 
to (hew, that the authority of Plato in this 
matter, is not fo very oppofite to the 
opinion which I attribute to Xenophon., 
as by vicious interpretation, and the fanav- 
ticifm of his followers, it has been majie. 
Olearius, with all his fhew of deference 
for Xenophon, adopts implicitly the Pla- 
tonic dogma. 

(G) In particular, it has been generally 
•fuppoied, upon the a (Tertian of Plato, 
that the fignal attendant unon Socrates 

acted 



£ 35 ] 

a&eddifFuafively alone, v-, C/V. de DivinA. 
§ 4. whereas Xenophon introduces Eu- 
thydemus, faying to him, wg&rtfftaitiiff cot 
A T - %$ kcihv xj <x pj. Mem. IV. 3. 
§ 12. which Socrates does not contradict. 
With this, one of the accounts in Plu- 
tarch's treatife agrees, for it is there faid, 
that if the iignal came to him in one way, 
he proceeded in what he was doing, if 
in another, he defiited ; but this is con- 
nected with an hypothefis which ptefently 
will be more fully explained. 

(H) The duke de Sully; fee his Me- 
moires, liv. II. an.-n. 1580, 1585, and 
elfewhere. Richlie^u and Mazarin kept 
an aftrologer in pay. See Warton en 
Pope, vol, II. p. 1 87. Marfilius Ficinus 
was thought by Politian worthy of this 
,€ncomia£tic epitaph : 

u Mores, ingeaium, mufas, fophiam- 
que fu pre mam, 
Vis uno dicam nomine? — 

; — MaRSILIUS." 

P2 Yet 



[ 36 ] 

Yet was this man fo befotted with Pla* 
tonifm, aftrology, and demonology, as to 
give us the following nonfenfe, by way of 
commentary on the apology of Plato. 
" Si quaeras qualis Socratis daemon 
fuerit, refpondebitur igneus y quoniam ad 
cpntemplationem fublimium erigebar. 
Item Saturnius, quoniam intentionein 
mentis quotidie mirum in modum abiti a- 
hebat a corpore ; non provocabat un- 
quam, quia non Nari'ia$> fed fepe ab ac- 
tion i bus revocabat, quia Salurnius. But 
a far more eminent inftance occurs to 
me, which I cannot prevail upon my fdf 
to wichrhold. The character of the 
great Varro for learning and abilities has 
been acknowledged in every age, 2nd 
requires no new encomium to let it oft. 
Who then would fuppofe, that this wife 
and acute chronologer, in an age when 
the Romans were beginning to rife above 
the follies of their popular theology, 
could have been weak enough to employ 
his friend Tarutiu?, to call the nativity 

not 



C 37 3 

not" only of Romulus but of Rome itfelf? 
Yet that he did fo, we are authorised 
by Plutarch to afiert. Fit. Rcniul. 
% 12. He directed that it fnould be 
done bv a kind of analytic aftrologv, be- 
cauie, he laid, it rnufl belong to the fame 
art to predict future fortunes from known 
nativities, and to difcover nativities un- 
known from fortunes recorded by hiltory. 
The refult of this curious procefs was ad- 
mitted by this great man in his chrono- 
logical writing as a decided fact. Ci- 
cero, who was likewife intimate with Ta- 
rn tius, faw more clearly into the matter, 
and thus ridicules his fuperftitious enqui- 
- ry , " O vim maxumam erroris ! etiamhe 
urbis natalis dies ad lunam et ftellas 
pertinebat ? &c." BeBivih II. 47. In 
the fame chapter he fubjoins fome noto- 
rious inftances of the fallibility of thefe 
admirers of the Cbaldaic aftrology. The 
loth lection of Olearius's dirleftation 
will fupply more ctirious inftances of fu- 
ptrfiition in fofne who ought to have 
.bsv ? n wlfer. 

p 3 (i) w; T 



[ 3« ] 

(I) Why Socrates refrained from mi- 
nute enquiries upon theological fubjedls, 
Xenophon will inform us, who, in the 
Kpillle to JEfchines, fpeaks the very lan- 
guage of his mailer concerning it. 'Or* 
[xsv ydp toc Bhcc V7r=^ riy<&$, 'c&avji &i?.ov» 
KTri'xpy} Si i'2 Komjovt rtj$ Hhjvu^-ujs aviag 

<t'£hV. Clot Si fi(TlVj 27i iV^HV pXOtOV, OYTE 

ZHTEIN 0EM1TON. $syz*p W$p 

fv<riv yj zvpu^iv $£teg S« elhv&i, olg &SiK 
tjKsov VTrypsciccf ttpocryjXH* § 3. Both 
Cudworth and his annotator Mofheim, 
confider Socrates as a Polytheift. Intell. 
Sjft. cap. 4. § 23. 

(K) The fad is this, While Xeno- 
phon was yet in doubt whether, at the in- 
ftance of his friend Proxenus, he fhould 
join himfelf to that expedition which 
he afterwards fo finely related, he afked 
the advice of his friend and instructor; 
but Socrates, inftead of offering an opinion 
of his own, recommended that he fhould 
enquire of the Delphic oracle. His 
pupil, Simulated by youthful and mili- 
tary ardour, did not choofe to hazard the 
receiving a difiuafive anfwer, and there* 

fore 



C 39 ] 

fore enquire J, not whether he fhould go 
or flay, but in what manner he fhould 
undertake the journey. But Socrates, 
when he hesrd it, by no means approved 
his conduct, not thinking it right to have 
embarked in lb important an undertak- 
ing, without the previous fanclion of d> 
vine approbation. Xcn. Anal. III. c. i. 
§5. Diog Laert. in Xen. § 4 & 5. It may 
ferve in fome meafure to ftrengthen the 
argument, if we confider that this bed 
difciple of Socrates is faid to have been 
hTtafelf ev<r£ri$ £ (f/Xofor/fS, %, hpnoc ha.* 
yvocvai iKocyj;. Laeri, which indeed appears 
abundantly from his narrative of his own 
tran factions. In the character of his 
fictitious Cyrus he feems to have been 
defirous to work up all that he conceived 
of good and great; and has therefore, 
in many parts of that elegant compo- 
fition, the Cyrorcedia, interwoven the 
principles, and even the words ofSocrate?. 
Yet to Cyrus he hasafcribed a Heady faith 
in the Pagan Theology, and has made him, 
in his very lateft hours, return thanks to 
the gods for having fhewn him always 
D 4 h 



C 4° ] 

tsgotv g, i, & ipctrioig o-yijjL&oig, ^ h o!ouvo7s, %, h 

(L) For the reafon, among many 
others, afTigned by Plutarch in the begin- 
ning of his Platonic queftions, « yu% 

tipun>svof/.svog re xcci vrat^ocy Tff^wre'/j^rulo av 

(M) Some time ago I collected, and 
have now by me, abundant proof that 
the words &wg, ol &so\ ro Qhcv, to 
iuiyimov, are, in the ufage of Xenophon f 
and many other writers, perfectly fyno- 
nymous. But the point is fo plain, that 
I cannot perfuade myfelf it can ever 
be controverted : I (hall therefore fpare 
myfelf the trouble of tranicribing thofe 
memorandums^ Let thofe who think 
otherwife look only as far as the begin- 
ning of the 8th fection of the chapter fo 
often quoted, and fee there in whatfenfe 
the word luipoviov was underflood by Xe- 
nophon. L. I. cap. 1. 

(N) The original paflage is as follows : 
The words in parenthefes in the tranflation 
are inferted for the fake of perfpicuity. 



C 41 ] 

ci<zj£$pv?\\'/jjc yap, cog 'par/} Hwy.£MT'/,g y TO 
AAIMONION EATTA 2HMAINEIN 
oSsy d/j K, ^.otKigu (xoi co?:a<riv wuiqv umaa-a.- 
(jbcct Kcciycl Ic/AfJLoyiu «cr<£fp£/y< — O Ji iVzv 

XUlVGTcLQV fi(T-(p'GS 7UJV aXXcvV, O'JQL IJiO'-vjlK^V 
ICjjJCo^SC, ClOO/GiC Ti %uCAj£]ai> KUl <P'/jfJL<Zig y 7L 

criyxScAo/c, X, Qvo-iaig* krom y<xg ^ttqKoi'^ 
w,air; 9 » Tag op:ihccc 9 ads Tag c/yp.ocv\'jov\ug 
eidSH&t toc arv pL^cvpx. Toig ^o^\svoy.zyoig y oiKKcl 
lag Bmg oia rarccy wjtu (TY\^LaivHv» KA- 
KEINOS OTTOS ENOMIZEN. 'AAA* 

o) [J.iV 7T\figGt (pCCCtV V770 T- TMy OpviSsOt 

\ ~ > 1 ' 1 ' ' r ' \ ' n ■ 

Tic^ai. 2QKPATH2 AE hSDEP 
ErirNHSKEN, OTTOS EAETE. TO 
AAIMONION FA?E$H 2HMAINEIN. 
Memorabilia, lib. I. cafe I. § 2. &c. 

If any perfon doubt the aflertion about 
the argument, let him endeavour to pur 
it together according to the words of 
any modern tranflation whatever. Ac- 
cording; to the bed that our country has 
produced, it (lands, if I mifta'ke not, 
thus: " Socrates was faid to declare that 
his Genius gave him intimations of the 
future; but lq this he aiTerted nothing 

new. 



[ 42 ] 

new, nor departed from the general 
opinion •, for the generality imagine them* 
felves to be directed in their divinations 
by the gods> and he, by internal confciouf* 
nefs, which he chofe to call his genius." 
Which two things are as far as poflible 
from being the fame, unlefs my .notions 
of identity are Angularly incorrect Sub* 
ilitute my interpretation, and ail is plain: 
u they think themfelves to be directed 
by the gods, and be likewife ; in declar- 
ing which he ufually employed the 
phrafe, 70 impim? ; and from the ambi* 
guity of this, occafion was taken to 
form an accufation again ft him." 

(O) YL&ivd ys {j.Yjv ^ouyLOvia 'zzoog &v 
lyw HcrtyzpoiiAi Kzyuiv, on ©EOT ^h (pCOVYl 
(pcuvsjczi (TviiJLcciviicroc ,o, ri yprj zpoihv; — 
*AhXa, jj^vJoi *) to WfoaS&Ui yi TON 

©EON TO JJL-XXOV, it TO i&pQ0TJfJt4jyV&V CO 

fakhr^ou, ^ TdTo ooo-7T$p tyoj fajju, xtoo Tzrdvjss 
£ hiy&rt ^ vopi£xcriy* dK7^ 61 jtsv olocvig re, £, 
QYiy^S, Xj vvi&iteg ts, £ jjuiv]&g cyopdgtsrtv 
Txg zTpooyjuaiwjctg Svat, eyco 5„ : TOTTO 

A.CCIUW10V K0lhJ*y KCCl Ot^lCil tSTOtig ONO* 



C 43 ] , 

ynv tHjif toi; q^vliiv ccyccjiS&ijoov ty^v TflN 
GEQN ouvoljj.iv* Xe?i, Apoh Socr. § I2v£sfe. 
On reviewing this paffage, I am not cer- 
tain whether it be not (till more plain in 
the original words than in my tranflation. 
It is worth remarking, that in the 8th 
feet ion of the fame apology, Socrates 
fpeaking of the fame matters, ufes cl ©Si 
in Head of to dcnuovicv, ^Q(Bi&£ oi ol Gtol 

(P) This treatife is perhaps one of the 
molt elegant models that time has fpared. 
Befides the difcourfes concerning So- 
crates, which are interefting and curious^ 
it contains a circumftantial and a very 
ftriking account of a mod important re- 
volution in Thebes. It is delivered by 
one of the principal actors in it, and 
contains fome very mafterly ftrokes of 
dramatic conduct, and fome admirable 
traits of that extraordinary man Epa- 
minondas. He who can read without 
emotion the account of the confirmation 
.into which the confpirators afTembled at 
the houfe of Charon were thrown, on his 
5 being 



[ 44 ] 

being fent for by the tyrants ; his offer of 
his fon as a pledge of his fidelity; and the 
heroical behaviour of that brave youth ; 
mud have lels feeling than he ought to 
have. 

( Q^) Though we fhould fuppofe that 
a fneeze was the very omen employed by 
Socrates, his expreflion concerning it 
would have nothing in it very extraor- 
dinary. Ariftotle fays, to-j zfjczpjja^ ©£ C \ 
rr/x^oi, TrobL § XXXIII. cap. 7. and 
we find it confidered, by Xenophon and 
his whole army, in no very different light. 
Tsto S« "hiyovjog at/r», 'ufja.pvvjaiTiq* ceiixa-avjag 
m 61 ggccTiccTcziy ziravjsg \jacc, cp^y} ZBrfxxflS* 
xvy/jo-av tov Qsov. Xj &vJb$caP eurs, Aokh 
fact) cti cwfysg, Itth w%pl <ruj-/j^foig q}i6ov 
fcyovjwv oiumg ix Aiog ts Xourr^og stymy, 
tv^cwOcit TCd ®£'2 vkz'jdy Svchv croujr^ioc, Sec. 
Xen. Anab. lib. III. The learned arch- 
bifhop Potter appears to have admitted 
this conjecture as a facl : " Socrates him- 
felf, though a great defpifer of Heathen 
JuperjUtion^ judged it not unreaibnable to 
make a fneeze ferve as an admonition 

from 



[ 45 ] 

from the demon which always attended 
him." ArcbaoL B. II. cb, 17, where the 
fubject of fneezing, confidered as an 
omen, is treated at large with great 
learning. It appears that in the time of 
Homer fneezing was reckoned altogether 
a fortunate omen. See Odyjf. 17. /. 542. 
&c* We may obferve, by the way, 
an odd mixture of ideas in the paffage 
above cited from Potter. He feems to 
admit that the fage was really attended 
by a demon, yet he fuppofes that he, and 
not the demon, fixed upon the fignal 
whereby their intercourfe was main* 
tained 5 this feems ftrange, and dill he 
regards him as untin&ured with fuper- 
ftition. 

(R) M=t«/x; yot$> y$y\ zvpog <rs , Z ricxu/xv/, 

ettpzAfia jxaKigcc S^ (piXocrcpictv iPavipumi- 
(Fccvjog f h fx>] zfjoipiJLOv, [£?}$£ x\y$ow f to try,- 
fjiHov, aXha, Tpozyixug Txrayv to Sczifxcvicv 
WYOjACtfa. iyu) yot^ av txvc&vtiov i9civu.a?cv 
dvlpog ux^a o*ici?.iy$<r9GU, ^ Kpccjflv QVOpctTOCV, 
i&Hrty YMxp(y.T% > h pvj to lai^ovtoy uKka, 

TQ'J 



[ 4* 



n 



a tic vtto t£ [£iX%g (potty t:-tpu.\7ocii, y;r r« 

f3&gcg • Jtto t5 £uy8, f&l t^j y>yo3 uVo t& 
IgavTog* « y#£ 7« c£y#;-# to spyov, &AA 8 *L 
70 Qp}owov 9 co yjjT{icu t&(>qc to tpycv. Opy&VQV 
Si 7/ £ to CYjfjLHOv, co y^v^ai to cryj par, -cv. 
Z)* G^»w Seer. p. 301. £V/. Keljle, 

(S) To gratify our curiofity concernr 
ing the omen by which Socrates was 
guided we have little or no light ; but it 
may be fome confolation, under that dis- 
appointment, to recollect that the con r 
temporaries and even the auditors of our 
philofopher ? were pretty much in the 
fame cafe. If we may credit what Plu- 
tarch makes Simmias the Theban declare 
as the re f ult of hjs own experience, 
was not eafy then to gain information 
upon the fubjecl:, even from the fage 
himfelf: aCrcg Si (0 Hipploig) 1&jLpmr% 

filjv tp>] KSTSPt TXT00V S^QJASriS TTOTc, ^7} TIS/JHY 

6t7rox.pi<r£Mg, Sio jLojS' aZ^ic chvQotf woTOwKif 
i ly/fi v Sfdot ityl 7\^ov]o'.£ } &&&;&$ vf/v^u). 



[ 47 3 

7o7g S' ccx.S<reii iiwq <£wj%, ttfwiypv\i ?ov vSv M 
Kf ^i<xrnv»Qcivop£vcid y*fot cr7rg5jj£. Flut, torn* 
VIII. f. 324. Ed. Rei/ke. Whence, fays 
he, we concluded that this demon was 
fomething of the nature of a voice. The 
referve of Socrates upon this point feems 
to indicate fome degree of diffidence in- 
ternally felt concerning it, fuch as would 
naturally arife in a mind wherein much 
good fenfe and fome fuperftition were in- 
timately blended together. His eager* 
nefs to enquire of thofe who profeffed to 
have enjoyed (imilar communications, 
appears to be the act of one feeking 
earneflly for a complete confirmation of 
fome ideas predominant in his imagination, 
which as yet he felt occafionally difturbed 
by doubts. Of this conduct in him we 
find a flrong inflance. When the extra- 
ordinary narration of Timarchus was re- 
peated to him, he was difpleafed that he 
had not been told of it while it was 
poflible to examine the young man him- 
felf upon it : tfju^ccjo f^ag, fays Sim* 
rnias, hi prj, ^cofjeg hi t5 T^#p%«, ^rfoBo- 



[ 48 ] 

£ ?xrpo<ravMk£yKi cctfpsgipbr Thefe, how- 
ever, are conjectures only, and defer ve 
no greater weight. If indeed we rely 
upon the information of Plato, the matter 
is decided, fo far at lead as this, that it 
Was a voice. Whether it was his for- 
tune to meet with Socrates in a more 
communicative humour, or whether 
he wilhed to give weight to the con- 
jecture of the Socratics, by putting 
it into the mouth of their matter himfelf, 
is no very nccettary enquiry. The rife 
of the opinion among his friends that he 
was really attended by a demon, is well 
marked by Olearius. His words are 
thefe : " Et fane vix dubito inter Socra- 
ticos de geniofuo verba facientcm Socra- 
tem audientes, plerofque de media qua- 
dem inter Deos et homines natura, cujus 
nutu ille regeretur, id accepiflc. Sane 
enim recentibus adhuc Pythagoras, Em- 
pedoclis, et ejus generis philofophorum 
dogmatibus, afifuetse erant eorum aures 
ejufmodi doftrinse, Ut taceam amorem 

ec 



[ 49 ] 

ct exiftimationem, qua difcipuli pra*- 
ceptores plerumque profequuntur, facile 
ilium, fenfum verborum Socratis ipfis 
perfuafifTe, qui honori praceptoris maxi- 
tne conducere videretur. De Platone 
fane ex illis, qua? hactenus diximus, om- 
nibus manifeftum eft, eum vel ita fenfifte, 
vel aliis ut ita fentirent, perluadere vo- 
luifle. Eumque fequitur tota recen- 
tiorum Platonicorum fchola, qua3 valde 
in dignitate hujus genii, aliifque quas ad 
eum pertinent celebrandis, eft ingeniofa. 

§ 7- . - „ „ 

(T) The Greek is Msy«£/x£? Ttvog tyKuvoi* 

Pint, VIII. p. ig6. which fignifies not a 

Megarenfian or a perfon of Megara, as it 

is uiually tranflated, but a Megaric phi- 

lolbpher, of the fed: of Euclides ; the 

confufion has arifen from the fubfequent 

mention of Terpfion, who is known to 

have been of that country. Hence 

the conjecture of Reifke, who for T*£- 

xjj'twvog 8i Ivmvo$ would read Tsp-^iwv Si Jy, 

lofes its foundation : it is indeed on 

many accounts exceptionable. The na- 

E tional 



[ jo 3 

tional word is Miyapevc. We find them 
together in this fentence, M;yapixv,$ 
(zpgc'sgY}') EwiAslo'/js MeJfrga^. Diog. Laet t* 
Proam. 

(U) It may, as I have already hinted, 
.be doubted whether Plato really differed 
in opinion from Xenophon concerning 
it. In his Tbeages it is thus fpoken of, 
" if it be pleafing to the Divinity (lo:v 
pev tw Osti q.iAovn) you will, O Theagcs, 
make great and rapid improvement, 
otherwife not." The following is the 
paflage in that dialogue on which the 
principal flrefs is laid; &$t yap Tl ®hoz 
fj,oipa, -zrczpc7rojjL£vov l^ol m zsouooq dp^afj/zvov 
AAIMONION* ESTI AE TOTTO &% 

NH, 7\ % OTOiV ySV'/j]oCl t C/.H [JiOl <rs\[UX,ivH % 6 U'J 

jutiAAw 'uypujjciVy txtx dvro^p07r-/jv* *&$qpcH d= 

y3i7rO/S. ty cOiV Tig jJ.01 TOOV (plKWJ MVKXOlVWTOtl 
Tly X< yivfljotl ij <pwn] t TOiVTOV TX70 OCTTol^TTcl, 

£, xk la Ts-pocTJstv. Had he thought any 
thing of a genius, would he not rather 
have faid, " ibis advifes me by a voice" 
than " ibis is a voice?" The whole evi- 
dently points to fome naturally infigni- 
5 fie ant 



[ *» 3 

iicant fouhd. The following expreftions, 
which all occur in Plato's apology, Teem 
to point almoftexclufively to the prefent 
hypothefis* y mOtju p&i MANTIKH, 

V> 7H $Mj*QVl£, TO TOT ©EOT (TYl^LHOV, 

to f-iyjvog g-'/juhcv. — OEION ri, ?£ S&^usy/cy. 
It is true that in the fame piece he fpeaks 
of it as fomething wonderful and pecu- 
liar to himfelf •, but an uncommon warn- 
ing, lingular from the regularity or fre- 
quency of its recurrence, might eafily be 
iuppcfed to have been conveyed in an 
ordinary manner, or in fome way at leaft 
analogous to the common omens. So in 
the Theages, where we Mnd ij Sv^ixig avri] 
in oaiucyiz tztz, may we not fairly fub- 
ftitute r£ 0i5 ***?*, as equivalent, a ;d un- 
derhand it of the divine power in general, 
inftead of tranflating it " the power of 
this demoji ?" I would afk any attentive 
reader of the Ph^edo, what conclufion he 
can draw from the account there given by 
Socrates of his reafons for undertaking 
to compofe verfes, and of the choice of 
his fubjecW I can/ee nothing in it but 

E 2 a moll: 



C $% ] 

a mod fcrupulous attention to the fup* 
pofed divine admonition, and a defiremofl 
ftrongly to propitiate Apollo. More 
might eafily be faid upon this fubjedt, 
but it feems unneceflary. I will add 
only, that if there are in Plato's writings 
anypaflages which will admit of no con- 
flruclion but fuch as favours the notion 
of a demon in this matter, either I have 
not ever met with them, or have fuffered 
them to pafs me unnoticed. I confefs, I 
have not very accurately fought them, 
thinking it needlefs to fupport fo (Irong 
an evidence as has been adduced, by the 
concurrence of a weaker teftimony. 

(W) If the opinion of the reality of 
Socrates's demon were flill prevalent, it 
might be requifite to fay fomething 
againft the argument which might be 
deduced for its fupport, from the boafted 
veracity of his predictions, which we 
find afierted even by Xenophon. Me- 
morab* L I. c. i . The infpiration of the 
Delphic oracle might be defended upon 
the fame ground. Infallibility is eafily 

claimed, 



C 53 3 

claimed, and is maintained without much 
difficulty, fo long as the tafk of interpre- 
tation remains in the hands of prejudice 
and fuperftition. Nor is it by any means 
neceflary that impofture fhould bear a 
part in fuch pretentions, the firft deceit of 
thele pretenders is often pra&ifed upon 
themfelves. Euthyphron makes a fimi- 
lar claim in the dialogue which bears his 
name, and probably from a fimilar 
caufe. 



F I N I S, 



C 49 ] 

ct exiftimationem, qua difcipuli pra- 
ceptores plerumque profequuntur, facile 
ilium, fenfum verborum Socratis ipfis 
perfuafifTe, qui honori prasceptoris maxi- 
me conducere videretur. De Platone 
fane ex illis, quae hactenus diximus, om- 
nibus manifeftum eft, eum vel ita r enfiire, 
vel aliis ut ita fentirent, perluadere vo- 
luifle. Eumque fequitur tota recen- 
tiorum Platonicorum fchola, quse valde 
in dignitate hujus genii, aliifque quae ad 
eum pertinent celebrandis, eft ingeniofa. 

(T) The Greek is MzyagiKx mog YiKtsa-ot* 
Flut. VIII. p. 296. which fignifies not a 
Megarenfian or a perfon of Megara, as it 
is utually tranflated, but a Megaric phi- 
lofopher, of the feci of Euclides ; the 
confufion has ariien from the fubfequent 
mention of Terpficn, who is known to 
have been of that country. Hence 
the conjecture of Reifke, who for Ts£- 
\Jjiuvcg Se Inilvcg would read T^\&nt Ss fy 3 
lofes its foundation : it is indeed on 
many accounts exceptionable. The na- 
E tional 



C 50 ] 

tional word is Msyaxvg, We find them 
together in this fentence, Msyc&ptMfc. 
(jff^osgYi) EvKXi&sjs Mc-Ftx^svg, Diog. haerU 
Fro am. 

(U) It may, as I have already hinted, 
be doubted whether Plato really differed 
in opinion from Xenophon concerning 
it. In his Theages it is thus fpoken of, 
<c if it be pleafing to the Divinity {lav 
pw 76o Qecp $i\ov n) you will, Q Theages, 
make great and rapid improvement, 
otherwife not." The following is the 
pafTage in that dialogue on which the 
principal flrefs is laid ; sgi yap TI <3hcc 

y.Otpai 'UrO-pSTTQ^zVOV 1^.01 bK ZVaiOtig dp^X^ZVQV 

AAIMONION- E2TI AE TOTTO <f>flU 

NH, v\> oTixv yiVYjj&it da jjloi oiJiMzivfi, as 

JXiAAw T&pQi'fjzlV) TXTX (X>7Tojp07T7l'A TZp^clTH 8c 
m7T0J£. X) ZOiV Tig JJiOi T00V (plhOOV CtVCL'MlV'jQTCCl 

Ti, % ysvyfjai jj (poovrj, tolvtqv tSto cctzq\£tzU) 
x, %k la. zvpccTjuv. Had he thought any 
thing of a genius, would he not rather 
have faid, " this advifes me by a voice" 
than <c this is a voice?" The whole evi- 
dently points to ibme naturally infjgni- 
5 ficant 



t 51 ] 

ficant found. The following expreffions, 
Which all occur in Plato's apology, feem 
to point almoft exelufively to the prefent 
hypothefis. n ««#}« F* MANTIKH* 
i T8 fcpW- to TOT ©EOT en^ey.— 
tom9os tnqne&r* ©EION T|, $ Icupivw 
It is true that in the fame piece he fpeaks 
of it as fomething wonderful and pecu- 
liar to himfelf ; but an uncommon warn- 
ing, lingular from the regularity or fre- 
quency of its recurrence, might eafily be 
fuppofed to have been conveyed in an 
ordinary manner, or in fome way at leaft 
analogous to the common omens. So in 
the Theages, where we find yj IwotpU ocvty) 
t5 loupovix t£tx, may we not fairly fub- 
ftitute tS 0.5 tsts, as equivalent, a id un- 
derftand it of the divine power in general* 
inftead of tranQating it " the fozver^ of 
this demon ?" I would afk any attentive 
reader of the Phaedo, what conclufion he 
can draw from the account there given by 
Socrates of his reafons for undertaking 
to compofe verfes, and of the choice of 
his fubjecfcs? I can fee nothing in it buc 

E 2 a moil 



C 5* ] 

a moft fcrupulous attention to the fup- 
pofed divine admonition, and a defiremoft 
itrongly to propitiate Apollo. More 
might eafily be faid upon this fubjedt, 
but it feems unneceffary. I will add 
only, that if there are in Plato's writings 
any paflages which will admit of no con- 
ftru&ien but fuch as favours the notion 
of a demon in this matter, either I have 
not ever met with them, or have fuffered 
them to pafs me unnoticed. I confefs, I 
have not very accurately fought them, 
thinking it needlefs to fupport fo ftrong 
an evidence as has been adduced, by the 
concurrence of a weaker teftimony. 

(W) If the opinion of the reality of 
Socrates's demon were ftill prevalent, it 
might be requifite to fay fomething 
againft the argument which might be 
deduced for its fupport, from the boafted 
veracity of his predictions, which we 
find afierted even by Xenophon. M<?- 
mcrab* L I. c. i. The infpiration of the 
DelpHic oracle might be defended upon 
the fame ground. Infallibility is eafily 

claimed, 



[ 53 3 

claimed, and is maintained without much 
difficulty, fo long as the tafk of interpre- 
tation remains in the hands of prejudice 
and fuperftition. Nor is it by any means 
necefiary that impofture fhould bear a 
part in fuch preterifions, the firfl deceit of 
thele pretenders is often pra&ifed upon 
themfelves. Euthyphron makes a limi- 
lar claim in the dialogue which bears his 
name, and probably from a fimilar 
caufe. 



FINIS. 



A SHORT 

State of the Controverfy 

About the Meaning of the 

DEMONIACKS 

IN THE 

NEW TESTAMENT: 

WITH 

A Vindication of the Reply 

to the Farther Enquiry, from all the 

Objections of a late Tract, intitled, 

A Review of the Controverfy. 

By the same Hand, 
— fi 

" The Ufe of Demon in the worft Senfe, or direclly 
" for a Devil, will be almoffc confined to the 
" Gofpels, where the Subjecl fpoken of being Men 
" vexed with evil Spirits, could admit no 
" other Sense or Use." Mr. Mede's Works, 
Edit. 1664. p. 784. 




L N D O N: 

Printed for J. Roberts at the Oxford-Arms ia 
Warwick- Lane, 1739. 

[ Price 6d. ] 



[3] 




PREFACE. 



WHEN a Contr overfly has been length* 
ened out, and federal Books or Pam- 
phlets have appear d on each fide of the 
Queftion, it mujl be owned to lye under many 
"Disadvantages. The Curiofity of the Reader, 
which perhaps might at flrfl be awakened, is 
too apt to flag. And it will be fcarcely pofljible 
for the Writers always to avoid perfonal De- 
bates, or tedious Repetitions. Men are fome- 
times liable to miftake each other s Meanings, 
fometimes, it is to be feared, glad to mifrepre- 
fent them. A due Regard to his Character will 
incline an honejl Man to vindicate it : And a 
Spirit cf Perverjenefs will influence others to 
defend whatever they have once maintained, tho' 
the Defenfe Jhould even make them inconfiflent 
with themfelves. Many, who Jet out with Mo- 
defly and a SubmiJJion to the World, in the 
Courfe of a Difpute often grow angry and po- 
fitive, 

3 THESE 



[4] 

THESE Reflections difconraged me at flrfl 
from troubling the World any more on the Sub- 
ject of Demoniacks. And even after its Im- 
portance had made me refolve to write again, I 
intended no more, than to give ajloort View of 
the State of the Debate , to Jl^ew how far the 
Review had miflaken, or left, the general §}uef 
tion, without entering into any particular Vindi- 
cation of the Reply. However ; this I have been 
by degrees drawn into. 1 have attempted to 
anfwer every thing which has been objected to 
me. And the only Difficulty I found here was y 
that as the Review propofed to confider the Works 
oj fever al other Gentlemen , as well as my own, he 
has blended us together in fuch an artificial Con- 
fujion, that it was not always eajjfor me to 
take my own part, without feeming to encroach 
on thofe of my Fellow- Labourers. 

ONE thing more I beg leave to prcmife* 
For the fake of Brevity, I have frequently re- 
ferred to the former Tracts which have paffed 
on this Subject, and which 1 could wijl: that the 
Reader would, as he goes along, take the Trouble 
to con/ult. Tho y without doing this he may eaflfy 
enough under/land the Reafoning. 



A Short 



£*] 




A 

Short State of the Controverfy 
about the Meaning of the 
Demoniac ks in the New Tes- 
tament, &c • 



TH E Controverfy about the Meaning of the 
Demoniacks in the New Tejlament has now 
fallen into many hands. Several Gentle- 
men have engaged in the Vindication of 
the literal Senfe. And a Review of the whole has 
lately been publifhed by one, who ftyles himfelf a 
Lover of TR UTH. Such Titles are become fiale 
Artifices ; and the World have thus been too often 
impofed upon, any longer to truft them, or to ex- 
pect the more from them. In this Review I can- 
not think my felf greatly concerned. But, fince 
fome of my Friends, to whofe Judgment I mail al- 
ways fubmit my own, think it neceffary to take off 
fome falfe Colours which appear in it, and fince this 
is what I cannot defire any of the other Gentlemen 
engaged to do for me ; I hope the World will fa- 
vour me with their Attention to the following Trad, 
which I promife them fhall be 2&fhort as poflible. 

Th e Author of the Review always fpeaks of the 
Enquirer in the third Perfon, and once he compli- 
ments him with the Characters of \ learned and in- 

a Pag. 63, 

B genious 5 



[6] 

genious ; which, however due, no Man of Modefty 
can be thought to give him felf. I muft therefore 
Jook upon him as a different Perfon, who was wil- 
ling to fhew his Regard in this manner. But, if I 
may have leave to fpeak my Sentiments, the En- 
quirer is more obliged to his Intentions, than to his 
Performance, Non tali auxilio, nee defenforibus, cVc. 
A great part of this is a Repetition of what is much 
better faid in the Enquiry. And as to the reft, the 
Defenfe is carried on, not only on new Principles, 
but fometimes even on fuch Suppositions as are 
contrary to thofe made in the former Treatifes. 

Th a t this may be more plain to the Reader, 
it may not be improper to lay before him a fhort 
View of the State of the Controverfy, fo far as I am 
concerned in it. 

Th e firft Enquiry fet out with mewing u the 
" general Notion of Demons among the ancient 
u Greeks : " He afferted this to be the Souls of de- 
farted Men ; and this he thought " univerfally al- 
" lowed by Jews and Chrijlians, as well as Hea* 
" thens V Here the Effay firft differed from him. 
I had obferved, that this Senfe could never be ac- 
commodated to the Evangelical Hiftory : I knew, 
that the Word had been ufed in a different SzvAt 
by Chnftian Writers ever fince that Hiftory was 
wrote ; I therefore could " not think the general 
" Notion of Demons among the ancient Greeks to 
" the prefent Purpofe of fettling the Meaning of 
<c the Demoniac ks in the New Tefl anient V The 
Effay all along proceeded on the Suppofition, that, 
whatever the Heathen Demons were, the Scripture 
Demons were fallen Angels. And the Reafon, why 
this Suppofition was not then proved at large, was, 
becaufe it was the general Opinion of the moft 
learned Criticks, ancient and modern, whom I had 

b Enquiry, p. 2, 4, &>V. f Efay, p. 7. 

cited 



[7] 

cited and referred to d . Such Confent is not to be 
oppofed rafhly and without Neceffity. And there- 
fore I had reafon to expect, that if the Enquirer 
continued to lay any Strefs on the Notion of the 
Heathens, he would have quite confuted that gene- 
ral Opinion, and fhewn, that the Scripture Meaning of 
the Word must have been the fame with the other. 

But what had we of this fort in the Farther En- 
quiry ? Not a Syllable. Nothing but peremptory 
Ailertions. This was evidently fetting up his own 
Authority in Oppofition to that of all other Criticks* 
and not reafoning y but dictating to the World. This 
I complained of in my Reply e . I endeavoured to 
fhew the Unreafonablenefs of fetching the Senft of 
the Word in Scripture from Heathen Authors ; and 
fhewed, that even Mr. Mede himfelf agreed with 
the other learned Men in this Point f . 

Now how does the Author of the Review act? 
Why, he very fairly deferts the Enquirer. With 
regard to the great Point, which fb much wanted 
Proof, and on which fo much depended, he is ab- 
folutely filent g . Neither Reafons nor Authorities 

have 

d Effhy, p. 8. e Reply, p. 2, 3. f Ibid. p. 4. 

s In the 20 th and 2i ft Pages of the Review we have indeed 
thefe Words. " It is one thing to punilh Injuftice; it is ano- 
" ther to be immoral, and promote and infpire Fraud and 
" Wickednefs. This was never imputed to Demons anciently ; 
" the other was : And therefore to underfland a Greek Book, 
" where the Word Demon occurs often without any Definition 
" of it, it must be neceffary to know what was the Notion of 
** that Word in Greek, before and at the Time when fuch Book 
" was wrote." This I cite as the only Paffage which has fo 
much as the Air of Reafoning. From the illative Particle 
therefore, one would think it a Conclufion from what went 
before. But it is a Conclufion without any Premi/fes to fupport it. 
If the Heathens underftood Demon, as this Gentleman reprefents 
them, this can't prove it to be necejfary to confult them in order 
to know the Senfe of Scripture. And tho' the facred Writers have 
no where given a formal Definition of the Word Demon, yet 
they have fufficiently guarded againft Mifconftrudions, by af- 

B 2 figning 



[8] 

have the leafl Weight. He goes on heaping upon us. 
frejh Teftimonies from Heathen Authors^ as if their 
Importance^ in order to a right underftanding of 
the Scriptures^ were undeniable. Surely this Me- 
thod, to give it the fofteft Name, is impertinent \ 
nor is it poflible for any Controverfy to be thus 
decided. 

Th e Reader fees, that I had no need to concern 

my felf about the Heathen Authorities, and that 

the Caufe I defended was fecure enough, without 

producing any, till the Principle above-mentioned 

could be proved. But notwithstanding this, I went 

farther, and in order to manifeft the Falfehood of it, 

and at the fame time to throw fome Light in upon 

the Subject, I endeavoured to mew fome different 

Senfes in which the Heathens ufed the Word. Demon , 

and their great Perplexities and Inconfiftencies on 

this Subject : I obferved, that the Enquirer had 

himfelf departed from the general ArTertion he had 

before made g , and that his Account of the Heathen 

Demonology is both partial and unjuft h : And I la- 

bour'd to confute the whole Scheme at once,by fhew- 

ing, that even the Heathens ufed the Word Demons 

in an UlSenfe, and that very probably they fometimes, 

underftood by them wicked and noxious Beings, fu- 

perior to Men '. This laft is the main Particular 

which the Review concerns itfelf about : And his 

Replies to my Reafoning on it, tho', were they all 

allowed, the general Caufe would not be affected, 

iigning to thefe fuch A&ions as could never be applied to de- 
parted Souls, or Men naturally di leafed. I mutt have leave to 
fay, that the Parts of the Goipels which gave Rife to this Dif- 
pute, till a much clearer and better Account be given of them, 
are fufficient Inftances of this. And as to the " Notion of the 
* Word" among the Jews " at the Time when" thefe " Books 
" were wrote," it will fcarce be denied to be on the fide of 
the Letter. 

8 Rtpfy* P- 5- £ #"/. p. 6— —17. J JW- p. 17— —28. 

{hall 



[9] 

(hall be diftine*tly confider'd, and, I hope, clearly 
refuted. 

In the Farther Enquiry k it is propofed " to exa- 
c< mine both the Old and New Teftament, to fee 
" the Notion of Aotipdvuv in them, and whether 
" they are not to be interpreted confident with the 
" Notion [of the Heathens, before] at large ex- 
" plained." Here alfo I followed him, and by a 
diftincl: View of moft of the Texts in the Old Tefta- 
ment, and of all from the New, I endeavoured to 
expofe the Idlenefs of the Attempt, and to vindi- 
cate the common Interpretation of the Word 1 . 
Here then I might, if ever, have expected fome 
Anfwer. And yet, I know not how it has hap- 
pened, even in this Cafe the Review in a manner 
leaves his Friend the Enquirer. We are indeed told, 
* c that powerful and mifchievous Devils m are no 
u where to be met with in the Old Teftament." But 
not an Anfwer is vouchfafed to any one thing which 
I offer'd in considering the feveral Texts therein ; 
and thefe Confiderations, if they ftand good, evi-* 
dently prove that Point. And as to the New Tefta- 
ment, there are, I think, only four Texts, my De- 
fenfe of which is taken any Notice of. And, tho* 
there are in the Review fome other Objections, 
which I had either anfwered or obviated before * ; 
yet, as thefe are urged inOppofition to fome of the 
other Gentlemen engaged with me, I mall leave it 
to them to confider them, if they think proper, 

* Farther Enquiry, p. 25. 1 Reply, p. 29, &c. m Rev. p. S. 

n An Inftance of this we have, Rev. p. 44, 45. where the 
Obje&ions about, This kind can come forth by nothing but by Prayer 
andFafting, are again ferved up to us in a more confufed man- 
ner: and no notice taken of the Anfwers which were given in 

the Effay, p. 51 ■ 57. Thus again, what we havcRw. 

p. 41, 42. was obviated in the Reply, 91, 92, 93. the particular 
Reafoning of which remains unajifwered. And fo in many 
©ther Places. 

and 



[ IO] 

and confine my felf to fpeak to thofe Points, on 
which I am exprefsly refer'd to. 

From this fhort and general View of the State 
of our Debate, it is eafy to fee how far the Review 
is from being a full Defenfe of the Enquiries ,. or a 
fufficient Anfwer to the Effay and Reply. Let us 
however confider what he has faid, and this firft 
with regard to the Heathen Writers, and fecondly 
with regard to the Holy Scriptures. 

It is, it feems, a certain Principle ', an Axiom or 
Poflulatum to be admitted without any Proofs that 
the Scripture Demons are the fame with thofe acknow- 
ledged by the Heathens. Unreafonable as this may 
appear, let us oblige the Author, and for once al- 
low it. But then, if the Heathens ever ufed the 
Word in a very ill Senfe, for wicked and noxious Be- 
ings of a fuperior Order to Men, then the Scripture- 
Demons may (till be fetch Beings. For fuppofing, 
that facred Writers are to be interpreted according 
to the profane Writers, yet certainly they might ufe 
this Word in any Senfe, in which thefe ufed it. One^ 
Point then which the Reply ° undertook to prove* 
and which was intended as no other than an Argu- 
ment ad Hominem, was, that among other Senfes of 
the Word, that above-mentioned was one. In order 
to this I obferved, that the Author of the Farther 
Enquiry had himfelf owned, that cc the Chaldeans- 
iC fuppofed two Principles, a good Demon and an 
" evil Demon. The former's Name was Zeus and, 
" Oromafdes ; the latter was called Ades and Ari- 
H manius p ." And from hence I thought it clear, 
that the Gentleman allow 'd " an evil Demon, which 
u can't be pretended to have been the Soul of a, 
<c departed Man." And this I confirmed by ano- 
ther Paflage in Plutarch of the fame Import. Let 

us now attend the Review. " As if {fays he) a firfb 

• Pag. 17, &V. p Pag. 21. 

« Principle* 



[»] 

*• Principle, One, the Caufe of Evil, had any thing 
*' to do with evil Demons, malignant Beings, that 
** are the Subjects of the prefent Debate V And 
can this Gentleman then think, that the Caufe of 
Evil was fuppofed to be any other than a malignant 
Being ? Was he not the mojl malignant , mifchievous 9 
malevolent Being ? And was he not exprefsly called 
Demon ? 

But I imagine that this Writer expected, that 
Inftances mould be produced where the Word is 
ufed in the Plural Number of fuch Beings r .— - Now 
firft, this is a Subtlety unknown to both the Enqui- 
ries. The Farther Enquiry is fo far from laying any 
Strefs on the Difference of Number, that the Re- 
viewer himfelf blames it for fuppofing " Ocellus Lu- 
* c canus to fpeak of evil Demons, fuch as were de- 
" tefted by the Gods, and Demons, and Men, and 
** Families, and States \" Here then the Reviewer 
plainly deferts the Principles of his Friend — And I 
will add, 2. very abfurdly. For if the Word De- 
won was ufed by the ancient Heathens for an evil 
Being, no Reafon can poffibly be afligned why De- 
mons may not fignify evil, malignant Beings. The 
Gofpels, even when they fpeak of Pojfeffions, very 
frequently fpeak of a Demon \ According then to 
the Principles of the Review, m all fuch at leaft^ 
the Word being ufed in the Singular Number 
may have no relation to a departed Soul, but to 
a Caufe of Evil. But did the Heathens acknow- 
ledge any evil Demons, in the S&n{Q of Devils ? I 
anfwer, That fuppofing they did not, can we con- 

* Review, p. 10. * See Review, p. 8. 

f See Reply, p. 19, 20. Rmienv p. 21. And it may be added, 
that all the Farther Enquiry infilled upon was, that " the Sacred 
" Scriptures are to be conftantly interpreted agreeable to the 
" Heathen Notion of the Word Demon" p. 25, not Demons in 
the Plural. 

6 Luk. iv. 33. Mark vii. 26. Mattb, xvii. 18. and fo fre- 
quently in other Places. 

elude 



[ 12 ] 

elude that the Scriptures know no fuch ? It is ri- 
diculous enough to fetch the Senfe of all Scripture 
Words from Heathen Writers : But it would be 
much more fo, to imagine that Revelation contains 
no clearer Notices of the Spiritual World, than the 
Heathens were acquainted with. — Might not then 
the Cafe be as follows ? The ancient Heathens are 
owned to have ufed the Word Demon for the Author 
or Caufe of Evil : The infpired Writers, knowing 
the fallen Angels to be very evil Beings, and Authors 
and Caufes of Evil, thought proper to apply to thefe 
the fame Word, only changing, as it was neceffary 
to change, the Number. 3. But the chief Diffi- 
culty with the Author of the Review feems to be, 
that " Arimayiius, one of the Chaldean firffc Princi- 
" pies" was ct efteemed by them an original and 
" independent Caufe," and therefore " is a Cafe quite 
cc foreign to the Purpofe : For the Difpute is not 
" concerning original or firfi Caufes, but inferior ^ 
" dependent Beings, or Demons V I fear this will 
only make the matter worfe. For whatever Ari- 
manius was, he is called a Demon. If therefore 
Scripture muft be interpreted according to the Hea- 
then Notions, why may not a Demon in the Gofpel 
fignify an original and independent Caufe ? — Which 

will fcarce be afTerted. But to give a more 

direct Solution of the Difficulty That Demon is 

here ufed for a very evil Being, is certain — That it 
was put for the Devil, as Arimanius was believed to 
be w , I think extremely probable. Nor is it any 

Objection* 

u Pag. 8. 

w Tho' the Gentleman, I have to deal with, fo exceedingly 
defpifes Authorities, yet for the fake of others, with whom 
that of the learned Dr. Prideaux may have fome Weight, I 
Can't forbear adding, that he ityled the Caufe of all Evil, Ari- 
manitSy the Devil. And he goes on, " Concerning thefe two 
" Gods " [the good and the evil one] " there was this Diffe- 
** rence of Opinion among" the Magians, " that whereas fome 
•' held both of them to have been from all Eternity, there 

were 



[ i3 ] 

Objection, that they thought him an original and 
independent Caufe. Tradition might convey down 
the general Exiftence of this curfed Spirit ; and yet 
might become very obfcure, perplexed, and mis- 
taken with regard to his particular Nature or to his 

Creation. 4. With refpecl to the PafTage in Za* 

leucus, which the Review fays " may feem to be 
" mofl to" my " Point," I am much miftaken, if 
it does not fully come up to it. I had tranflated it, 
Should any one be tempted to Injufiice by a wicked 

Demon he ought to beg the Gods to ojfift him in 

driving him away. The firft Exception to this, is, 

x that " Zaleucus was a Pythagorean and is not 

" therefore fpeaking concerning a wicked Demon, 
" but the wicked Demon, the Origin and Caufe of 
" all Evil." But there is no Pretence for this. 
The Words are A#(u*»v xaxoV, without any Article, 
which furely will admit of either rendering. And 
however they are rendered, we have here a " ma- 
" levolent Being promoting Wickednefs or Mifery 
" amongftMen 7 ." In the next place, I am charged 
with mifreprefenting the Paffage. It feems, I read 
avTov for uvtIu), and accordingly tranflated it him, 
inftead of it. And I mould be glad to know, 
what Advantage I could poflibly reap from this 
Mifreprefentation. Let the PafTage ftand as in 
the Review, it is exactly the fame to my Argu- 
ment. But the Reader I fear will want an Apo- 
logy, not for my being guilty of fuch an Error, 
but for my troubling him with Anfwers to fuch 
trifles Laftly, tho' I own, when I wrote the 

" were others that contended, that the good God only was 
" eternal, and that the other was created." Conneft. Part I. 
Book III. Vol.I. pag. 252, 253. Edit. 10th. And why the 
Scriptures may not be underftood according to the Sentiments of 
tkcfcy as well as any other Heathens, I know not. I wifh the 
Reader would confult p. 305. 

* Review, p. 11. 7 Ibid. p. 10. 

C Reply, 



[ 14 ] 

Reply, I did not dream of that Diftinction between 
the Demon and Demons, which this Gentleman builds 
fo much upon ; and tho' I thought it fufficient to 
produce Inftances, where the Word is ufed in an 
/// Senfe in either Number ; yet it happened luckily, 
that without designing it, I have fufficiently obvi- 
ated this Pretence, and fhewed, that the Heathens 
did understand Aa/juo^ and Aoupovix of evil Beings. 
The Reader may fee a Paflage from Plutarch plain 
and full beyond all Exception z . But no Notice is 
taken of this, I fuppofe, becaufe Plutarch lived after 
Christ. This is another Art of the Review, 
which frequently helps him out of Diftrefles. And 
it may feem inhuman to deprive him of it. But 
the Truth, of which he is a profefTed Lover, re- 
quires me to do this, and will therefore, I hope, 
procure me his Pardon. 

Now, hrft, this is not vindicating the Enquiry, 
but profecuting a quite different Scheme. In this 
we find all Authors quoted promifcuoufly a \ the 
Senfe of Chriftians and Jews, as well as Heathens, 
was attempted to be fhewn : And in his Preface the 
Author intimated his Hopes of being able to ex- 
plain even the Apologifts fo, as to reconcile them to 

his Notion. Indeed he afterwards feemed to be 

fenfible, that this Deflgn was impracticable, and 
that the Ground he flood upon could not be de- 
fended. Accordingly, the Farther Enquiry, inftead 
of explaining the Fathers, abufes them. " The Fa- 
" thers invented a new Scheme of Demono- 
" l°gy V tho' when, or where, or by which of them 
it was invented, we are not told. And inftead of 
vindicating his general AfTertion, he denies it to 
have been in his Intention to fay, what he had aftu- 

2 Reply, p. 23. * Ocellus " who was three Generations older 
" than Plato" was owned to " fpeak of evil Demons" Far- 
ther Enquiry, p. 1 9. J Ibid. p. 72. 

ally 



[i5] 

ally faid. This however mull be imputed to mere 
Diftrefs. And tho 9 Chriftian Writers were all fufpect- 
ed, yet ftill we had no Reafon to think, that the 
Heathens might not be called in as good Witnejfes, 
Hierocles, tho' excepted againft in the Review, as 
not early enough % was admitted as a Voucher in the 
Farther Enquiry d . So was Plutarch e . 

But the Author of the Review is more nice. 
No Testimony will be allowed by him, but what 
is truly Heathen and truly Ancient. He confines 
us to the Times before the Coining of Chrift, and 
will not accept of even an Heathen Authority a£ 
ter wards •, for fear, I fuppofe, that Plutarch, &c, 
mould have been concerned with the Primitive 
Chriftians, and had fome hand in inventing the 
new Scheme of Demonology. Or, if they were too 
honeft to do this, left they mould have receiv'd 
fome Tincture from this new Scheme, been in a 
manner infected with the Notions of Chriftians, and, 
in Compliance to thefe, believed the Beings, which 
they pill continued to worfhip, to be Devils. 

Another Author which I cited is Julius Pollux, 
againft whom there lyes the fame Exception; for he 
" f lived one hundred Years after Chrift ; " but, I 

will add, was never fufpected to be a Chriftian. 

However, the Review has more to fay to this Cita- 
tion, and interprets it in a different manner. I had 
render'd Uhiiyj^oi wicked or pernicious, knowing that 
the Word is capable of both Senfes, and feeing no- 
thing in the place to exclude either. This Gentle- 
man, without any Reafon that I can guefs, but be- 
caufe it makes againft his Hypothec's, will not have 
it to mean wicked. The next Word is dhUvie/^^ * 
which he tranflates dejlruclive, and which may alfo 
fignify, as almoft any Lexicon will inform us, cur fed, 
execrable. The other two Appellations of thefe 

* Rev. p. 71 . * Fartb, Enq. p. 7, 8. e Ibid. p. 5. f Rev. p. 10. 

C 2 Demons 



[ r6 ] 

Demons are «3rgoypoV**oi, tsolxa^ouoi, which in the 
Review are thus paraphrafed, " To whom we 
*' ought to apply our felves, in order to get them 
" to avert Mifchief, the Punifhers of thofe who 
cc are guilty of Blood." My Objection to the for- 
mer part of this Interpretation is, that it makes 
thefe Demons much the fame as thofe which Pollux 
had before diftinguifhed from them, by the Epi- 
thets &Tt>7T0 ( lA7ra<0<, &T3T£0 7TCU01, KvtflOI. And aS tO 

the latter part, though zsahafjuiou®- may have the 
Meaning which the Gentleman afligns it, yet he 
cannot be ignorant, that its original Senfe rather re- 
lates to Guilt, than to Punifhment, and that it de- 
notes any wicked, pernicious, murdering Being. I 
mall therefore take leave to give another Translation 
of this difficult Paflage, by which it will appear, 
that every Word in it is applicable to what the 
Review thinks the Heathens had no Notion of, 
f* Devils, immoral, malignant Beings. 3 ' Of De- 
mons others, which confirm Curfes, are called 

wicked* deftruclive, execrable, who are inftrumental 
in bringing Evils on Men, and plaguing, punilhing, 
or murdering them z . 

As to what is faid in p. 12, 13, of the Review, 
tho' it is in that Part which relates to me, I do not 
think my felf concerned, having not made ufe of 
the Citations there pretended to be explain'd h . But 
p. 14. we meet with a Sentence or two, which I 
can't forbear animadverting upon. < c The Rule 
" among the Ancients was not to impute Evil to 
* c evil Demons or Devils, of which they knew no- 

vctToi. The Latin Tranflation is, Qui autem inferunt> exitiales, 
pejliLntes, malitioji, & homicide. For the fake of Shortnefs, I 
muft refer the Reader to any large Lexicon for Inftances of thefe 
Words being ufed in the Senfe in which I haye underftood them. 
h I would not be underftood, as if I thought the Citations not 
to the Purpofe. That from Pindar is certainly fo. But the 
Defenfe of it belongs properly to another hand. 

3 " thin g* 



[ i7l 

Xi thing,but to thejufticeof theGods; and they made 
* c no fcruple to fay, as Euripides makes Iphigenia^ 

<" I can 9 1 think any of the Demons to be evil They 

<c did not fuppofe malicious, malevolent, immoral 
" Beings, to be the Authors of Evil or Wicked- 
" nefs in Man : Nor were the Executors of juft 
" Punifhment upon Sinners, fuch as Tifiphone, or 
" the Furies, deemed Devils or malevolent Be- 

" ings." The Reader will, I hope, pardon the 

Length of this Extract, on account of the great Cu- 

rioufnefs of it Which certainly deferves fome 

particular Remarks. And, firft, we fee here ano- 
ther Inftance of the Review's varying from the En- 
quiries. The Author of this laft Piece is fo far from 
being attached to Syftems, that he makes no Scru- 
ple frequently to leave even that Scheme, which he 
undertook to defend. For, at the very Entrance of 
the firft Enquiry, we are told, that " other Writers,'* 
and Proclus and Eufebius are quoted without the 
leaft Cenfure or Diflike, " have made Demons the 
" Difpenfers of evil Things, as well as good ; the 
" Plagues and 'Terrors of Mankind, and the Au- 
" thors of much Evil to them \" Again, it is 
there confefTed, that the old Latins " imagined 
" the Larva to be mifchievous and wicked Spi- 
" rits k ." And the ordinary Notion concerning 
thefe is given us from Apuleius, which, I obferv'd 
in the Effay, correfponds much with the Scripture 
Account of fallen Angels \ That " on account of 
" their ill Deferts in Life, they were punifhed as it 
" were by a fort of Banifhment, by their having 
" no good Place of Abode, but always rambling 
*•' about, vain Terrors to good Men, but to evil 
*■« Men noxious m ." The Truth of this Opinion I 
am not now concerned to prove. It is fufficient to 

1 Enquiry, p. 3. k Ibid. p. 16. l EJay, p. 1 8. m En- 

quiry, p. 18. 

my 



[ i8] 

my prefent Argument, that the Author of the En- 
quiry owns it to have been the ordinary Notion. 
And yet the Author of the Review afTerts, that the 
Ancients " did not fuppofe malicious, malevolent, 
" immoral Beings to be the Authors of Evil and 
" Wickednefs in Man"." I muft leave it to thefe 
two great Men to fettle the Point between them, 
it being a Tafk far above my Capacity to reconcile 
them together. 

2. But can any thing be ftronger than the Tef- 
timony of Euripides ? And mail we imagine wicked 
Demons, when he fb exprefsly makes Iphigenia de- 
clare, that fhe could not think any of them to be 
fuch ? Now it happens unluckily, that the Far- 
ther Enquiry, in order to account for thofe Words 
of St. James, the Demons believe and tremble, and 
not dreaming of that pretty Expofition which the 
Review has produced from a Line of Orpheus °, 
owns, that Demons " fignifies like wife in Heathen 
" Writers the evil Souls of departed Men ? " It is 
plain then, that Iphigenia, if ihe actually faid fo, 
was, according to the Enquirer, miftaken. And 
that fhe was fo, will farther appear from a Paflage 
in Plutarch, which I beg leave to fet down at large. 
It is taken from his Life of Dion, near the Begin- 
ning of it, where he had been comparing Dion and 
Brutus, and had particularly taken Notice, that both 
of them had had fome Warnings of their End. 
Tho' cur Gentleman q feems to doubt, " if there 
6 c be fufficient Evidence for the Truth of " one of 
thefe " Stories," yet Plutarch relates them without 
the leaft Diffidence. Afterwards he indeed owns, 
that in his Time there were fome who laughed at 
all fuch Accounts, and rejected them in general. 
But he adds, that " if Dicn and Brutus, who were 

^XevwiJOj p. 14. ° few, p. 26. p Forth. Enquiry, p. 58. 
** Rei'ie-zv, p. 15. 

" fuch 



[ 19 1 

<c fuch grave Philofophers, and fo little liable to 
" be conquered by any Paflion, were fo affecled by 
Ci this Appearance, that they told it to others ; I 
" know not, but we may be compelled to receive 
" that very ancient Opinion, abfurd as it 
may feem, that there are wicked and malevolent 
Demons, who envy good Men, and by, their Prac- 
tices raife Difturbances and Fears, weakening and 
undermining their Virtue. And this, left by conti- 
nuing ftedfaft and harmlefs in what is good, thefe 
Jhould after Death obtain a better State than them- 
<c /elves V We fee, that this is fet down as a 
very ancient Opinion. I need not add a 
Word to (hew, how contrary it is to the AfTertion 
of our Author. And the only Queftion is, which 
of the two deferves moft Credit, and had the beft 
Opportunity of knowing the Sentiments of the an- 
cient Heathens ? Plutarch, we fee in this very Paf- 
fage, was far from being any Bigot. And,' as he 
lived early in the fecond Century, the Words tm 
TxravM wctXoum will carry us up much higher than the 
Beginning of Chriftianity. 

r 'Ei m Aiav xj B/)sV<^«, av^isj IpGpidiii; xj tyiXorcipoi, x} <m^oq 
&($[v cLnfoa-Qxtett; y<^' lvu\u\<H <S7#0<§>', 87»s v7ro (px<r(Acc]<&> JttWn- 
cr«f, a>f« xj <Pfac<rcci -arpos &Tegx<;, kv. eftSx pv) rav IIANY IIAAAII2N 
7ov oiT07r e/loi\ov uvxyKK&apiv tcrfotr^pc 1 ^ T^oyov, a>s tu, (pccvhx Ji»- 
(jlovkc X; ficcrxxvx, zvootrCpQovxvIx toT<; etyxdeTq xvfycc<riv, «£ rxTq 
'nrpafjanv ocvisxpivx, Txpx%,ot(; xj <poGs<; inuyti, oswlx xj (r^aXKmltn 

itlA UQ6TW. il5 [Hfi OiUfAii'iVxAm tCKTUTlS h 7U KXXu xj UXSQXiOt, 

fisX?Uv<&> ixiiwo |xoip«s utira, vita rihdjTM ToyfiHriv. Plutarch. 
in Dion. 

N. B. I have tranflated rov uroirulotlw, abfurd as it may feem, 
and believe that Plutarch called it fo in relation to their Senti- 
ments, whom he had juft before mentioned. For if he had 
himfelf thought the Opinion moft abfurd, how was it poflibie 
for him to have once doubted, whether it mould be received or 
not ? Could the bare Authority of Brutus and Dion make a real 
Abfurdity credible ? But however this be, abfurd or not, it is 
declared to be a 'very ancient Opinion, which is fufficient to the 
prefent Purpofe of the Quotation. 

3, Still 



[30] 

3. Still the Line from Euripides flares us in the 
Face. And I muft own, that I could hardly think* 
that fo elegant a Writer would differ in this refped 
from fo many others, as have mentioned evil De~ 
mons. This gave me a Curiofity to confult the Paf- 
fage itfelf. And the Confequence of doing fo was 
only an Increafe of my Surprize, not that Euripides 
mould fay fo ftrange a Thing, but that any Man of 
Senfe mould produce him to vouch what he never 
intended nor thought of. The Words indeed, as 
detached from what went before, appear ftrong on 
the Side of the Reviezv. But let us but take in 
the Occafion on which they were fpoken, and the 
Manner in which they are introduced, and nothing 
can well be farther from his Purpofe. Jphigenia is 
here reprefented as complaining of Diana on ac- 
count of the human Sacrifices which were offered to 
her. The Words, which the Poet puts into her 
Mouth on this Occafion, are extremely beautiful ; 
nor mall I fear the Difpleafure of the Reader, for 
giving them at large even in a Profe Tranflation s . 
u I can't but condemn the Counfels of this God- 
defs - 9 mould any Mortal but touch a dead Body, 
or a Woman in her Uncleannefs, me forbids 
him to come to her Altars, as being defiled. 
And yet fhe herfelf is pleafed with human Sacri- 

8 Tec T>i5 0£» 3 /^'V^'/K'*' (re^l(TfJuet]x t 

Bso/juuv isnfpyi*, [AVTctpo* ax, viya^ivri. 
Avrti *f $v<riect<; tifolxt GpoloKToms. 

QuK sc&' 07TWC, iTtKtV UV If A»5$ 0^/X«/> 
Ar t TU TCTKuTlW CCflixSiuv. lyoj {liiV uv 

T* TctvluXe Qeoicriv ifiaLpuT* 

' Anisct x^iW, zs-MiPoq i)<r6wcii /3epa. 
Tas V«P t^6ec ^ it/]a$ hrxq a,vfyw7roKTov8$ 
'En; T ©£01/ to O&t/Aev Uvatytpuv &oxu. 
'OvffttX y<xf> upon cctifjbovat itixi xxkoi. 

Eurip. Iphig. inTaur. v. 380, Sec. 

" fices. 



[21 ] 

Ci fices. Surely this Ignofance, or Inconfiftency, 
•* could not proceed from Latona the Wife of 
" Jupiter. For my part, I look upon the Story 
" of Tantalus's feafting the Gods, as incredible, or 
iC that there could be any Delight in eating his Son. 
" And I imagine, that Men, who are here them- 
" felves guilty of Murder, firft charged the Divinity 
" with thisWickednefs. For, in my Opinion, -none of 
" the Gods are ever wicked" i. e. cruel. We fee now^ 
from the whole Paflage, that by Demons Euripides 
could mean nothing but Gods ; and that the Word 
can't relate to Demons, in the Senfe of the Enquiries 
and Review, i. e. to departed Souls, unlefs it be af- 
ferted, that the Heathens knew none of thefe to be 
wicked ; or at leaft, that they knew no Gods but 
departed Souls, which is equally falfe and abfurd. 

4. With refpect to Tifiphone and the Furies^ 
this Gentleman is, I believe, as much miftaken. 
They might fometimes minifter to the Juftice of 
the Gods, and execute juft Punimment on Sinners. 
But this is no fort of Proof, that they were not 
malevolent Beings. Very immoral Perfons may be 
instrumental in bringing about very wife and good 
Ends of Providence. And this is certain, that 
thofe Beings are by Authors reprefented in but an 
unfavourable Light. Thus Suidas interprets 'E&mv?, 
K<Aluxfiovi& ^oiifxcav xxKQffoi&, an infernal, maleficent 
Demon. And, to mention no more, what does the 
Author of the Review think of the Character of A- 
letlo, as drawn by Virgil? Was me barely an " Exe- 
" cutor of juft Punifhment on Sinners ? " Was not 
fhe a malevolent Being ? Hear the Poet's own Words, 

« cut triftia bella, 

lr<eque, infidiaque, £s? crimina noxia cordis 

Odit & ipfe pater Pluton 

And again, thus Juno fpeaks to her : 

Tu potes unanimes armare in pr alia fratres^ 

Atque odiis verfare domos . 

D M 



Milk nocendi artes~ 



22 ] 

•libi nomina milk, 



And again it is faid of her, 

Vipeream infpirans animam \ 

And what more could have been faid of the Old 
Serpent himfelf, it may be hard to imagine. 

I have but one Word more to fay with regard 
to the ancient Heathens. I had taken Notice of an 
unaccountable Miftake in the Farther Enquiry, in 
quoting Ocellus Lucanus. The Review alfo con- 
demns it, and then adds, p. 21. " Ocellus had no 
" fuch Notions [as evil Demons;] KXHoScupms 
" therefore fhould have been tranflated unhappy , 
" and the Paragraph be changed, fo as to fhew 
" Ocellus to be with the Enquirer ; and not an an- 
" cient Teftimony againft him." I might juftly 
return the Gentleman's Sneer, En acumen ! For we 
have here one of the moft extraordinary Pieces of 
Reafoning I ever faw. Ocellus is fpeaking of quite 
a different Point, and is not again/l the Enquirer , 
Ergo, he is with him. Becaufe Horace fays not a 
Syllable of evil Demons in his firft Ode, therefore 
he believed no fuch. This is a Way which will 
foon procure the Reviewer Authorities enough, if 
the abfolute Silence of any Author, let him be fpeak- 
ing on what Subject he will, be allowed to be fuch. 
I muft own, that the Gentleman intimates, that 
fome Change fhould be made in the Paragraph. 
What Change he means indeed I can't fay : But I 
am fure it muft be a very extraordinary one, which 
will make Ocellus fpeak his Senfe. For he muft 
excufe me, if I remind him of what I mentioned in 
the Reply, p. 19. that this Author is fo far from 
thinking Demons to be departed Souls, that, in the 
fhort Work we have left of his, he more than once 
intimates his Notion of them to have been that of 
Beings of a middle Nature, between Gods and Men. 
But that he ever diftinguifhes thefe into good and 
.yj -.7. 327, &v. evil, 



[*3 J 

evil, I confefs I do not remember. And iuppofe 
he does not, this can be no Proof that he did not 
believe both Kinds. 

I really imagined, that I had quite done with 
the Objections relating to Heathen Authorities. But 
in/>. 2 3, 1 find the Review has by the way a Reflection 
on me, and endeavours to fet a Sentence of mine 
inOppofition to the Chriftian Apologias , whofe Cre- 
dit I had before vindicated, and, for aught appears 
yet, unanfwerably. This Gentleman fays, " the 
" Author of the Reply feems to imagine, that 
Jupiter, Mercury, &c. had not been Men at all, 
but were imaginary Beings. If this be a conteft- 
ed Point by the Author of the Reply, I only 
defire him to confute the Chriftian Apologifts ; 
' and particularly Tertullian's Apology, Ch. 10, If, 
Arnobius, &c. Now here I muft firft complain 
of a Mifreprefentation. A Sentiment is afcribed to 
me, which, I think, cannot be drawn from my 
Words. I had obferved the infamous Characters 
of many of the Heathen Deities, and then added, 
This is the general Account of them •, and if we 
fet it afide, it will not be eafy to evince, that 
they had been Men at all, that they were not ima- 
ginary Beings V Now is this feeming to imagine, 
that Jupiter, Mercury, &c." [under which &c. all 
the reft of the Heathen Gods may be concluded] 
were never Men ? Or wherein do I contradict the 
Apologifts ? Tertullian, I am fure, fays much the 
fame. " None of your Gods can you prove free 
** from Crime or Vice, unlefs you deny them to 
" have been Men V So far then I am clear. But 

perhaps 
u Reply y p. 8. r The whole Sentence being curious, I lhall 
give it the Reader. " Volo igitur merita recenfere, an ejufmodi 
" fint, ut illos in ccelum extulerint, & non potius in imum tar- 
** tarum merferint, quern carcerem pcenarum infernarum, cum 
" vultis, affirmatis. Illuc enim abftrudi folent impii quique in 
" parentes, & in forores incefti, & maritarum adulteri, & virgi- 
** num raptores, & puerorum contaminatores, & qui fseviunt, & 
* qui occidunt, & qui furantur, & qui decipiunt, & quicunque 

D 2 * fimiles 



M 

a. 



[ *4 j 

perhaps what I faid in the 7th Page might give this 
Gentleman room to fufpect thofe above to have 
*■.. been my Sentiments. It was there obferved, as 
* c moft probable, that the Dii major urn gentium were 
" originally the Sun, Planets, and Elements, &c. 
<« and that Jupiter might fignify the Air or 
* c Heaven, Apollo the Sun, Vulcan Fire, &cc." But 
neither is this Account abfolutely inconfiftent with 
the Apologias, who can't be proved in this matter 
to have declared their own Sentiments. There is no 
Occasion to fuppofe they did fo. It was fufficient 
for their Argument, that the Opinion that Saturn 
and Jupiter had been Men, was allowed by the Hea~ 
thens them/elves. And accordingly Tertullian feems 
to prefs it as fuch an Argument : Illos homines fuijfe 
non pojfitis negare, are his Words immediately fol- 
lowing. — : But I need not have recourfe to this 

Anfwer. That Varro reckon'd up 300 Jupiters 
every School-boy knows. And we may fafely al- 
low him, who was Son of Saturn, to have been a 
Man, without any Prejudice to that Account above 

given w . -Befides, it would be a fufficient De- 

fenfe for me to fay, that it is one thing to contra- 
dict the Apologias in Matters of Opinion, and ano- 
ther 

*' fimiles funtalicujus dei veftri, quern neminem integrum a crimine 
*' aut fvitio probare poteritis, nifi hominem negaveritis, &c." Ter- 
tull. Apol. c. 1 1 . N.B. Nay, I am not confcious of having faid 
any thing on this Point more than the Enquirer himfelf had 
faid. Thefe are his own Words : " If it can be proved, that 

" many of the Heathen Deities were nothing but mere ima- 

U. ginary Beings, who never did in fact exift at all."- Firfi 

Enq. p. 12. Whoever will confult the PafTage, will find, that 
this Writer more than feems to imagine this. 

w I find in the Farth. Enquiry, p. 29. an Inftance which well 
enough explains this. Diogenes Laertius is quoted to fhew the 
Sentiments of the Egyptians, " that the Sun and Moon were Gods, 

*' and that the former was called Ofiris, the latter Ifis but" 

(adds this Writer) " it is well known, that Ifis and Ofiris . 

" were great Men deified — ." See alfo p. 16. And alfo Shuck- 
ford's Connexion, Vol. II. p. 225, 298. and Vol. III. p. 57. where 
he tells us, that the Ancients ufed to call their Kings and famous 
Men by the Names of the Luminaries, Elements, cifr . which 
were their Gods. 



[25 ] 

ther to oppofe their direct Testimony in Matters of 
Fatt. With regard to the former, fuch efpecially 
as do not relate to their own Religion, they might 
miftake. With regard to the latter^ fuch efpecially 
as occurred to them frequently, I don't fee how 
their Witnefs can be refufed, if they had common 
Senfe and common Honefty. 

II. There remains now nothing relating to 
Heathen Authorities for me to confider. We muft 
therefore proceed to view what has been faid with 
regard to the Holy Scriptures. And here, as I ob- 
ferved before, the Review gives me but little Trou- 
ble. He objects only to my Explications of four 
Texts, but one of which relates directly to the 
Gofpel PoffeJJions •, and I can fee no manner of Dif- 
ficulty in vindicating thefe. The firft is Rev. ix. 20. 
On this Text I had declared, that I had " no Skill 
" in expounding thefe Parts of the Revelations" 
and therefore " had nothing to do but to look into 
<c fbme of the moft learned Commentators*." For 
this the Gentleman is pleafed to ridicule me;" An 
" excellent Method (fays he) of finding out the 
** Meaning of a Word 7 ! " And truly, in fuch a 
Cafe, I do not know a better. The Meaning of 
fcuuoviot here muft, I apprehend, be found out by 
considering the Context, and the Subjects treated of. 
In thefe Prophetical Parts of this Book I am not 
afhamed to own my Ignorance : And why I might 
not give the Senfe of Grotius, Hammond, &c. as 
well as the Farther Enquiry that of Mr. Mede, I 
can't imagine. But I am charged with mifre- 

prefenting Grotius 1 am willing to be tried by 

the Reviewer's own Tranflation. On thefe Words 
of St. John, that they Jhould not worfhip Devils [$cu- 
povia] and Idols of Gold and Silver, Grotius fays, 
" The People of Jerufalem were all in a myftical 
" Senfe Idolaters ; they ferved Money, Jewels, &V." 
Now it is afked, " Allowing all this, does Scupmov 

" fignify 

* Repfy, d. 50. I Rev. p. 31. 



[ 26 ] 

** fignify Money*?" I anfwer, that this was what 
Grotius imagined the Word to refer to, or elfe he 
has given no Senfe of it at all. 

I n the fame Page I am called in queftion for 
having given the Reader the Remarks of Dr. Ham- 
mond, Erafmus, and St. Jerom on i Tim. iv. i. 
" See here, fays the Review, the true Art of con- 
u founding all things ! As if the oppofing a Name 
" were the Confutation of an Opinion ! 3J And yet 
it is very extraordinary, that on this very Text the 
Name of the excellent and judicious Mr. Mede was 
cppofed*, which I believe the Gentleman thought 
at leaft a Confirmation of his own Opinion. And 
therefore, becaufe I would not feem to oppofe my 
ielf to Mr. Mede, as well as becaufe his Interpreta- 
tion was reprefented as " brought even to a De~ 
* c monftration," I thought it proper, ncr can I 
yet fee any Harm in it, to fet before the Reader 
another Interpretation of Authors of as great Name, 
and tv/o of them of greater Antiquity than Mr. 
Mede. Indeed, were there any Demonftration, I 
entirely agree that it would be abfurd to mention 
any Authorities againft it. But all are not Demon- 
firations which are called fo. 

The Review goes on, " How did Jerom know, 
" that all Herefy was framed by the Art of Demons ? 
" Or how did Erafmus know, that Devils brought 
" in their falfe Doctrines in the Manner he fays ?'* 
What has warmed the Gentleman, I can't tell. 
But, like a Man in fome Degree of Paffion, he 
feems to fall foul on all he meets. Now, me- 
thinks, it was very pardonable in Men, who un- 
derftood Demons of Devils, to afcribe Herejies to> 
them. But " could not Men frame Herefies by 
<c their own natural Powers ?" Not, I hope, by a 

right Ufe of their natural Powers. " Might 

c< they not do it by Miftakes?" They are not 
furely obliged to perfiil in, and to fpread, their Mif- 

i takes* 

2 Review, p. 32, * Farther Enquiry, p. 46. 



1 <7 3 

takes. Err are pojfum, &c . c « What Evidence is there, 
*' that Herefies were owing to Devils ?" This very- 
Text, I humbly prefume *, unlefs our Interpretation 
of it can be fhewn to be falfe or abfurd. Befides, 
St. Paul numbers Herefies among the Works of the 
Flejhy Gal. v. 20. St. Peter calls them damnable, 2 Ep. 
ii. 1. And St. John aflures us, that he that committeth 
Sin, any Sin, is of the Devil, 1 Ep. iii. 8. 
<c May not the Wickednefs, the Pride, the Errors 
" of Men be the Sources of falfe Doctrines ? n 
And may not fuch Wickednefs, Pride, and Er- 
rors proceed from their hearkening to the evil Sug- 
geftions and Delufions of Satan ? — " Yes, but the 
" Apoftle fays, f educing Spirits, as if evil Spirits were 
<c the great Seducers of Men." Such they have al- 
ways been thought, and fuch, I apprehend, they 
were allowed to be by the Enquirer himfelf, " Mo- 
<c ral Evils they may defire to do b ." I muft there- 
fore refer this Gentleman to his Friend for an An- 
fwer, who I hope will tell him, that to J educe Men 
is a moral Evil c . " But what if Spirits be here 

" taken for Doctrines themfelves or Seducers?" 

There is no Neceflity fo to take them. And farther, 
the Word Devils, which follows, can't be fo taken. 
— In a Word, there is nothing forced in the Inter- 
pretation which I am vindicating. The Phrafeo- 
logy of Scripture fufficiently juftifies it. As, the 
JDocJrine of God ouRSAViouR d isan Expreffion 
ufed by St. Paul to denote the Dofirine which He 

b Farther Enquiry, p. 79. 

c I obferve that the Review, pag. 26, 27. argues largely 
" againft the Notion of any Seductions by evil Spirits. All which 
Reafoning will hold equally ftrong againft the Temptations and 
Delufions of Satan, which the Scriptures have in fo many Places 
mentioned. See Epb.il. 2. 2 Cor. iv. 4. Matt.xnx. 19, 39. 
iv. 1, &c. Eph. vi. 11, 12. I Pet. v. 8, 9. 2 Cor. xi. 3. 
I Tbejf. iii. 5. 2 Cor. ii. 11. Jam.'w. 7. 2 Tim. ii. 26. 
Rev. xii. 9. and many others. I only refer to thefe Paflages, 
becaufe the part of the Review, which occafions my mentioning 
them, is not applied to inc. d Tit. ii. 10. 

taught ; 



[28] 

taught ; (6 there is no Reafon why we mould not 
understand the fame Apoftle's Expreflion, Doclrines 
of Devils , in a like Senfe, viz. that thefe, who are 
properly /educing Spirits, were the Authors and 
Suggefters of thofe unjuft Prohibitions of Marriage 
and Meats, which are exprefsly mentioned as the 
Doclrines taught. 

I have particularly confidered thefe feveral 
Queftions of the Review, becaufe at the Clofe of 
them he talks of the " Arts made ufe of to refute 
" the Enquiry, without Reafon, or Pretence of it e ." 
The Reader is now to judge of the Jufinefs, as well 
as Decency of this Reflection. 

Th e Reply laboured to frrew f , that Acls xvii. 
1 8. could not be accommodated to the Enquirer's 
Purpofe, not only becaufe St. Luke was not fpeak- 
ing his own Senfe, not only becaufe the Refurrec- 
tion here mentioned does not certainly mean that of 
the Lord Jesus, but alfo becaufe a Man raifed to 
Life again, and confifting both of Soul and Body, was 
very different from a departed Soul. The two firft 
of thefe Reafons (land unanfwered. To the laft 
fomething is urged, the Purport of which I am not 
fure that I underftand. However, I will lay it be- 
fore the Reader. " When the firft Chriftians af- 
* ferted Jupiter and Saturn, &c. to have been 
« c Men, and after Death to have been made Gods, 
" was the Point about their being alive both Soul 
" and Body ? When Hefiod fays, that when a cer- 
" tain Generation of Men died, they became De- 

" mons Did it make a queftion, whether 

" they had Bodies, or not g ?" If there be any 
thing in thefe Words in Anfwer to what I had 
urged, this muft, I think, be intended by them ; 
that the Heathen Demons were fuppofed to confift 
both of Soul and Body. But neither will this Ac- 
count for our Saviour's being called by the Epi- 
cureans 

« IU<vie<w, p. 33. [ Reply, p. 55, 56. t Review, p. 34. 



4 4 
44 
44 
(C 



[ 29 J 

cureans and Stoicks a Demon, becaufe of his Refur- 
reclion, unlefs thefe Philofophers alfo imagined, 
that their own Demons had rifen from the Grave, 
and appeared on Earth, in their proper Bodies. And 
will the Reviewer afTert this ? Whence then all 
thofe Prejudices which the Heathens entertained 

againft the Poffibility of a Refur reclion ? Be- 

fides, it is a flat Contradiction to both the Enquiries, 
to fuppofe that the Heathen Demons were embodied. 
In thofe they are called the Souls of departed Men, 
frequently Ghofts h , and once, one would think 
with a View to exclude that Suppofition, the 
Ghosts of dead Men, the very Ghosts of Men 
unbodied. Nay, in another place ! we have this 
Account of the Heathen Notions, " They thought 
— either that they [Souls] continued as long as 
the Body could be preferv'd, separate f rom 
all Body -, and when that was deftroyed, that 
then they animated other Bodies : " [in which 
Cafe fure they were no Demons'] " or that they 
c * went into aerial or etherial Manfions for certain 
" Years." Accordingly Hefiod's Demons were fcca 
ioWjuJjuoi, clothed with Air. And the Ancients ima- 
gined them to be inviftble Beings, &c k . I had then 
very good Reafon to think, that if fcupovtov In 
Acls xvii. 1 8. be applied to our Lord, zsraifed 
again, we have here a new Senfe of the Word. 

That fome Actions and Vices are by the Poets 
afcribed to Jupiter, &c. which fuppofe their hav- 
ing human Bodies, is indeed true: But then it is as 
true, that the fame Poets give other Defcriptions 
of them, which effectually deftroy fuch a Suppofi- 
tion. To reconcile them with themfelves is an im- 
pofTibie Taik : And on this very Account I think 
them the moft unfit Guides to the undemanding of 
the Scriptures. 

My Way of accounting for the Difficulty which 
the Enquirer laid fo much Strefs upon, that the 
Legion was fpoken of, and to, as an unclean Spirit, 

*Far.Enq. p. 1 8, 20, 23, 24. '* lb. p. 66. * Firft Ay. p. 11. 



I 3° J 

remains to be vindicated. On this I obferved, that 
" the Evangelifts fometimes fpeak of the whole Body 
" of them collectively in the Singular Number, and 
li fometimes diftinclly in the Plural." And for an 
In fiance of fimilar Expreffion, I referred to and 
cited Deut. xii. i '. The Subftance of the Gentle- 
man's Anfwer to this is, that tho' a Nation may be 
fpoke to in the Singular Number, yet Spirits can- 
not •, that it " is impoflible in any Language, to 
" make the fame Word fignify an Individual and 
" a Collection of Individuals of the fame Species ;" 
and that <c allowing this, this would not account 
" for the Expreffion, Thou unclean Spirit, when 
cc unclean Spirits were prefent m ." Here this Gen- 
tleman muft be reminded once more, that the 
Evangelifts actually in their own Names ufe this 
Language ; that the Difficulty therefore is pointed 
directly to them -■> and that whether my Solution of 
it be allowed, or not, nothing can be plainer than 
this, that the Scheme of the Enquirer will no way 
clear it. For can we imagine, that the Evangelifts 
would them/elves ufe the Language of Madmen? 
And yet, that according to the Scheme of the En- 
quirer they did fo, he has been told already n , nor 
has he yet attempted to difprove it. 

But I am far from being out of Hope of vin- 
dicating my own Way of anfwering the Difficulty. 
And I think, any Body or Number of Beings may 
be properly defcribed as one fuch Being, provided 
nothing is faid of this one, but what is equally ap- 
plicable to all. The Words a Jew fignify as much 
an Individual, as the Words a Man, or, an unclean 
Spirit. And yet when St. Paul faid, Behold, thou 
art called a Jew °, it will not be thought that he 
addreffied himfelf to any one particular Perfon -, 
nor is there any Difficulty in conceiving, that the 
Expreffion includes a Colleclion of Individuals. A 

1 Rqfyy p. 71. m fa-view, p. 56. J[Vid. Eflaj, p, 60,65. 
• Ram.n. 17. 

Jew 



[3*] 

Jew then, though no Noun of Number ', is here the 
fame as ye Jews. And thus a Legion of Devils may 
without any Abfurdity be reprefented as an unclean 
Spirit, if what is predicated of one does equally re- 
late to all. Why may not " a Spirit fignify a col- 
" lective Body of Spirits" as well as a Jew Sig- 
nify a collective Body of Jews? 1 mall only 

trouble the Reader with one Inftance more, where 
the Change of Number is very obfervable. This is 

in Gene/is xix. 1 5. The An gels haftned Lot 

And it came to pafs when they had brought them 
forth abroad, that h e faid And Lot faid unto 

THEM, Oh, not fi, MY LORD, &C ? 

Before I conclude, it may be proper to obferve, 
that by the Refietlion which the Review* complains 
of, it was not my Intention to reprefent the Enquirer 
as a Deift, or one who concurred with Woolfton in 
his wicked Defign. That he laid a great Strefs on a 
trifling Difficulty, which this Blafphemer had raifed, 
is certain. He exprefsly declared againft the Solu- 
tions which learned Men had given, tho' thefe were 
really as plain and ftrong as could be given in any 
cafe. In a Word, they were not fo much the Ex- 
plications of learned Men, as the Explications of the 
Evangelifts themfelves, who, when compared toge- 
ther, fet their own Meaning paft all Doubt. To 
rejedt therefore thefe, feemed to me to be fo far 
" joining the Cry of the Infidels," reviving their 
Objections, and ferving their Caufe. This Gentle- 
man I fuppofe imagin'd, that his own Scheme would 
effectually anfwer the Difficulty. I mall not at pre- 
fent difpute this. Yet furely it would have better 
become a Chriftian to have offered this Anfwer, 
without crying down thofe which had been before 
given and approved. But to do this in Terms, in 
ordet to introduce a novel Scheme, clogged with 

P Grotius on 1 Mac. xiii . 5 1 . fofyas piy**, has this Remark, 
Lnallage mmeri. [Praefidiarios enim illos arcis intelligit, qui 
Ifraeli plurimum nocuerant. Here a l^umber is reprefented as 
.one Enemy, \ Review, p. 64. 



[ 3 2 J 

many and great Difficulties", "which had remaiii'd un- 
anfwei'd, was indeed making this Scheme neceffary, 
but, I fear, at the Expence of the' Chriftian Caufe 
I mu$ agafti repeat it, that I do not "believe our 
Author defign'd any Injury to this. But I may add, 
in the excellent Words of a Prelate of our own 
Church, that " when Do£brines, whatever, the In r 
" tention of propagating them be, appear inconf.ft* 
*< ent either with the Whole, or any part of our Re- 
<c ligion, it is noUudraritablenefs,,butour Duty, to 
" lay open theFaliehooji and the Danger of them V 
I now once mo*©--take leave of this Subject, 
having found this gooi:Effe& from the Pains I have 
taken, the being thoroughly perfuaded my felf of 
the Truth of the literal Senfe. The Review has nojt 
attempted to fhew the Pertinency of the Heathen 
Authorities, has not vindicated the Interpretations 
of 'the Enquirer, nor offered any new fufUcient An- 
fwers to the chief Difficulties which lye againft his 
Scheme. If this Gentleman, or any other, will re- 
confide r this Matter, will reconcile, all the Inconfii- 
tencies of 'Pagan Writers when they/fpeak of De~ 
tnons, will prove that the Scriptures must be 
underilood according to ih/ir Senfe, will give us 
-Tome good Rcafon why -the. Fathers may not be 
called in as good Interpreters of the Scripture Mean- 
I of the Word, will ihew us which of them it was 
al firtf invented, the new Scheme of Demcnology^ will 
fairly vindicate the Enquirer's Interpretation of the 
Paflages in the LXX, where Scupoviov is mentioned, 
and Most especially thofe in the Go/pels^ where 
'■PoJjeffvAisw^ \ whoever, I fay, will modeftly 

deavour to. do all this, may defer ve for fuoh an 
t tempt /Attention and Regard. But 
it can be to no purpole to go on heaping up dif- 
pitfefl Author^ i laving over and over things 

which have already had their Anfwers. For ev^ry 
ferious Man knows that a weak Argument can gain 
no new Strength from its being even ten thoufand 
times repeated. 



V 



DISSERTATION 



O N T H E 



DEMONIACS 



IN T H E 



GOSPELS. 



v*? 



•i -. , 




LONDON: 

Printed for John and Francis Rivington, at the BibU 
and Crown (N° 62) in St. Paul's Church- Yard, 

M.DCC.LXXV. 
f Price One Shilling. ] 



ADVERTISEMENT 

T O T H E 

READER. 



TH E following Diflertation is 
one of many, which in due 
time may fee the light. It was thought 
proper to {Ingle this from the reft, 
and to print it at this time and in this 
manner, fome things having lately 
been publifhed contrary to the do&rin 
herein contained, and contrary (as it 
is conceived) to the truth of the gofpel. 
The Author is too far advanced in 
life, and has too much other bufinefs 
upon his hands, to engage in any 
controverfy about it. It muft ftand 
or fall by its own merit : If right^ 
it will w r ant no vindication ; if wrong, 
it deferves none. 

ADIS- 



[ I.i 



A 

ISSERTATION 

O N f H £ 

DEMONIACS; 

N reading the gofpels, I make no doubt, 
it hath happened to many others as 
well as to myfelf, that they have beeii 
ftruck with the accounts of the demoniacs or 
jperfons poiTefTed with devils, and have won- 
dered within themfelves what kind of beings 
thefe demons, and what fort of diforders 
thefe poffeflions could be. We do not read 
of fo many cafes of this kind either before 
or after this period, neither do we certainly 
know of any fuch inftances at prefent : 
And why fhould they abound fo much more 
at this time than at any other, and yet the 
jews fpeak not of them as any matter of 

B furprife 



I A DISSERTATION 

furprife or novelty, but as things not un- 
ufual among them ? They exprefs much 
wonder at our Saviour's manner of curing 
thefe diforders, but none at the diforders 
themfelves, as if they were not unaccuftomed 
to them. Thefe queftions have been much 
agitated among learned men, who generally 
are divided in two contrary opinions, the 
one that thefe poffeffions were real opera* 
tions of devils, the other that they were 
nothing more than natural caufes and effects, 
and were fuch diftempers as are incidental 
to men, . but only with different names, 
Now the better to judge and determin in 
which fcale the truth preponderates, we 
muff: hold the balance with an even hand, 
incline neither to the one fide nor to the 
other, bat weigh and examin things with 
deliberation and by degrees. 

I. Our firft inquiry will naturally be 
What kind of beings thefe demons were, and 
confequently whether the word is rightly 
tranflated devils. In one of the differtations 
on the prophecies, explaining that text of 
the doclrins of demons or devils, it was fhown 

from 






/ : i 

(i) Plutarch. Dion In lnhid. torn vum touhcuuv. *. t. A. 

p. 958* 



on the DEMONIACS. 3 

from Plato and the beft authorities, that 
demons, according to the theology of the 
Gentiles, were middle powers between the 
fovran Gods and mortal men ; that thefe 
demons were regarded as mediators and 
agents between the Gods and men $ that of 
thefe demons there were accounted twp 
kinds 3 that one kind of demons were the 
fouls of men deified or canonized after 
death ; that the other kind of demons were 
fuch as had never been the fouls of men, 
nor ever dwelt in mortal bodies ; that thefe 
latter demons may be paralleled with angels, 
as the former may with canonized faints ; 
and as w r e Chriftians believe that there are 
good and evil angels, fo did the Gentiles 
that there were good and evil demons. 
According to Plutarch ( 1 ) c it was a very 
4 ancient opinion, that there are certain 
? wicked and malignant demons, who envy 
1 good men, obftruft their aftions, induce 
* troubles and terrors, to hinder them in 
1 the purfuit of virtue, left after death they 
' fhould be partakers of greater happinefs 
€ than they enjoy/ 

p. 958. Tom. 1. Edit. Parif. 1624. See PifTert^tion XXIII. 
on the Prophecies. 

B 2 In 



4 A DISSERTATION 

In the management of this controverfy, 
as indeed in moft other controverfies, the 
arguments have been puPned too far on both 
fides. On one fide it has been affirmed that 
demons were nothing more than the fouls of 
deceafed men, and never before the coming 
of Chrifl flgnified devils or malicious beings, 
malevolent, hurtful to mankind, delighting 
in promoting wickednefs. On the other 
fide it has been afferted, that the word demon 
doth not fignify a departed foul either in 
the Claffics or in the Scriptures. But both 
parties, as I apprehend, are greatly miftaken. 
For there are other demons befides the 
fouls of deceafed men, noxious evil demons, 
and fo called before our Saviour's time; 
and there are inftances of the word demon 
fignifying a departed foul both in the Claffics 
and in the Scriptures, though perhaps oftener 
in the former than in the latter. In the 
differtation above mentioned it hath been 
proved from Hefiod Plato and other autho- 
rities, that good men after death become 

demons 

(2) &.c£.\\JL r >va.t, oi. acriac, roil \vyyn.%\ % von hfeoca; race viya^iefjavaq 
^\' v X ot< > Tu * atQftiiruv' ccFaQtn; {asv ra; afaOaj, *axa$ 01 too; tpavXag,. 

.Apud Athenag. Legat. pro ChrifHanis. p. 25. Aa^>»< 



pn the DEMONIACS. 5 

jdemons, good beings, guardians of mortal 
men, and authors of good to mankind;, 
and wicked men after death, by parity of 
reafon, muft become other demons, evil 
beings, tempters of mortal men, and au- 
thors of evil to mankind. That there were 
wicked and malignant demons, obftru6ling 
and envying the virtue and happineis of 
men, was, according to Plutarch in the fore- 
cited paffage, a very ancient opinion, tm 
wavy TtruXatcov • and confequently an opinion 
that prevailed before our Saviour's time. 
Thales, one of the firft and beft of the Greek 
philofophers, diftinguifheth between demons 
and heroes, (2) affirming demons to bq fpi- 
ritual fubftances, and heroes to be the fouls 
of men feparated from bodies, fome good 
andfome bad. In Homer, Pindar, Ocellus 
Lucanus and others, philofophers as well as 
poets, mention is often made of the hate- 
ful and evil demon, and of evil demons, 
xuxoSaipoveg ; and the like properties and 
adlions are afcribed tp them, which we com- 
monly attribute to evil angels. The very 

vTtu^m &<ria<; ^vyj.v.a.c, uton h yon Yiftoca; rat; x.tp/upio'pBiia.t; ^vva.$ 

tw aupaSw. Plut. de Placit. Philofoph. Lib. i. Cap. 8. 
p. 882. Edit. Parif. 1624. 

etymology 



6 A DISSERTATION 

etymology of the word in fome meafure 
evinces what kind of beings they were ac- 
counted. For the moft probable derivation 
of it is from a word fignifying learned, 
knowing, Jkilful &C ; Satpovsg quafi Sccuj^oves 
fays (3) Plato, as if they were beings of 
fuperior knowlege. (4) Proclus on Hefiod, 
and the Scholiaft on Homer fay that they are 
called demons as knowing all things, or as 
being the difpenfers and diftributers of good 
and evil things to men, the word Sottu figni- 
fying to divide as well as to learn. Eufe- 
bius propofes another derivation, and fays 
(5) that they are fitly called demons from 
Ssipaiveiv, filling men with fears and terrors. 
Here then, without multiplying more quo- 
tations, are fufikient evidences from the 
Claffics, that the word demon dothfometimes 
fignify a departed foul, and that there are other 
demons befides departed fouls, of a fuperior 
nature, fome good and beneficial, others 
evil and hurtful to mankind, and fo named 
before the coming of Chrift. 

(3) Flat, in Cratylo. p. 398. Edit. Serrani. Vol. !. 

(4) Proclus in Hefiod. Uapu to £a*)K«i ra 'srccnu, v> p-tfi^M 
vet otfudx kcu xaxa Ton; avD|J<ywc»?. In Iliad. I. 222. Aayiovas 
xa"Ku t«; Se»c, *]1oi ^atfxovaq' E^Trapoi yag xai to^uj tsuuav uviov navi^ 
n ote oiulrjea tut xa» c\o»K'/?lai 7V* Mfytiituv, 

But 



on the D EM ONI ACS. ? 

But the right notion of demons is to be 
drawn, not from the Claffics, but from the 
Scriptures, which are the fource and ftandard 
of all true demonology as well as of all true 
theology. Now in the Scriptures it muft 
be admitted that the word demons moll 
ufually fignifies devils : but in the forefaid 
differtation fbme inftances are produced to 
the contrary, to fhow that the worfhipping 
of demons is the worfhipping of the dead, 
chiefly out of St. Paul, who being the moft 
learned of all the apoftles, and fpeaking and 
writing to the Greeks, might exprefs himfelf 
in accommodation to their notions. I would 
not repeat what has been faid elfewhere; 
but thefe inftances excepted, the fignification 
of the word is fo clear in other places, that 
there can be no doubt of its being rightly 
tranflated devils. The text of St. James 
(II. 19.) " The demons believe and tremble" 
cannot with propriety be applied to anjr 
other beings, nor well admit any other tran- 
flation than " The devils believe and tremble." 

.(5) Ov <&ap6t to da»f/o»a$ mat — cfr&tx vtotpa to Supctutw, Intg 
Esfeb. Prsep. Evang. Lib. 4. Cap. 5, p. 142. Edit. Vigeri. 

In 



8 A DISSERTATION 

In the gofpels; wherein is the moft frequent 

mention of demoniacs, the fame that are 

named demons are named alfo Jptrits, and 

unclean fpirits> and evil and wicked fpir its. 

So St. Matthew (XII. 43,- 45.) and St: 

Luke (XI. 24, 26.) " When the unclean 

" fpirit is gone out of a man,— he taketh 

" to him k\tn other fpirits more wicked 

<c than himfelf." There was in the fyna- 

gogue, " a man with an unclean fpirit,'* 

faith St. Mark (I. 23, &c.) " which had a 

<c fpirit of an unclean demon," faith St. 

Luke; (IV. 33, &c.) " And when the un- 

" clean fpirit had torn him, he came out 

<c of him," faith St Mark; " And when 

" the demon had thrown him in the midft, 

cc he came out of him," faith St. Luke: 

and in both the whole is concluded with 

this juft refle&ion of all the fpeclators^ 

cc What thing is this ? What a word is 

C£ this ? for with authority and power he 

" commandeth the unclean fpirits, and they 

" do obey him." When our Saviour called 

his twelve difciples, as St. Matthew relates 

it, (X. 1.) " he gave them power over tin- 

cc clean fpirits, and to heal all manner of 

cc ficknefs 



on the DEMONIAC S. g 

tf ficknefs and all manner of difeafe '* the 
fame thing is thus exprefled by St. Luke, 
(IX. i.) " he gave them power and autho- 
cc rity over all demons, and to cure difeafes." 
What in St. Mark is unclean fpir 'its, (IIL 1 1 .) 
" And unclean (pirits, when they faw him, 
" fell down before him, and cried faying, 
" Thou art the Son of God/' in St. Luke 
is demons, (IV. 41.) " And demons alfo 
cc came out of many, crying out and faying 
" Thou art the Chrift, the Son of God," 
What in St. Matthew (XVII. 18.) is a demon, 
in St. Mark (IX. 25.) is zfoulfpirit, and 
dumb and deaf ' fpirit $ and in the parallel 
place of St. Luke (IX. 42.) is termed both 
a demon and unclean fpirit. St. Luke in the 
fame breath as it were lpeaketh of evil fpirits 
and demons as being the fame, (VIII. 2.) 
" And certain women, which had been 
cc healed of evil fpirits and infirmities, Mary 
" called Magdalene, out of whom went 
<c feven demons." St. Matthew in like 
manner, (VIII. 16.) " When the even was 
<c come, they brought unto him many that 
<{ were poflefled with demons, and he caft 
" out the fpirits with his word." In the 

C ftory 



jo A DISSERTATION 

ftory of the Sy ro-phenician woman's daughter 
(Mark IX. 25, 26.) what is denominated 
an unclean fpir it) is called immediately after- 
wards a demon > c< A certain woman, whofe 
" youngeft daughter had an unclean fpirit* 
cc heard of him, and came and felLat his 
<c feet, (The woman was a Greek, a Syro- 
" phenician by nation) and fhe befought 
" him that he would caft forth the demon 
" out of her daughter." Other inftances 
might be collected, but thefe are fufficient 
to fhow that demons and Jpirits, and foul and 
unclean fpirits, and evil and "wicked jpirits 
are fynonymous terms, and are ufed pro^ 
mifcuoufly to denote the fame beings. It 
farther appears too, that demons are beings 
of the fame kind, of the lame nature as 
Satan and Beelzebub, the prince or chief of 
the demons. For by our Saviour's argumen- 
tation, when he was accufed of calling out 
demons by Beelzebub the prince or chief of 
thedemons, (Matt. XII. 22 — 32. Mark III. 
22 — 30. Luke XL 14 — 26.) it is plain to 
demonrtration, that carting out demons is 
calling out Satan, that calling out demons 
by Beelzebub is oppofed to calling out demons 

by 



on the DEMONIACS, u 

by the Spirit of God, that cafting out demons 
by Beelzebub is the fame as cafting out de- 
mons by Satan, that Satan's cafting out de- 
mom is cafting out bimfelf, that Satan and 
Beelzebub are the fame, that the demojis, and 
Satan and Beelzebub the prince or chief of the 
demons are beings of the fame nature, and 
differ only in order and degree. When the 
Seventy returned to our Saviour, (LukeX. 
17, 18.) " faying, Lord even the demons 
" are fubje£t unto us through thy name ;" 
he confidered the fall of demons as the fall of 
Satan, as another fall of angels, cc I beheld 
f* Satan as lightning fall from heaven." St. 
Peter fpeaketh of the demoniacs under the 
name and notion of " opprefTed with the 
" 4 ev il>" vkq tx $iu£o\v, when he told Cor- 
nelius the Centurion, (A6tsX. 38.) " how 
M God anointed Jefus of Nazareth with the 
" Holy Ghoft and with power, who went 
Ki about doing good, and healing all that 
<c were opprefTed of the devi], for God was 
<c with him." He mentions this as one of 
the greateft exertions of divine goodnefs and 
power. It is evident then, that thek wicked 
and unclean fpir its, thefe demons and the prince 

C 2 or 



12 A DISSERTATION 

or chief of the demons are not the foqls of 
men or women deceafed, but are really and 
truly the devil and his angels: and confe- 
quently that the word demons is juftly and 
properly tranflated devils, efpecially through- 
out the gofpels. 

II. Having feen what kind of beings thefe 
demons are, let us now inquire what forts 
of diiTempers were ufuaily attributed to their 
influence and operation. Saul's difprder is 
exprefly afcribed to this caufe, (i Sam. 
XV I. 14.) " The Spirit of the Lord de- 
cc parted V . m Saul, and an evil fpirit from 
<c the Lord troubled him." Jofephustoo in 
his relation of this cafe often mentions the 
demon or demons as agitating and dif- 
turbing him. His cafe appears plainly to 
have been of the atribilarious or melancholy 
kind; and according to (6) Rambam, the 
Jews call every kind of melancholy an evil 
fpirit. 

Melancholy and madnefs are nearly 
allied, and this diforder alfo was fuppofed 
to proceed from poffeflion by an evil fpirit. 

(6) See Lightfoot. Hebrew Exercitations on Luke XIIF. 
1 J. Vol. 2. p. 442. 

The 



on the DEMONIACS. 13 

The Jews faid of our Saviour, (John X. 20.) 
■ c He hath a devil, and is mad," confidering 
the former as the caufe, and the latter as the 
effeft. Several aftions of the demoniacs 
fhow evidently that they were alfo mad- 
men; the fame fymptoms are difcoverable 
in both. Take for example (Mark V. 1, 
&c. Luke VIII. 26, &c.) " the man who 
ware no cloaths, neither abode in any 
houfe, but had his dwelling among the 
tombs, and no man could bind him, no 
not with chains: becaufe that he had 
been often bound with fetters and chains, 
and the chains had been plucked afunder 
by him, and the fetters broken in pieces, 
neither could any man tame him ; and 
always night and day he was in the 
mountains and in the tombs, crying and 
cutting himfelf with ftones." Here are 
all the ftrongeft marks of the fierceft and 
moft raging frenzy ; but when the devils 
were departed out of him, we find him 
" fitting at the feet of Jefus, cloathed and 
? in his right mind," as St. Mark and 
St. Luke both relate it. The expulfion of 

the 



i 4 A DISSERTATION 

the evil fpirits was likewife the cure of his 
madnefs. 

Epilepfy is another difeafe which, as well 
as madnefs, was imputed to the agency of 
evil fpirits. We have a moft remarkable 
cafe of this kind in the gofpels, (Matt. 

XVII. 14 21. Mark IX. 17 29. Luke 

IX. 38 — ^42.) where all the fymptoms are 
defcribed as particularly and as exaftly as 
they could be by a fkilful phyfician. St 
Matthew defcribes him thus, " He is luna- 
" tic and fore vexed, for oft-times he fall- 
" eth into the fire, and oft into the water." 
He is called a lunatic, as his fits might be 
better or wprfe according to the courfe and 
changes of the moon, which as phyficians 
obferve is not unnfual in this diftemper. 
St. Luke thus reprefents him, " Lo, a 
" fpirit taketh him, and he fuddenly crieth 
cc out, and it teareth him, that he foameth 
ce again, and bruifing him, hardly depart- 
Ci eth from him." St. Mark is more copi- 
ous, " Wherefoever the fpirit taketh him, 
" he teareth him, and he foameth, and 
ct gnafheth with his teeth, and pineth away. 
c f This came unto him of a child, and oft- 

(( times 



on the DEMONIACS. 15 

44 times it hath caft him into the fire, and 
<c into the waters, to deftroy him." When 
he was brought unto our Saviour, " ftrait- 
" way the fpirit tare him, and he fell on 
" the ground, and wallowed foaming." A 
patient truly to be pitied, and hard to be 
cured: but upon Jefus faying unto the 
fpirit, '* I charge thee come out of him, 
" and enter no more into him, the fpirit 
f< cried, and rent him fore, and came out 
u of him ; and he was as one dead, info- 
much that many faid He is dead - y but 
Jefus took him by the hand, and lifted 
him up, and he arofe." The malady 
was occafioned by the inhabitation of an 
evil fpirit, and the ejedlion of that fpirit 
was the remedy. The caufe ceafing, the 
effeft ceafed too. 

Other diforders were afcribed to demons 
or evil fpirits befides the fore-mentioned of 
melancholy and madnefs and epilepfy. 
Job's difeafe, which feemeth to have been 
cuticular, of the leprous and ulcerous kind 
to a very great degree, is faid to have been 
inflidted by Satan through the permiffion of 
God. (Job II. 7.) " So went Satan forth 

" from 



16 A DISSERTATION 

" from the prefence of the Lord, and fmote 
" Job with fore boils from the fole of his 
" foot unto his crown." Satan is alio repre- 
fented as the caufe and author of the crook- 
ed woman's infirmity in the golpel. (Luke 
XIII. ii, &c.) " And behold, there was 
a woman which had a fpirit of infirmity 
eighteen years, and was bowed together, 
and could in no wife lift up herfelf. And 
when Jefus faw her, he called her to him, 
" and faid unto her, Woman, thou art 
loofed from thine infirmity : And he laid 
his hands on her -> and immediately fhe 
was made ftrait, and glorified God." A 
fpirit of infirmity may be thought an ambi- 
guous indeterminate expreflion, but the 
meaning of it is limited and afcertained, 
w r hen this fpirit is explained immediately 
afterwards to be Satan ( cc whom Satan hath 
" bound, lo, thefe eighteen years") oZotlavuq 
with the article, the great enemy and ad- 
verfary of mankind. There are alfo de- 
moniacs in the gofpel, who yetdifcovernot 
the leaft tokens or figns of madnefs. They 
were blind and dumb, but theblindnefsand 
dumbnefs are attributed to the pofleffion of 

evil 



on the DEMONIACS. 17 

evil fpints, and the recovery to their 
ejection. (Matt. IX. 32, 33.) " As they 
" went out, behold, they brought unto 
£C him a dumb man poffeffed with a demon : 
" And when the demon was caft out, the 
£C dumb fpake -, and the multitudes marvel- 
" ed, faying, It was never fofeen in Ifrael." 
(Matt. Xll. 21.) " Then was brought 
Ci unto him one poffeffed with a demon, 
<c blind and dumb 3 and he healed him, in- 
cc fomuch that the blind and dumb both 
" fpake and faw." 

But not all Jlich diforders did the Jews 
afciibe to demons or evil fpirits, but thofe 
only which were befide the common courfe 
of nature, and attended with extraordinary 
fy mptoms. Madnefs itfelf is fometimes fpoken 
of by its ufual name, without being align- 
ed to any fupernatural caufe. Solomon 
mentions (Prov. XXVI. 18.) " a mad 
" man who caffeth firebrands arrows and 
" death." Of St. Paul it is faid (A&s 
XXVI. 24.) that <f he was befide himfelf, 
<c much learning had made him mad/' 
Our Saviour's relations faid of him alfo 
(Mark III. 21, 22.) " He is befide himfelf;' 

D but 



i3 A DISSERTATION 

but they did not fay, as the fcribes did at 
the fame time, " He hath Beelzebub -" the 
former putting a favorable, the latter a mod 
malicious conftru&ion upon his actions. 
So juft and true is the observation of Gro- 
tius and of our Lightfoot. Grotius (7) 
explains the word demoniacs to fignify not 
common madmen, but fuch as were feifed 
and agitated by the forcible violence of un- 
clean feints. Lightfoot (8) remarks, that 
it was ufaal with the Jews to attribute to 
evil fpirits fome of the more grievous dif- 
eafes, efpecially thofe, wherein either the 
body was convulfed and diftorted, or the 
mind was diiturbed and agitated by frenzy. 

Neither were the Jews Angular in this 
belief 3 other ancient nations entertained 
fimilar opinions. Dr. Hyde hath fully 
evinced it with regard to the Chaldaeans and 

Per- 

(7) &*»^o»{mi>«?, non quovis modo infanientes, fed im- 
purorum fpirituum vi majore correptos atque agitatos. 
Grot, in Matt. IV. 24. 

(8) Lightfoot. Hebrew Exerckations on Matt. XVII. 
15. Vol. 2. p. 21 1. 

(9) Medica Sacra in Dr. Stack's tranflation. Cap. 9. At 
non Judseis tantum, fed et aliis etiam gentibus, in ufu fuit 
infanos pro da±moniacis habere. Hinc apud Herodotum 
(Lib. 6. Cap. 84.) rex Clcomenes dicitur non ab ullo damonio 
ad infaniam redaclus, fed confuetudinc cum Scjthis ebriofus 

fuijje. 



on the DEMONIACS. 19 

Perfians in his learned hiftory of the reli- 
gion of the ancient Perfians. The Greeks, 
and Romans called inline perfons Scupo- 
i>io\7]7p,oi, vvppohyjTfioi, Lympbatici 9 Larvati^ 
Cerriti, Bacchantes and the like; as if the 
demons, or the nymphs, or the Larvae, or 
Ceres, or Bacchus were the authors of their 
calamities, tho' what notions they had 
framed of thefe different beings we cannot 
tell, very imperfect ones we may be certain., 
The epilepfy as well as madnefs was called 
morbus facer a facred difeqfe\ as if it were 
caufed 'by fome divine power. As Dr. 
Mead (y) in treating of the demoniacs ob- 
ferves, " this cuftom of taking madmen for 
" demoniacs was not fo peculiar to the 
" jews, but that it prevailed in other na- 
<c tions alio. Hence in Herodotus king 
" Cleomenes is faid to be driven into mad- 

fuijft, et intlf. furhfus. Cun.qui' 2«i/4o*** idem figni fleet ac 
SccifMtK,* i%tiv, hoc verbo pro furere uritur Xenophor>. (Me- 
morabi]. Lib. I.) Qoin et Ariftcphanes de coJem morbo 
gravius urgente voceni xcc:'.t,ccAuo\xv ufurpat, et deterrimum 
infanise gradum nnn (juumt, fed •/.an.coca^ouui efle prmmnciat. 
(Vide Plutum, Act. 2. Seen. 3. ver, 38. et A&. 2. Seen. 5. 
ver. 15.) Hinc etiam, at notat A retains, facer apud illos 
diclus eft hie morbus, quoniam cl<?innn aliquis in homincm in- 

De caufis morbi diuturn. Lib. 1 . Cap. 4.J 

D 2 cc nefs, 



20 A DISSERTATION 

c< nefs, not by any demon, but by a habit 
" of drunkennefs, which he had contracted 
among the Scythians, whereby he be- 
came frantic. And whereas ion^ovctv fig- 
nifies the fame thing as Sxipoviov sx £lv > 
Xenophon ufes this word for Jiirere, to 
be raging mad or furious. Moreover 
Ariftophanes, intending to exprefs a high 
degree of the fame difeafe, employs the 
word KcMoSaifjLovaiv, and calls the higheft 
degree of mad nefs, not puviuv, but xa*o- 
Saipoviuv. Hence a!fo, as Aretsus ob- 
ferves, this difeafe was called morbus 
facer, or the facred difeafe, becauje it "was 
imagined that fome demon had entered into 
" the man!* The Heathens therefore as 
well as the Jews attributed thefe diforders 
to demons, the Jews by demons under- 
ftanding evil fpirits or devils, the Heathens 
fome beings, they knew not what, fuperior 
to mortal men. Jn fhort, certain difeafes, 
which the ancients afcribed to fupernatural 
caufes, many of the moderns affeft to con- 
lider as natural effects. 

III. The great queftion therefore is, and 
the moft difficult to be refolved, whether 

the 



<c 

cc 

cc 

cc 

cc 

cc 

cc 

cc 

cc 

cc 

cc 

cc 

cc 



on the DE M ON I ACS. 21- 

the modern or ancient opinion is more 
agreeable to truth and reafon, whether thefe 
kinds of difeafes were any ways owing to 
evil fpirits, or may be deduced altogether 
from natural caufes. One would not wil- 
lingly encourage fuperftition, Seia-tSai^ovtav 
as the word is in Greek, the dread of de- 
mons, and fearing where no fear is ; but 
at the fame time one would as carefully 
avoid the other extreme of fcepticifm and 
infidelity, doubting of every thing, and be- 
lieving nothing but what may be feen, and 
proved even to demonftration. It betrays great 
weaknefs as well as great lazinefs in men to 
be too remifs in inveftigating the caufes of 
things, and what they cannot readily com- 
prehend and eafily explain, without feeking 
farther to refer immediately to fomefuperior 
being as the caufe and author -, but on the 
other hand it argues as great vanity and 
prefumption to pretend to know all caufes, 
and to reduce all effe&s to their firft prin- 
ciples, as if nothing was above their level 
and comprehenfion. Some caufes may per- 
haps lie within the fphere of our knowlcge ; 
but many more, I am afraid, are far above 

and 



22 A DISSERTATION 

and beyond our utmoft reach and compafs. 
The effe6ts are feen and felt and obferved by 
all men, but the caufes lie deeper and more 
remote, and cannot often be traced up like 
a river to the fpring-head. 

All caufes may not improperly be reduced 
to two kinds, material and fpiritual. Now 
the philofophy of the prefent times inclines, 
as I conceive, to attribute too much to the 
former and too little to the latter. But 
matter is a dull dead lifelefs thing, is always 
paffive and (ftrictly fpeaking) never active, 
cannot of itfelf put itfeif into motion, or 
lay itfelf at reft, and much lefs can it be 
the proper and efficient caufe of any thing. 
Men may talk of the powers of matter, 
but it hath really no power, except what 
the philofophers term the vis inertia, the 
power of inertnefs, the power of doing no- 
thing of itfelf. There is not a fingle phe- 
nomenon in the material world, there is not 
a fingle motion or affection of matter, that 
can be accounted for any more than attraction 
and gravity itfelf, without having recourfe to 
fome fpiritual agent. Moft of the caufes and 
effects which we are acquainted with are but 

fo 



on the DEMONIACS. 23 

fo many different modifications of matter, but 
all thefe different modifications are effe&ed 
not by matter itfelf but by fpirit. Matter at 
beft can be regarded only as a fecondary, 
and not as a primary caufe - y the firft mover 
muft be of a higher clafs and order of be- 
ings. It appears then that in the material 
world itfelf the firft the principal agent is 
fpirit ; and what then muft it be in the 
world of fpirits ? 

It is certain, there are many more fpiritual 
beings in the world, than men commonly 
are aware of, or generally conceive. We 
fee all the parts of nature full of life in the 
vifible world around us, and we may with 
reafon therefore conclude the cafe to be the 
fame in the invifible world above us. The 
earth, the fea, the air, and not only all the 
greater but all the leffer portions of them, 
as far as we can perceive, are abundantly 
flocked with inhabitants ; many of them 
come under our infpeftion, by the help of 
glaffes we difcover more : but who can tell 
what numbers efcape our obfervation, which 
no eye no glaffes can reach ? There are 
many kinds of beings plainly inferior to 

man 



«4 A DISSERTATION 

t 

man, but there muft be many more fuperior 
to him. The fcale of beings cannot flop 
at fuch an imperfeft creature as man, but 
muft rife higher and higher towards per- 
fection, the fpace and interval above us be- 
ing infinitely greater than that beneath us. 
We can hardly enumerate the different forts 
and fpecies of creatures upon earth • and 
much lefs can we frame any adequate con- 
ception of the different degrees and orders 
of fpirits in the heavens, whofe variety is 
infinite, and being fpirits they are not im- 
mediate objects of fenfe, nor vifible to human 
eyes. Milton delivered the fentiment of all 
antiquity as well as his own, when he faid 

Millions of fpiritual creatures walk the 

earth 
Unfeen, both when we wake, and when 

we fleep. 

Two of the greateft and wifeft of the ancient 
philofophers, Thales and Pythagoras (i), 

affirm 

( i ) Tov zo?(Aot $<xijjlo¥u» <a^pr). Thales apud Diog. Laert. 

p. 1 8. tncci 3s rzciila, rov atfot ^/v^a» t^m^tov. Pythag. ibid. 

p. 587. Edit. Henr. Steph. 15 14. 

(2) Two raiu* TrsiATrtcQzi <tv6pw7ro»j Ttf$ tj ompa$, xcti to. Qvpeiat 
*oar*tl* ko* tyjnce?. Pyth. ibid. 

(3) €or- 



on the DEMONIACS, Z$ 

affirm that the world and air are full of 
demons and fouls. The fcripture in like 
manner reprefents the air as the habitation 
of demons -, and the devil is therefore ftiled 
(Eph. II. 2.) " the prince of the power of 
" the air," and his angels are denominated 
(Eph. VI. 12.) " fpiritual wickednefs," or 
as it is in the margin, " wicked fpirits in 
<£ high places." 

So many demons and fpirits, hovering and 
wandering about in the air, muft by their 
natural abilities have the power of doing 
much hurt to the fouls and bodies of men, 
unlefs reftrained by the good providence of 
God. He, we may be confident, will not 
fuffer one part of his creation to break loofe 
upon another ; but he may upon occafion 
make ufe of fome of his creatures as inftru- 
ments of the punifhment of others. Pytha- 
goras (peaking of demons in the place above- 
mentioned (2) fays, that c by thefc dreams 
' are fent to men, and the prognoftics of 
■ health and ficknefs.' Tertullianlikewife (3) 

afferts, 

(3) Corporibus quidem et I'aletudines inflignnt et aliquos 
cafus acerbos, animse vero repcntlncs et extraordinarios per 
vim exceffus. Suppetit illis ad utramque fubftantiam ho- 

E minis 



26 A DISSERTATION 

aflerts, that c they inflict grievous difeafeS 
c on the body, and excite fudden and vio- 
' lent commotions in the foul -> for by the 
1 futtlety and finenefs of their nature they 

* have accefs to either fubftanee of man. 

* They can do much by their fpiritual 

* powers, fo that being invifible and im- 
€ perceptible to fenfe they appear rather in 
1 effedt than in their aft.' La£tantius de- 
fcribes their operations much after the fame 
manner (4), that c being fpirits not to be 
4 feen or felt they irifinuate themfelves into 
4 the bodies of men, and fecretly working 
i within vitiate their health, excite difeafes, 
c terrify their minds with dreams/ and the 
like. Cyprian afcribes the like effe6ts to 
them (5), c they difturb life, difquiet 
' fleep, and creeping fecretly into the bodies 
' of men terrify their minds, diftort their 
" limbs, deftroy their health, and provoke 
i difeafes.' More teftimonies might be cited 

to 

minis adoundam fubtilitas et tenutas fua. Multum fpirita- 
libus viribus licet ut invifibiles et infenfibiles in affectu po- 
tins quam in a&u itfo appareant. Tertul. Apol. cap. 22. 
p. 21. Edit. Kigaltii. Pafif. 1675. 

(4) Qui quoniam funt fpirhus tenues et incomprehenfi- 
biles, infinuanr fe corporibus hominum, et occuhe in vif- 

ceribus 



on the DEMONIACS. 27 

to this purpofe - y and indeed they who deny 
all power and influence of angels demons 
and fpirits over the bodies and fouls of men, 
contradict the general belief of mankind as 
well as the whole tenor of revelation. If 
the exiftence of fuch beings is admitted, 
their power cannot be denied/ the one is fo 
plain a confequence from the other. 

But though poffibly jthey may have the 
power of doing thefe things, yet what rea- 
fon is there to think, or how doth it appear, 
that they ever exercifed it ? It was, I fup- 
pofe, the great difficulty of difcovering the 
caufes and applying the remedies to certain 
difeafes, which induced men to look higher, 
and to regard them as the productions of 
evil fpirits. They were for referring them 
to fuch caufes, becaufe they were incapable 
of difcerning other caufes, and could not any 
other ways account for fuch effects. If in- 
deed things can be fufliciently explained 

ceribus operati valetudinem variant, morbos citant, fomnii s 
animos terrent &c. JLaftant. Lib. 2. Cap. 14. 

(5) Vitam turbant, fomnos inquietant, irrepentes etiam 
in corporibus occulte rnentes terrent, membra diftorquent, 
valetudinem frangunt, morbos laceflunt. Cypr. de JdoJ. 
Vanit. p. 10. Edit. Felli. Oxon. 

E 2 upon 



28 A DISSERTATION 

upon natural principles, we fhould not have 
recourfe to fupernatural. If we can by 
any means unty the knot ourfelves, we fhoukl 
not bring in a demon to cut it. But are 
then the caufes of melancholy, of madnefs, 
of epilepfy and the like fo well known and 
underftood, that we can point them out in 
each particular cafe, and mark the diftinftion 
between them ? We may know the fymptoms 
the concomitants and effcfts, we may in 
fome meafure be able to adminifter reme- 
dies; bat who can fully explain the fpring 
and fource of thefe diitempers, generally in- 
curable by all the fkill and art of man ; 
what it is that produces this crafis of the 
blood and humors, or how it is that this 
crafis of the blood and humors excites fuch 
horrid convulfions in the body, fuch ex- 
travagant fancies in the mind ? Madnefs in 
particular feemeth almoft as inexplicable as 
dreaming. In a former diflertation I at- 
tempted to fhow the extreme difficulty, if 
not utter impofiibility, of accounting for 
the phenomenon of dreaming, by the prin- 
ciples of mere matter and motion, without 
recurring to the agency of fome fpirit : and 

may 



on the DEMONIACS. 29 

may not madnefs be confidered as waking 
dreams, and dreams as fleeping madnefs ? 
Very little indeed it is that we can difcover 
of the true caufe and origin of things. We 
know that fuch and fuch things are, but we 
know not how they are, or what is their 
real eflence and conftitution. Thofe events 
which we call natural are fuch as fall out 
according to the common courfe of nature - y 
but we are as little able to account for the 
common and ordinary, as for the lingular 
and extraordinary productions of nature. 
(Ecclef. XI. 5.) " As thou knoweft not what 
" is the way of the fpirit, nor how the 
" bones do grow in the womb of her that is 
" with child, even fo thou knoweft not the 
" works of God who maketh all." Since 
then our knowlege is fo very deficient, and 
we can fo feldom fay This is the caufe, we 
cannot always be certain 'That is not the 
caufe. We cannot give any clear and ra- 
tional explication of the malignitv and in- 
eurablenefs of certain difeafes, and how then 
can we be confident that they are no ways 
owing to the operation of evil fpirits ? May 
not the fame efllci proceed from different 

caufes ; 



A DISSERTATION 

caufes ; and what is ufually produced in the 
ordinary courfe of nature, may it not be 
fometimes effected by the interpofition of 
an extraordinary power ? Such an interpofi- 
tion indeed we fhould not admit merely 
upon iuppofition, nor becaufe we think it 
pofiibie, conclude it therefore to be proba- 
ble. We fhould have fome better warrant 
and authority, and what better warrant and 
authority can we defire than a divine revela- 
tion ? Things may be or may not be wrought 
by evil fpirits, for what we can tell - y but 
furely we may with reafon believe them to be 
wrought by evil fpirits, when they appear to 
be fo from the things themfelves tranfcend- 
ing all human powers, and moreover when 
they are affirmed to be fo by exprefs tefti- 
monies of holy writ. 

Dr. Mead, who was for attributing as 
much to material, and as little to fpiritual 
caufes, as a lefs reafonable man could do, 
in his Medica Sacra thus freely delivers his 
fentiments on this head ; (6) " I am not 
" ignorant that the Jews, by a manner of 
" expreflion familiar among them, are 

(-6) Medica Sacra, cap. 3. in Dr. Stack's tranflation. 

" wont 



ok the DEMONIACS. 3 t 

wont to afcribe difeafes of this kind to 
the power of evil angels as minifters of 
God; and that even at this day fome 
very learned men may defend the fame 
notion. But for my part, if I may be 
allowed to declare my thoughts with free- 
dom, I cannot think it right to have re- 
courfe to the divine wrath for difeafes, 
which can be proved to^ have natural 
caufes; unlefs it be exprefly declared, 
that they were fent down directly from 
heaven. For if they fall on us in punifli- 
ment of our fins, the intention of the 
fupreme lawgiver would be fruiirated, 
unlefs a fure rule was given, whereby 
his vengeance might be diftinguifhed 
from common events ; in as much as the 
innocent may be equal iharers in fuch 
calamities with the guilty. Moreover it 
feems reafonable to believe, that evils in- 
flicted by the omnipotent judge muft be 
either incurable, or curable by himfelf 
alone ; that the connection of his power 
with his equity may the more brightly 
fhine forth. By fuch a criterion are mi- 
raculous works diftinguifhed frorti the 

" operations 



32 A DISSERTATION 

" operations of nature." And is not this 
precisely the cafe of the demoniacs and ethers 
in the icripture ? They are exprefly declared 
to have been actuated and afflicted by evil 
fpirits; their cafes are fufficiently diftinguifh- 
ed from common events, and were either in^ 
curable or curable only by a divine power. 

IV. Let us then take a nearer view of 
the demoniacs inthegofpels, and fee whether 
they do not come within this defcription. 
Thofe who maintain that thefe poflefiions 
were nothing more than natural difeafes, 
have not gained any honor or credit by the 
company they keep : for as Dr. Hutchinfon, 
the learned editor of fome part of Xeno- 
phon's works, obferves in a (7) fermon 
upon this fubjeci, <c Pomponatius, Vaninns, 
" HobbSj Spinoza, and Bekker efpecially, 
" have all patronifed the fame opinion," all 
of them profane and atfreiftical writers. A 
very different man is produced as a favorer 
likewife of this opinion, Mr. Mede, and 
Dr. Mead glories (as well he might) in his 

(7) The ufual interpretation of ca^o^? and ta^ona in 
the New Teftament afierted in a Sermon before the univer- 
fity of Oxford, p. 30. 1738. 

relation 



ontheDEMONIACS. 33 

relation to him, one of the moft learned 

judicious and able of all our divines, whofe 
fingle authority would weigh more with me 
than that of many other others, being 
among the firft of my capital and favorite 
authors. His fixth difcourfe is cited for 
this purpofe : but his notions, as I conceive, 
have been very much mifunderftood, or 
very much mifreprefented. For though he 
might allow demoniacs to be the fame as 
madmen and lunatics, yet he looked upon 
this madnefs as caufed by evil fpirits - y and 
not only fo, but moreover believed that 
perfons might be fo pofiefled and a&uated 
at this time. He fays (8) indeed, that 
" thefe demoniacs were no other than fuch 
** as we call madmen and lunatics, at leaft 
<c that we comprehend them under thofe 
" names, and that therefore" (obferve what 
follows) " they both fiill are, and in all 
" times, and places have been much more 
" frequent than we imagin." Again he 
fays, " Such as thefe, I fay, the Jews be- 
" lieved (and fo may we) to be troubled 

(8) Mede's Works, Difc. VI. p. 29 & 30. and 636. 
Edit. 1672. 

F " with 



34 A DISSERTATION 

'? with evil fpirits, as it is faid of Saul's 
" melancholy that an evil fpirit from the 
" Lord troubled him? He fays afterwards, 
<£ If thofe were not fuch as we now a-days 
" conceive of no otherwife than as mad- 
c< men, furely the world muft be fuppofed 
" to be very well rid of devils over it hatli 
" been 5 'which for my part I believe nQt" 
And in another part of his works he aflerts 
the word demons, in the gofpels efpeci^ 
ally, to fignify devils. " The ufe of the 
^ word demon in the worft fenfe, or direflly 
<c for a devil, will be almoft confined to the 
" gofpels, where the fubjeft fpoken of be- 
? c ing men vexed with evil fpirits could admit 
- c no other fenfe nor ufeT It is evident then 
that Mr. Mede was fo far from falling fhort 
in belief, that he carried it farther than the 
generality of Chriftian Divines do. But I 
would not therefore affirm that all madmen 
are demoniacs, any more than I would, that 
all demoniacs are madmen. The fymp- 
toms and eftefts of melancholy, of mad- 
nefs, of epilepfy and the like, whether in 
{he natural way as it is called, or by demo- 
niacal pofleffion, may be fo much alike, fo 



on the DEMONIACS. 3^ 

much the fame, that we may not be able 
clearly to diftinguifh and point out which is 
the proper caufe: but we may determin 
with fome kind of certainty, when the pof- 
feflion is ftrongly marked by fome circum- 
ftances more than natural, and the truth 
and reality of it are farther confirmed to us 
by the mod creditable authors, whom we 
have all the reafon in the world to believe to 
be divinely infpired. 

Of Saul's difeafe we fhould not have 
known the real caufe, if the facred hiftorian 
had not informed us that it was an evil 
Jpirit, and that in fuch a manner that it 
cannot be miftaken. For when Saul was 
anointed king (iSam. X. 9, 10.) " the 
" Spirit of God came upon him, and gave 
" him another heart." But when by his 
fins he had forfeited God's favor, it is faid 
( 1 Sam. XVI. 14.) that " the Spirit of the 
" Lord departed from him, and an evil 
" fpirit from the Lord troubled him." We 
fee the one is plainly oppofed to the other ; 
the one is a name or quality only no more 
than the other; the one is a fiftitious being no 
more than the other; both are real agents, the 

F 2 evil 



36 A DISSERTATION 

evil fpirit as well as the Spirit of the Lord. 
But it is afked, What connexion is there 
between mufical inftruments, and devils or 
evil fpirits? How can founds and fym- 
phonies have the power of removing or 
chafing away an evil fpirit ? For by David's 
playing upon the harp (ver. 23.) " Saul 
" was refrefhed, and was well, and the 
tc evil fpirit departed from him." But 
when the diftemper is much the fame, 
whether occafioned by demoniacal or by na- 
tural means, why may not mufic have the 
power of relieving and refrefhing men in 
the one cafe as well as in the other ? Why 
may not mufic have the power of affe£ting 
a fpirit as well as matter, of diverting and 
changing the thoughts of the mind as well 
as the humors of the body ? It Ihould feem 
that the fpirit muft be fii ft affe&ed ; for if 
the mind be wholly inattentive, or other- 
wife engaged and employed, the moft hea- 
venly mufic is as nothing, and can produce 
no kind of effect: upon the body. 

The true ftate of the demoniacs is feen 
more fully in the gofpels. Our blefled Sa- 
viour and his difciples all along fpeak of 

them 



on the DEMONIACS. 37 

them as perfons really pofiefled, and that in 
fo plain a manner as cannot eafily be mis- 
taken. St. Luke, who was himfelf a phy- 
fician, and confequently knew how to dif- 
tinguifh natural difeafes from others, maketh 
ufe of the fame language, and his ftile and 
manner of writing are much commended 
by the moft learned of the fame profeffion. 
(9) Dr. Mead fays of him, that as a phy- 
fician he well underftood the force and 
meaning of words -, and Dr. Freind for 
the fame reafon obferves that " his lan- 
" g ua g e is more fimple, and more cor- 
<c reft, as well as more phyfical," than 
that of the other evangelifts : And yet he is 
as full and copious, as exaft and particular 
in his account of the demoniacs, as any of 
them. It is true indeed, when an inveterate 
difeafe is cured inftantly by a word's fpeak- 
ing, the cure muft certainly be miraculous, 
and owing to the interpofition of a divine 
power, whatever may have been the caufe 
of the difeafe, whether it arofe from natural 

(6) Mead. Medic Sacr. Cap. 15. p. 107. Freind's Hid. 
of Phytic, Vol. I. p. 224. 

means, 



38 A DISSERTATION 

means, or proceeded from the influence of 
evil fpirits : but of the two it fhould feem a 
more difficult and arduous province, more 
great and godlike to difpoffefs evil fpirits, 
than to cure common difeafes. A diftinftion 
too is made between the curing of difeafes and 
the cajiing out of devils y as if they were dif- 
ferent kinds of operations, and the one 
much harder to be performed than the other. 
In St. Matthew's gofpel we read, (VIII. 16.) 
that " when the even was come, they 
" brought unto him many that were poffelT- 
" ed with devils j and he caft out the fpirits 
" with his word, and healed all that were 
<c fick." In the parallel place of St. Mark 
we read, (I. 32, 34.) that " at even, when 
the fun did fet, they brought unto him 
all that were difeafed, and them that were 
poffefled with devils ; and he healed many 
IC that were fick of divers difeafes, and caft 
" out many devils." Here is as manifeft a 
diftin£tion made between healing and cajiing 
cut as between difeafes and devils : but the 
diftinftion is marked ftill more ftrongly in 
the parallel place of St. Luke, (IV. 40, 41.) 
11 Now when the fun was fetting, all they 

" that 



i.C 



it 



tt 

a 

C( 

cc 



on the DEMONIACS. 39 

V that had any fick with divers difeafes, 
brought them unto him 3 and he laid his 
hands on every one of them, and healed 
them -, And devils alfo came out of many, 
crying out and faying, Thou art Chrift 
the Son of God." Would any phyfician 
or correal writer have expreffed himfelf after* 
this manner, if nothing more had been in*., 
tended than the healing of common difeafes ? 
Common difeafes, fuch as the leprofy and 
palfy and the like, are faid to be cleanfed 
and healed^ but are never faid to be cqft out> 
and to come out crying and faying any thing. 
When our Saviour had called unto him his 
twelve difciples, (Matt. X. j, 8.) " he gave 
" unto them power againft unclean fpirits 
" to caft them out, and to heal all manner 
" of ficknefs and all manner of difeafes :" 
and among his other direftions he gave them 
the following, " Heal the fick, cleanfe the 
" lepers, raife the dead, caft out devils." 
" He ordained twelve," faith St. Mark (III. 
14, 15.) " that they fhould be with him, 
" and that he might fend them forth to 
" preach, and to have power to heal fick- 
M neifes, and to caft out devils :" and it is 

faid 



4 o A DISSERTATION 

faid afterwards (VI. 13.) that " they caft out 
" many devils, and anointed with oil many 
" that were fick, and healed them." When 
our Saviour had fent forth his feventy dif- 
ciples to heal the fick, and to preach the 
kingdom of God, (Luke X. 17.) " they 
" returned again with joy, faying, Lord, 
" even the devils arefubjedt unto us through 
" thy name j N as if this was the higheft in- 
ftance of power, and far beyond what they 
could have expeiled. In his laft commiffion 
to his difciples our Saviour ftill preferves the 
fame diftinftion, (Mark XVI. 17, 18.) " In 
" my name (hall they caft out devils, — they 
" fhall lay hands on the fick, and they fhall 
" recover." 

But it is pretended, that in this manner 
of fpeaking our Saviour complied only with 
the cuftomary language of his country, it 
being no part of his commiffion, nor the 
defign of the facred writers, to correft mis- 
takes in phyfic, any more than in aftronomy 
or any other fcience. But the cafes are vaftly 
different. This or that fyftem of aftronomy, 
whether true or falfe, whether the Coperni- 
can or Ptolemaic or any other, hath no kind 

of 



on the DEMONIACS. 41 

of influence upon Chriftian faith an^i pra6tice. 
Whether the fun or earth be at reft, it maketh 
no difference to us, we have ftill the fame race 
to run, the fame goal to reach, and the fame 
prize fet before us of the high calling of God 
in Chrift Jefus. But miliaken notions of 
demons or devils may much affe£t our reli- 
gious and moral character, may fill our 
minds with vain terrors and fuperftitions, 
debafe and corrupt our morals as well as 
our understandings, and prove the fource 
of infinite calamity and mifery here and 
hereafter. A more plaufible argument may 
be drawn from the ftoryof the blind man in 
St. John's gofpel, (IX. 1,2, 3.) " As Jefus 
pafTed by, he. faw a man, which was 
blind from his birth : And his difciples 
aiked him faying, Mafter, who did fin, 
" this man or his parents, that he was born 
" blind ? Jefus anfvvered, Neither hath this 
u man finned, nor his parents ; but that 
" the works of God fhould be made mani- 
11 feft in him." We fee, the difciples had 
a notion, as many of the Jews then had, 
of a ftate of exiftence prior to this life \ 
and our Saviour feemeth to allow it, $t leaft 

G doth 



4? A DISSERTATION 

doth not refute and reclify it : but as we 
Jiave no remembrance, no confcioufnefs of 
pur former exiftence, it is all one to us 
whether there be fuch a ftate or not -, it is a 
matter merely of (peculation, and no way 
relates to practice : and fome ingenious 
Chriftian divines as well as fome learned 
Heathen philofophers have entertained the 
fame opinion, I will not fay truly, but yet 
very innocently, and without any prejudice 
to religion. Whereas we can neither with 
innocence nor with fafety attribute powers 
to devils which they have not, nor take iron} 
them what they really have : and it is not 
eafy to fay which of the two may expofe us 
to greater evils and dangers. ( i John III. 8.) 
" For this purpofe the Son of God was 
" manifefted, that he might deftroy the 
<£ works of the devil :" but it is inlarging 
and adding to the works of the devil, if he 
never had fuch a power, to afcribe to him 
the power of influencing and pofleffing the 
fouls and bodies of men. Next in power 
and goodnefs to the cafting of real devils 
out of the bodies, would have been the. 
deftroying and rooting of this falfe notion 

out 



od the DEMONIAC S. 43 

out of the minds of meti. If it had beeri 
impofiible to overcome the prejudices of the 
people, yet our Saviour might, either by 
himfelf or by the Holy Ghoft afterwards, 
have difclofed the truth to his difciples. 
His goodnefs would hardly have fuffered 
them to remain in fo pernicious an error. 

But our Saviour was fo far frorri reprov- 
ing or correcting this notion, that he hath 
confirmed and eftabliflied it beyond all rea- 
fonable contradiction. He was fo far from 
giving other inftru6tibris to his difciples; 
that he hath faid and done more than 
enough to convince them of the reality of 
thefe pofleffions. When he had called his 
twelve difciples, (Matt. X. i.) " he gave 
" them power againft unclean fpirits tQ 
" caft them out," and he gave it befides in. 
commiffion to them (ver. 8.) " to caft out 
" dev'tls :" and would he have given fuch a 
power and fuch a commiffion, if there had 
been no devils to caft out, and the wtiole 
had been a vain imagination ? When he had 
lent forth the feventy difciples, and they 
(Luke X. 17.) " returned again with joy, 
u faying, Lord even the devils are fubjecl 

G 2 " unic* 



44 A DISSERTATION 

" unto us through thy name/* he was fo 
far from repreffing their joy, that he rather 
encouraged it, and fixed it upon its proper 
foundation, (ver. 18, 19, 20.) " I beheld 
ce Satan as lightning fall from heaven. Be- 
* c hold, I give unto you power to tread on 
ferpents and fcorpions, and over all the 
power of the enemy ; and nothing fhall 
by any means hurt you. Notwithftand- 
ing in this rejoice not, that the fpirits are 
fubjeft unto you , but rather rejoice, be- 
caufe your names are written in heaven." 
But what is the fenfe or meaning of all this 
phrafeology, if nothing more was perform- 
ed than fome cures of epilepfy and madnefs ? 
How can the healing of the falling licknefs 
be faid to be the fall of Satan from his 
power and dominion ? How can the curing 
of bodily difeafes be faid to be the fubjeclion 
of the jpirits.% and a victory and triumph 
over all the power of the enemy ? Our Saviour 
often commands the unclean fpirits to come 
out of a man : " Hold thy peace, (Luke 
IV. 35.) cc and come out of him:" but 
where is the reafon or propriety of this 
command* if there were no fpirits to come 

out, 



otfTiiE DEMONIACS. 45 

Out, and only fome diftemper to be cured ? 
When the Jews charged our Saviour " with 
" having a devil," (John VIII. 48.) he de- 
nies the charge indeed, and difproves it : 
but upon this fuppofition the fhorter and 
better anfwer would have been, that there 
was no fuch pofleffion, there was no fuch 
thing as having a devil. In like manner, 
when the pharifees accufed him (Matt. XIL 
24.) of " cafting out devils by the prince of 
<c the devils j," the proper reply would have 
been to have denied the principle inftead of 
refuting it, and direftly to have told the 
truth, if it had been the truth, that the 
devil was not in the leaft concerned one way 
or other : but he admits the truth of his 
cafting out devils, and only expofes the un- 
reafonablenefs and abfurdity of imputing it 
to the prince of the devils. And would he 
have employed fo many arguments upon a 
fubjedl that had not the leaft foundation in 
truth or the nature of things ? Would he 
have attempted to prove the truth of his di- 
vine million from a falfe chimsera, from a 
thing that was not ? Would he have argued 
upon the reality of his cafting out devils, if 

it 



46 A DISSERTATION 

it had been only a vulgar notion, an idle 
dream, a wild fancy, and no reality in it { 
or have pretended, that he " caft out devils 
" by the Spirit of God," and that there- 
fore " the kingdom of God was come ?" 
The devil that was caft out might have rea- 
foned in this manner -> but not He, who is 
emphatically ftiled (John XIV. 6.) "the 
" way, and the truth, and the life." 

Befides, if the demoniacs were mere mad- 
men and lunatics, how came they to be fo 
much better and fo much earlier acquaint- 
ed with our Lord's true character and office, 
than the generality of the people, or evert 
the difciples themfelves ? His fame indeed 
went abroad, but his real ftate and condi- 
tion were little known and underftood, 
while we find the demoniacs publicly pro- 
claiming him to be " the Chrift, the Holy 
" One of God, the Son of the moft High 
<c God." He had but newly entered on 
his miniftry, when according to St. Mark 
(I. 23, 24.) " there was in the fynagogue 
" a man with an unclean fpirit; and he 
" cried out, faying, Let us alone; what 
f( have we to do with thee, thou Jefus of 

" Nazareth > 



on the DEMONIACS. 47 

< £ Nazareth ? art thou come to deftroy us ? 
" I know thee who thou art, the Holy 
" One of God :" and according to St. Luke 
(IV. 41.) " devils alfo came out of many, 
" crying out and faying, Thou art Chrift, 
" the Son of God." It was fome time 
after this that our Saviour afked his difci- 
ples, (Matt. XVI. 13, 14.) " Whom do 
" men fay that I, the fon of man, am ? 
" And they faid, Some fay that thou art 
" John the baptifl ; fome, Elias; and 
" others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets." 
We fee, that they regarded him as no more 
than a prophet ; they did not generally con- 
ceive him to be the Meffiah ; the demoniacs 
had fuller and jufter notions of the facred- 
nefs of his perfon, and of the dignity of his 
charafter. Afterwards, when he aiked his 
difciples (ver. 15, 16, 17.) " But whom fay 
" ye that I am ? Simon Peter anfwered and 
<c faid, Thou art the Chrift, the Son of the 
" living God. And Jefus anfwered and 
<g faid unto him, Bleffed art thou, Simon 
Bar-jona ; for flefh ^nd blood hath not 
revealed it unto thee, but my Father 
which is in heaven," It was impoffible 

therefore 



A DISSERTATION 

therefore for mere madmen to have attained 
to this extraordinary degree of knowlege, 
but the difcovery might eafily have been 
made by beings of fo much fuperior capaci- 
ties and intellefts as the fallen angels. If 
the thing had been generally known, it would 
have been to little purpofe for our Lord to 
have charged the demoniacs to tc hold their 
" peace :" but he impofed filence upon 
them, for the fame reafon that he injoined 
fecrecy to his difciples, left the publication 
of the truth fhould provoke the rage and 
malice of his enemies to put a period to 
his life, before his hour was come, before 
he had finifhed the due courfe of his mini- 
ftry. The difciples might have publifhed 
it with a good defign for the glory of their 
matter, but the devils would moft proba- 
bly have publifhed it malicioufly, and with 
intent to haften on his deftruftion. 

In this controverfy we find two cafes of 
madnefs and epilepfy particularly infifted 
on, in order to prove that thefe pofleflions 
were ufually the one or the other : and it is 
not denied, that there are demoniacs who 
may labor under epilepfy and madnefs ^ but 

then ^ 



bi* the DEMONIACS. 4$ 

then, I fay, they are not mere epilepfy and 
madnefs; they are fomething more than 
natural difeafesj there are effe<5ls which 
plainly point out and refer to fome fuperior 
caufe> as we fhall be more fully convinced 
by taking the two cafes into confideration. 

While our Saviour was with Peter, James 
and John upon the mountain which was 
the fcene of his transfiguration, a certain 
man brought his young fon to the difciples 
that they fhould cure him, and they could 
not. His cafe by the defcription of it was 
plainly epileptic, but it was fomething more 
than a common epilepfy, as is evident from 
feveral circumftances. All the three evan- 
gelifts (Matt. XVII. Mark IX. Luke IX.) 
exprefly afcribe it to " a devil, an unclean 
" fpirit, a dumb and deaf fpirit y and a dif- 
tinftion is made between the a£Hons of the 
fpirit as the agent, and of the demoniac as the 
patient. In St. Mark's account (ver. 18.) 
" wherefoever he (the fpirit) takethhim, he 
<c teareth him 3 and he (the demoniac) 
" foameth, and gnafheth with his teeth, and 
" pineth away." St. Luke diftinguifheth in 
like manner (ver. 39.) '• Andlo, afpirittaketh 

H " him* 



5 o A DISSERTATION 

" him, and he fuddenly crieth out ; and it 
cc teareth him that he foameth again, and 
" bruifinghim, hardly departeth from him." 
He had long labored under this difeafe, for 
it had grown up with him from his child- 
hood : and in fuch cafes the phyficians 
agree, that it is very difficult, if not im- 
poffible to be cured. Yet Jefus wrought 
the cure; and the miraculoufnefs of the 
cure may obtain the greater credit to the 
miraculoufnefs of the means, by which the 
cure was wrought. cc Jefus rebuked the 
cc devil," faith St. Matthew, (ver. 18.) 
<c and he departed out of him, and the 
<c child was cured from that very hour." 
Here are two diftinft events, which are not 
to be confounded together, the difpoflefiing 
of the evil fpirit, and the cure of the young 
man in confequence of it. St. Mark alfo 
reprefents Jefus (ver- 25.) as cc rebuking 
" the foul fpirit, and faying unto him, 
cc Thou dumb and deaf fpirit, I charge 
" thee, come out of him, and enter no 
Cf more into him." A falfe and fallacious 
manner of expreffion, and altogether un- 
worthy of our Lord, if there were really no 

fpirit 



ontheDEMONIACS. 51 

fpirit to come out or enter in again, and 
only a bodily difeafe to be cured. The cure 
too is altogether unlike the cure of a natural 
difeafe. (ver, 26, 27.) ." And the fpirit 
cried, and rent him fore, and came out 
of him y and he was as one dead, info- 
much that many laid, He is dead. But 
Jefus took him by the hand, and lifted 
him up ; and he arofe." A natural dif- 
eafe doth not leave a patient with fuch fud~ 
den force and violence , but an evil fpirit 
might give as it were a parting blow, the 
laft effort of his malignity. " And they 
" were all amazed," faith St. Luke, (ver. 
43.) " at the mighty power of God :" but 
the power of God appears much mightier 
in the difpoffeffing of an evil fpirit and the 
curing of an epilepfy at the fame time, than 
in the curing of an epilepfy alone. When 
the difciples afterwards afked our Lord in 
private, (Matt. XVII. 19, 20,21.) " Why 
*f could not we caft him out ?" He replied, 
i£ Becaufe of your unbelief;" if ye had 
faith, ye fhould remove mountains, and no- 
thing fhould be impoffible unto you. £{ How- 
cc beit this kind goeth not out but by prayer 

H 2 " and 



52 A DISSERTATION 

" and fafting." The phyfician who pro- 
pofed (i) inftead of sv wpoa-ev^Yi kcci vvjg-eia- by 
prayer and fajiing to read sv 73-poosx^ W 6 "? 

by conjlant fajiing^ piopofed it only as the 

■ 

play of a fportive fancy 5 was not in earnefl, 
and could not really approve it himfelf. 
For conflant falling never yet cured any 
one, nor ever can of an inveterate epilepfy ; 
it will fooner put an end to the man, than 
to his diflemper. Prayer and fajiing are 
often joined together in fcripture, as mu- 
tual helps, and requifites in any arduous 
undertaking, falling making prayer more 
pure and intenfe more fervent and effeclual; 
and without doubt they are the proper 
means to flrengthen and increafe our faith, 
and abfolutely neceffary to procure any mi- 
raculous gifts and graces. Our Saviour 
promifeth his difciples in another place, 
(Matt. XXI. 21, 22.) " If ye have faith 
sc and doubt not, ye fhall fay unto this 
Ci mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou 
■ ( call into the fea, it fhall be done : And 

J 1 all things whatibever ye (hall afk in prayer, 

i 

(i) Dr. Sykes's Inquiry into the meaning of Demoniacs, 
j>. 47. 

cc believing. 



on the DEMONIACS. 53 

c ^ believing, ye fhall receive." St. James 
mentions it, as one of the miraculous gifts 
in his time, and as an encouragement to 
pray over the fick, (V. 15.) " that the 
?f prayer of faith fhall fave the fick, and the 
" Lord fhall raife him up." Thefe then are 
the conditions without which no miraculous 
powers were obtained, and much more were 
they neceflary to the performance of fuch an 
extraordinary miracle as this. 

The cafe of the madman or madmen is 
ftill ftronger, and more inexplicable upon 
the principles of mere difeafe, mere mad- 
nefs. According to St. Matthew (VIII. 28.) 
there were two of them 5 Mark (V. 2.) and 
Luke (VIII. 27.) mention only one, one 
being perhaps more frantic and outrageous 
than the other ; but this difference maketh 
little difference in the cafe. It is faid of him 
(Mark, ver. 3, 4.) that " he had his dwell- 
ing among the tombs, and no man could 
bind him, no not with chains : Becaufe 
that he had been often bound with fetters 
and chains, and the chains had been 
plucked afunder by him, and the fetters 
broken in pieces 5 neither could any man 



<c 



tame 



54 A DISSERTATION 

" tame him." Here was manifeftly an ex* 
ertion of ftrength far above all the natural 
powers of man. His plucking afunder and 
breaking in pieces the fetters and chains was 
fomething very extraordinary -, but if he had 
done it once, they might have fecured hirm 
with ftronger chains j but he did it often \ 
neither could any man tame him. He muft be 
more than a mere madman, who was fo 
wholly unconquerable; efpecially if (2) Dr. 
Mead's obfervation be true, that " there is 
the lefs neceflity for torments and ftripes, 
becaufe all madmen are of fuch a cowardly 
difpofition ; that even the molt frantic 
and mifchievous, after being once or twice 
tied, furrender at difcretion, and thence 
forward refrain from committing any 
outrage through fear of punifhment." 
" When he faw Jefus afar off," (Mark, 
ver. 6.) " he ran and wor (hipped him." 
But how came a madman, who had been 
of a long ti?ne in that condition, who ware 
no clothes, neither abode in any boufe, but al- 
ways 

(?) Mend. Merllc. Sacr. Torments vero et plague ideo 
minus Tunt neceir.ria, quod animi tam pufilli, et imbelJes 
fur.t omnes infani ; ut etiam acerrime fyrentes, femcl aut 
iterum vin&i, quafi vi&i fe cltdaat, et in poiterum meticu- 

Jofi 






on the D E1VIONI ACS. sS 

ways night and day was in the mountains and 
in the tombs, and was exceeding farce, fo that 
no man might pafs by that way -, how came 
fuch a man in fuch a fituation and condi- 
tion to have any knowlege of the perfon 
and chara&er of Jefus, who had but lately 
entered upon his miniftry; and from fo 
ferocious creature become all of a fudden 
fo gentle and tradable as to fall down and 
worfhip him ? Upon Jefus commanding the 
unclean fpirit to come out of the man, the 
man, or rather the demon fpeaking through 
the man, — for according to (3) Plato, the 
demoniacs do not fpeak their own language 
or dialeft, but that of the demon who has 

entered into them cried out, (ver. 6.) 

What have I to do with thee, Jefus, thou 
Son of the moft High God ? I adjure 
thee by God that thou torment me not :" 
or as St. Matthew expreffeth it, (ver. 29.) 
cc What have I to do with thee, Jefus, thou 
" Son of God ? art thou come hither to 



lofi ab injuriis inferendis defiflant. Cap. 9. p. 80. with 
Stack's tranflation. 

(3) Plato apud Clem. Alex, w uvluu cv (pfoyywlzt <pmr,* 
act oixkntiov, aKha. tijv rut vTrzwotlut $ocl(aow». Strom. I. p. 338. 

Edit, Par, p. 405. Edit. Potter, 

it torment 



5 6 A DISSIPATION 

" torment us before the time ?" And (Luke*; 
ver. 30.) c< theybefought him that he would 
" nbt command them to go but into the 
" deep/' the abyfs or bottomlefs pit. Thefe 
fayings might be dictated by evil fpirits, but 
other wife could not proceed out of the mouth 
of madmen. Spoken of the former, they are 
very intelligible, having plainly fome refe- 
rence to their future ftate and punifhnient : 
but they are in no fhape applicable to the 
latter, and neither could fuch things, which 
were then but little known, enter into the 
ideas of madmen, who generally in their 
wildeft flights have yet fome fenfe and mean- 
ing. It farther appears that feveral evil 
fpirits had taken pofleffion of this man. 
For St. Luke introduceth the ftory by fay- 
ing, (ver. 27.) he " had devils long time {* 
and upon his being alked What was his" 
name, he anfwered " Legion, for we are 
" many," as it is in St. Mark 3 or as it is 
in St. Luke, (ver. 30.) <c becaufe many 
tc devilswere entered into him," which reafon 
is afligned not by the man, but by the evan- 
gelift. A certain number is put for an un- 
certain, as when it is faid (Luke VIII. 2.) 

that 



on the DEMONIACS. 57 

that out of Mary Magdalen, " went feven 
<c devils/' and (Matt. XII. 45.) the unclean 
fpirit " taketh with him feven other fpirits" 
more wicked than himfelf. It is certain 
then, that a man may be pollened by a 
number of demons ; and the Heathens alfo 
had fomething of the fame notion, for we 
find the phrafe of (4) lar varum plena , full 
of larvce> full of fpectres or goblins : but 
whoever heard of many madneffes, of feven 
madneffes, or a legion of madneffes ? It is 
natural for evil fpirits to delight in mifchief, 
and accordingly they " befoughtjefusmuch'* 
(Mark, ver. 10.) " that he would not fend 
Cf them away out of the country/' but that he 
would give them leave to pafs into a herd oi 
fwine that was feeding nigh unto the moun- 
tains. For good reafons without doubt 
(fome of which we may difcern) he per- 
mitted them ; and they went out of the man, 
and entered into the fwine, and the whole 
herd, to the number of " about two thou- 
<c fand, ran voilently down a fleep place 
" into the fea, and perifhed in the waters." 

(4) Nam hjecq lidem aedipol larvamm plena ejl. Plaut. 
Amphit. A6t. 2. Sc. 2. ver. 145. 

I Thefe 



58 A DISSERTATION 

Thefe things were a full demonftration of 
the great power as well as malice of thefe 
wicked fpirits : but if there was nothing 
more than madnefs in the cafe, how could 
perfonal actions and fpeeches be attributed 
to it ? how could Jefus hold difcourfe with 
a mere frenzy ? how could a difeafe wifli 
to ftay in the country, and do farther mif- 
chief ? anfwer queftions, make ufe of in- 
treaties, leave the body wherein it was and 
yet have a diftinft being, enter into the 
whole herd of fwine, and force animals, 
which are the moft difficult to be driven, 
down a fteep place into the fea. If thefe 
were the fayings and actions of devils, the 
whole narration is rational and confiftent ^ 
but underftood of a frenzy only, the ftory 
is falfe and frivolous: no fenfible writers, 
and much lefs could infpired writers have 
written in this manner $ and Woolfton him- 
felf could hardly have expofed the facred 
text to ftronger ridicule. 

If the queftion fhould be afked, How it 
came to pafs, that thefe demoniacal cafes 
abounded fo much more at the commence- 
ment of the Chriftian sera, than at any 

other 



on the D E M O N I A C S. 5.9 

other period before or fince^ it may be 
fairly anfwered, that if thefe cafes had been 
peculiar to the time of our Saviour, yet 
that would have been no good argument 
againft the truth of the facls. For there 
are certain diftempers, which have been 
epidemic in one age, and yet unknown in 
any other. The fweating (5) ficknefs, for 
example, was never heard of before the 
fifteenth century in any age or nation ; and 
after returning now and then, for the fpace 
of fome years, has ever fince entirely dif- 
appeared, and poffibly may never return 
any more. But we read of fome demoniacs, 
among the Gentiles as well as among the 
Jews, before our Saviour's time, and of 
many more afterwards; and if we hear 
more of them at that time particularly, the 
reafon may be, becaufe the exiftence and 
operations of evil fpirits began then to be 
better known and underftood 3 they were 
then living who had the gift of difcerning of 
fpirits -, they were indued with fuch powers, f 
as ferved to difcover and expofe the malig- 

(5) See Freind'sHift.of Phyfic, Vol. II. p. 332, 

I 2 nity 



6o A DISSERTATION 

nity of thefe wicked beings - y they who could 
adminifter the cure, and perfeft the reco- 
very, mud be beft acquainted with the na^- 
ture and caufe of the difeafe j and their ac- 
counts are the only fa£ts of this kind, 
which can abfolutely be depended upon as 
genuin and true. There have been many 
pretended demoniacs, and many pretended 
exorcifts ; perfons who have been inftruct- 
ed to counterfeit the moft horrid gefticula- 
tions and diftortions of body, as if they 
were feifed and agitated by devils, and others 
who by the ufe of holy water and the mut- 
tering of certain prayers have reftored and 
let them at liberty. But counterfeits are 
generally formed upon truths; and there 
may have been fome real pofieffions in for- 
mer times, there may be fuch at this prefent 
time -, but we have not the faculty that I 
fpeak of, difcerning of fpirits, we cannot 
caft them out, and confequently cannot 
pronounce with certainty what are demo- 
niacal pofTeffions, and what are not. If 
there be no fuch pofTeffions now in the 
world, this may be reckoned among the 
jnany other excellencies and advantages of 

the 



on the DEMONIACS. 61 

the Chriftian religion, that it hath fo curb- 
ed and reftrained the powers of evil fpirits. 
They had indeed at the time of our Savi- 
our's appearance a particular reafon for ex- 
erting their power and malice in oppofition 
to the firft ereftion and eftablifhment of the 
kingdom of God -, and they might be per- 
mitted to exert them to the utmoft, in or- 
der more effeflually to difplay the fuperior 
power and goodnefs of him whom God fent 
into the world, to render their defeat more 
confpicuous, and to gain the greater credit 
to him and his difciples. No fooner had 
Jefus entered upon his miniftry, and caft 
out an unclean fpirit in the fynagogue at 
Capernaum, than the people (Matt. I. 27.) 
were all amazed, infomuch that they 
queftioned among themfelves, faying, 
What thing is this ? what new doflrin is 
this ? for with authority commandeth he 
even the unclean fpirits, and they do 
obey him." Afterwards when he had 
healed a dumb man, poffefled with a devil, 
(Matt. IX. 33.) " the multitudes marveled 
< c faying, It was never fo feen in Ifrael. ,, 
Another time (Matt. XII. 22, 23.) there 

" was 



62 A DISSERTATION 

cc was brought unto him one poffeffed with 
" a devil, blind and dumb -, and he healed 
<c him, infomuch that the blind and dumb 
" both Jpake and faw : And all the people 
" were amazed and faid, Is not this the fon 
<c of David ?" None of his miracles were a 
ftronger and more illuftrious proof of his 
divine million -, none of them were a more 
immediate conqueft of Satan, or tended 
more to the fubverfion of his kingdom : 
and afcribing this cafting out of devils to 
the power of the devils, was <c the fin never 
" to be forgiven, the blafphemy againft the 
" Holy Ghoft." (i John III. 8.) " For 
" this purpofe the Son of God was mani- 
" felled that he might deftroy the works of 
" the devil :" and this manifeftation could 
not be made more fignal and glorious than 
by thus vifibly and publicly cafting out 
devils. His cafting them out of the bodies 
was a proper type and emblem of his ex- 
pelling them alio from the fouls of men : it 
was (as I may apply the words) an outward 
and vifible fign of an inward and fpiritual 
grace. Nothing could more experiment- 
ally convince us, that " greater is He that 



« is 



on the DEMONIACS. 63 

rc is in us than he that is in the world." 
Nothing could be a furer pledge and earneft 
of his final viftory and triumph over all 
the powers of death and hell. (1 Cor. XV. 
57.) " Thanks be to God which giveth 
" us the vi&ory through our Lord Jefus 
" Chrift." 



I N I S. 



REMARKS 

U P O N A 

PAMPHLET, 

INTIT'L'D, 

-^Review of the Controverfy 
about the Meaning of De* 
moniacSy Sec. 



WHEREIN 



The SERMON, 

Which aflerteth the ufual interpretation, &c. 
is vindicated from every exception of the 
Reviewer, 



b Y 

THOMAS HUTCHINSON, D.D. 

Of Hart-Hall in Oxford, 

and Prebendary of Chichejler. 



LONDON, 

Printed for W.Innys and R.Manby at the 
Weft End of St. Paul's, mdccxxxix. 



(iii) 



PREFACE. 



N thefe Remarks the author oftheRevkw 
is patiently follow 'd thro' every fentence 
of his worky which relateth to the Ser- 
mon. And y fhoud there fometimes appear a 
jejunenefs in the progrefs y the confederate read- 
er will be pleased to impute the fault to the 
nature of the Review. "The Remarks defcend 
to a minute examination of it y (not becaufe 
it defervdfuch attention, but) left the author 
might fancy, that the unanfwerd parts were 
really unanjwerable. And, even whiVfl the t 
weaknefs of certain writers is expos *d> they 
will be revengdy in Jbme meafure, on each 
adverfary, by infufmg into his compofitions a 
tincture of their own futility. 

But, the excellencies of our author's per- 
formance mufl not be dijjembled. The judg- 
ment, then, which is difplayd in the conduct 
of ity is confeffed abundantly fuffcient to fur- 
prize ; and the urbanity, wherewith it isfea- 
foridy equally qualify th it to divert. Thro- 
oat the whole are diffused undoubted evidences 
of a fngular love of truth : and, in difcujfng 
the references, the author hath uniformly 

A 2 main- 



iv PREFACE. 

maintain d a confiderable figure, by prudently 
jiibjlituting a part for the whole. " 

The author Jeemeth to lay much Jlrefs on 
the authority of Mr. Mede — Is he, on other 
occafwns, ufually difpo.s d to pay deference to 
authority'? And, can he be ignorant, that the 
authority of many, equal at leaf, if not fu- 
perior, to Mr. Mede, in learning and judg- 
ment, might be pro due d againjl his opinio?!? 

Several famous men, 'tis true, befides the 
learned Mr. Mede, have advancd the fame 
opinion. And, about the clofe of the Sermon, 
it is fayd — " If he (the author of the En- 
<c quiry, &c.) did not know, that Pompona- 
c< tius, Vaninus, Hobbs, Spinoza and Bekker 
" efpecially, had all p.atronis'd the fame opi- 
ic nion ; he may, perhaps, when he cometh to 
" this knowledg, congratulate himfelf upon 
Si the lucky coincidence of his own thoughts 
<c with the thoughts of men, dijlinguiffd by 
"fngular penetration. If he was not a 
u Jlr anger to their concurrence, their chara- 
" tiers might have jujiifyd afufpicion, at 
" leap;, of the doclrin, and occafond a more 
" accurate inquiry into the foundation of it, be- 
"fore it was efpousd and publickly revivd." 

With this rejlexicn the Reviewer is incensd: 
and im?nediately recurring (agreeably to the 
fuggeftions of nature, in cafes of dijlrefsj to 
his chief injlrumc?it of defence, he cryeth out — 
" * It was impertinent to talk in that maJiner 
" in a Pulpit — " // ftill feemeth very per- 

» Review, p. 64. 

tinent 



PREFACE. v 

tinent to point out the perfons, who joirid 
this with their other abufes of holy Scripture ; 
and, jrom violating ifs language, made an 
eafy tranfition to the elufion of ifs authority. 
"The young are hereby taught the fatal rejl- 
lejhefs of error, and the danger of ajfenting 
to Jiich comrnents, in regard to one point, as 
tend to fpread ambiguity thro out the whole 
J acred Text. 

We are not, indeed, ajfurd that, in any 
future inquiries, the fame violent method of 
interpretation will be apply* d to the great my~ 
Jleries of our faith. Tet y how well our Au~ 
thcr is prepard to ufe it, at leaf, in pervert- 
ing feme import 'ant injlruBions, that occur in 
holy Scripture *, may be eafily collected from 
his harangue 2 againjl the perfuafon, that 
" poor Men (fo pitifully doth he talk) may 
<c be artfully fedue'd from the Ways of Vir- 
" tue and Religion by invifible, fpiritual 
" Enemies/' 

Shoud any readers be hereupon difposd to 
afk — To what purpofe, then, have St. Paul, 
St. James and St. Peter deliver d the direcli- 
ens, which are extant in the places referrd 
to? — our author can furnijh them with an 
eafy folution, in his way, by acquainting them y 
that tho $td£oh@", in a certain bock, is vul- 
garly fuppos' d to denote an evil, fpiritual, de- 
luding, powerful Betg} yet, i?i other good 
writings, (to him welt known) the word can 

» See Iph'. iv. 27. vi. 11. James iv. 7. 1 Vet. v. 8. 
* Review, p. 26, 27. 

only 



vi PREFACE. 

only fignify, in the utmoji extent of it's power, 
a fly, gloomy, intriguing, malicious accufer 
of his brethren. Thus will it plainly enough 
appear, that thofe apojlles may be fairly un— 
derflood only to have given cautions againjl 
dark, defigning fellows, — fuch as, in their 
times, infejled the Chrijlian church ; and fuch v 
as it is thought not to be intirely free from, 
in the prefent. 

Our author (in the common Jlrain of ant i- 
fcripturijls) * talks of " ridiculous notions, 
blended with the true religion"; or fuch, as 
may provoke '* " high ridicule." This fame 
tremendous argument — "high ridicule" — 
was in great vogue among ft fome antient un- 
believers : and the exquifitejubtlety, which it 
Jheweth, in conjunction with its aftonifhing 
jirength, mnjl be fupposd to have recommend- 
ed it to the ufe of their judicious J'ucceffbrs, 
in the laudable work of torturing and derid- 
ing the Scriptures, Neverthelefs, each re- 
viver of this old device may be contented with 
an old admonition (which the Reviewer is 
left to find, without a reference) Evicts — • 

But, our author Jeemeth to give kind no- 
tice 3, that da?igerous attacks may be ex peeled 
jrom unbelievers, " who have Eyes (as be fa* 
" gacioujly obferveth) to fee our Weaknefs, 
<( and Hands ready to expofe us** How weak 



1 Review, p. 4. 

* A fort of cant-phrafe i$ the Enquiry and Review. 

J Review, p. 4. 

be 



PREFACE. vii 

he and his friends are, and how liable to be 
expos' d, it became him to conffder, before he 
undertook the office of a Reviewer. But, coiid 
he prevail with the infidels (whofe dreadful, 
well-known eyes a?id hands feem to have made 
a deep impreffion upon him) to imploy their 
eyes in reading proper bocks, they can never, 
confifiently with any degree of modefly, imploy 
their hands in committing to paper fuch crude, 
profane reveries, as they have been long ac- 
cuffomd to obtrude upon the publick. How 
they are incourag d to repeat their abufes of 
the prefs, it may be difficult to Jay -, unlefs the 
irreligious tenor of their productions may, 
amongjl their acquaintance, be thought Suffi- 
cient attoneme?it for their dulnefs ; and give 
them an air of fignificancy, w hi Iff it ingagcth 
fome to read, and fome moreover to refute 
them — fuch to read them with delight, as 
contemn Revelation — a?idfuch to refute them, 
as regard that contempt with juff concern. 

In the courfe of the Remarks, the Inquirer. 
and the Reviewer have been conffder d, as the 
fame individual. Shoud there be a miffake 
herein, and ff:oud each be to the other only 
another learned and ingenious felf, the miff ale 
will be acknowledge, whenever the one fhall 
think fit toftep out of the crowd of Phil ale ths, 
and the other favour us with more clear dif 
cover ies of himfelf than can be colle died from 
the numerous, ambiguous marks of his ex- 
traordinary merit, 

REMARKS 



• » 



ERRATA. 

P. 25. 1. IO. for otX^cov T.aMov. 

30. 1. 23. after Men, add, more unworthy cf Chrtjltam, 



REMARKS 

U P O N A 

PAMPHLET, 

INTIT'L'D, 






^Review of the Controversy 
about the Meaning of De- 
moniacs, Sec. 



THE examination of the Sermon, 
which aflerteth the ufual inter- 
pret l ation> &c. is thus introdue'd — . 
1 The difference betwixt Mr. Hutchinfon 
and the Enquirer would foon be at an 
End, had he produe'd Authorities an- 
tienter than the New Teftament for the Ufe 
of the Word loupoov in the Senfe he under- 
ftands it. " Here the author difcovereth a 

* Review, /> 16. 

B fymptom, 



[ 1 ] 

'fymptom, that may feem hopeful enough, at 
the firft view. But it, alas ! (like the language, 
which his demoniacs will fometimes utter) 
taketh a fudden and unpromifing change. 
For, thus he immediately proceeds — 

" But with all the Pomp of References that 
" his Margins are ftufPd with, there is not fo 
" much as one that is as antient as the New 
" Teftament, that is to his purpofe." 1 Who 
wou'd not be pleas'd even with the feverity of 
a fentence, that is pronounc'd with fuch de- 
cency and elegance? Yet, what expostulations 
might have been expected from this delicate 
writer, had thofe offenfive margins appear'd 
without references ? 

It cannot be fuppos'd, indeed, that the me- 
thod of directing the reader to authorities, 
which I have chofen to life, fhou'd be ap- 
prov'd by any modern dealers in antifcriptural 
cavils. Thefe are generally contented with 
repeating fuch citations, as they find already 
made : and, if they produce the name only of 
itn author, their intimate acquaintance with 
him mufT, in compliance with their modeft 
expectations, be acknowledged. Writers, lefs 
adventurous, will not refufe the Public even 
the lovver inftances of their diligence. And, 
in treating fubjects, where authorities are re- 
quired, thofe may feem to confult their own 
reputation, as well as their reader's conveni- 
ence, rriof: fuccefsfully, who draw off the fen- 
timents of the authors cited, with fidelity ; 

■ Review, ibid, 

reprefent 



[3 1 

reprefent them digefted and conne&ed, with 
propriety and perfpicuity ; and then refer, with 
accuracy, to the places, wherein they occur. 
Recourfe to the feveral originals is hereby fa- 
cilitated; fufpicions of unfair practice pre- 
vented; or, at leaft, the more curious reader 
is inabled, without lofs of time, to remove 
the fufpicions, which he may have conceiv'd. 

This digreffion may, perhaps, be wonder'd 
at — It is chiefly made for the fake of the 
Reviewer-, that he may hereafter learn to di- 
ftinguifh between pomp and propriety. 

II. 

What ? {hall our judg of pertinence and 
good writing acknowledg the propriety of re- 
ferences, " not fo much as one of which is to 
" the purpofe? The thing required (for thus 
" he goes on) is to produce an inftance of the 
" word Saifjtoveg fignifying malevolent, malefi- 
" cent Beings, delighting or delighted in pro- 
" moting wickednefs amongft men." 1 

Here the author begins to difplay his dex- 
terity. In the Sermon 2 , Saipoves are, indeed, 
called Beings " delighting, or feeming, at leaft, 
" delighted, in the indulgence, &c" Our 
author's omiflion of the qualifying term can- 
not be look'd upon as a fault of the prefs, 
It is omitted a fecond time, in this fame page ; 
and alfo in pages 19, 27, 36, 38 of the Re- 
view. If he coud not diftinguifh between real 

1 Review, p. 16. : p. 10. 

B 2 and 



[4] 

and feeming delight, his difcernment mufl be 
limir'd; if he -_;;/.;' ".::, his J: 

III. 

To the defcription of lalyuttn; abovementi- 
orf d he immediately fubjoineth this piece of 
i nflru ;:::.-. — viz. " For I enfe cf &ufu>zs 
" are cited Plutarch, r 7 . JambHchus" ; 

apd then politely adds — " all :::erf f 

"but toe modern by much for the thing to 
" be prov'd. x His own experience and 
ccr. n, undoubtedly, drew this courtefy 

from him ; s peculiar beauties of his 

le afford incootefb roof of his acquain- 
tance • ::h good writers. Well: but " they 
" (Plutarch^ Sic. as above) are too modern by 
<c much for the thing : d." A gene- 

is the author's happy 
inftrument of refuting, what he is unwilling 
to admit. Eut, before the teflimony of thofe, 

i of other v :on'd alio in the 

Sermon) who nouriih'd after the promulga- 
t::n of the Gofpel, be refigned to his arbi- 

ry exception againft it, the reader is in- 
treated to he:: the following pleas in behalf 
: validity — The author of the Review 
is (it cannot, furely, be too much to be pre- 
fum'd) fo well acquainted with thole cc eocd 
Titers," to know, that th ere hea- 

He pretends not to deny, that they 
the words iufum and ccuulun, in the 

:e, which is maintain'd in the Sermon. 
• Tic not denyc th he-, that after the 

• Kewicm I :6. 3 Review, iHU. 



[ 5 1 

" New Teftament Times, that Word (dettpw) 
" was us'd in an ill Senfe ; and the modern 
" Platoni/ls, and Others, are full of fuch a 
" Notion." Whence, then, can he imagin 
they deriv'd this ule of the word ? Certain- 
ly, he will not fay, (tho' hard it is to deter- 
min, what he will not fay) from the preach- 
ers of the Gofpel — Lucian, Porphyry, Juli- 
an and Libanius were the eminent free-think- 
ers of their times; and claim'd, without 
doubt, the title of fair and rational inqui- 
rers, even during their vehement oppofition 
to the Gofpel. To the credentials, that had 
been produc'd in proof of its divine original, 
they were not ftrangers. * Julian exprefsly 
attributeth to cur Savior the miraculous fa ft 
of difpofieffing evil fpiritsj and Lucian fup- 
pofeth that the fame fad: was commonly ac- 
knowledged. * Our Savior had ailedged it 
as an argument of His divine miffion. To 
His difciples He had 3 promis'd ability to work 
the fame miracle, in His name : and many 
of- His meffengers + reported to Him, that 
" even the devils were fubject to them, thro' 
" His name." Inftances of miraculous pow- 
er, thus exercis'd, were not given in a corner: 
nor are they incidentally or ambiguoully re- 
corded by the Evangelifts ; but propos'd as 
evidences of a divine commiffion, and ex- 
prefs'd in terms, which (according to the re- 
ceiv'd rules of grammar and criticifm) im- 

1 See Serm. p. r. * Matt. xii. 2 3. and eJcwherc. 3 Mark 
jvi. 17. and tub where. 4 Luke x, 17. 

port, 



in 

port, that the perfons, in whofe favour that 
power was exerted, had been poffefs'd by real, 
impure, fpiritual Beings. When great ftrefs, 
then, was alfo, in fucceeding ages of Chrifti- 
anity, lay'd on the fame fact, and frequent 
appeals made to it, in fupport of the Chrifti- 
an caufe ; is it credible, that enemies fo watch- 
ful* fagacious and virulent, as Lucian, Por- 
phyry, Libanius and Julian were, would have 
fail'd to ridicule and expofe fuch appeals, had 
they been capable of fuppofing, that any de- 
gree of fiction took place in the report of the 
fact appeal'd to, and that it was founded only 
upon, and adapted to, a miftaken perfuafion 
of the vulgar ? Is it not much more credible, 
that they wou'd have triumph'd in the de- 
tection of the error, and urg'd the detected 
collufion of Chriftians in their pretences to 
this miracle, as an argument to depretiate the 
reji ; which were reported, by the fame au- 
thors, to have been wrought in confirmation 
of the fame doctrin ? From this defeat of 
Chriftians (had fuch a defeat been pofllble) 
might have been collected a plaufible occafion, 
at leaft, of fuggefting, that the Evangelical 
relation of other miracles, was not to be in- 
terpreted according to the ufual acceptation of 
words, but to be regarded only as an artful 
accommodation of language to the groundlefs 
notions of the unthinking and illiterate. The 
abilities of the authors abovemention'd were, 
unqueftionably, equal to the difcernment of 
an impofture of this kind: nor can it be 
, doubted, 



[7] 

doubted, that their enmity t6 Chriftianity 
wou'd have been fufficient incentive to re- 
proach (had there been room to reproach) the 
preachers of that religion, with deluding their 
hearers, by appeals to pretended facts; and 
with abufing their credulity, by a defign'd 
mifapplication of words. 

It may now, 'tis hoped, be fafely conclud- 
ed, that the teftimony of the authors (even of 
yamblichus too, tho' not diftinguifh'd by any 
direct cavils againfl Chriftianity) referr'd to in 
the Sermon, flandeth in full force, and fuffi- 
ciency to bear the ftrefs, which is there lay'd 
upon it. The author of the Review^ indeed, 
hath, in effect, confefs'd it fubverfive of his 
fcheme; and, therefor, thought fit to inter- 
pofe an exception to it. Yet, had thofe very 
authors afforded no teftimony, favorable to 
the ufual acceptation of the words difcufs'd, 
'tis not improbable that the Reviewer (for, the 
perverfe and the paradox generally prevail to- 
gether) wou'd have call'd for their authority, 
with a degree of earneftnefs, equal to the 
contempt, with which he now regards it. 
Probable, at leaft, it is, that if they hadyi- 
vourd his caufe, tho' in a much lower de- 
gree, than that, wherein they oppofe it, he 
wou'd not only have applauded them, as 
" good writers ", but as good ivitneffes too, in 
the prefent debate. 

IV. 

His next fentence, in the fame page, ap- 
peareth thus — £< But when the word ($atpw) 

" was 



C8 ] 

" was never us'd for malevolent Beings, 'till 
" fuch a Time at leaft j and then we find it us'd 
cc often in a certain Book, and no Intimation 
" is given of its fignifying in that Book male* 
<c volent Beings , delighting in promoting Wick* 
<c edaep; what Neceffity is there in that Book 
" fo to underftand it ? " 

Here is a ftrange mixture of error and con- 
fufion; which muft, perhaps, be imputed to 
the Panic, into which that horrid cc pomp of 
<c references" had thrown him. In fupport 
of the defcription of dctlpovsg, in the * Ser- 
mon, feveral Pagan authors are cited, by whofe 
united teftimony it is, in every part, fupport- 
ed. " But, fay'th the Reviewer, " when the 
<c Word was never us'd for malevolent Beings, 
<c 'till fuch a Time at leaft ; and then we find 
<f it often us'd in a certain Book, &c" What 
time ? — the New Teftament Time, that he 
talks of above ? — And, will he not, then, al- 
low that, in that time, a more full difcovery 
of the fpiritual world was made, than in any 
period antecedent to it? A more clear ac- 
count of the Beings, call'd Sut^ong or <L/^oW, 
may juftly be efteem'd a beneficial part of the 
difcovery ; feeing, their malignity, power and 
fubtlety being made known, proper caution 
againft their attempts is thereupon excited, 
and mankind more effectually induc'd to re- 
gard the creatures with abhorrence, which had 
fome time ufurp'd the honour of adoration, 
due only to the Creator. Nor fhou'd it be any 

* pag. 10, 

matter 



[9] 

matter of wonder, if they were more,fr^. 
quently fpoken of in that time, wherein their 
nature and works were expofed to light ; and 
a divine power difplay'd in the repreffion of 
their malicious rage. 

But, what is this certain book, of which 
he talks again and again, in the fame fentence ? 
His language feems to intimate fome obfcure, 
contemptible composition, which this judg of 
" good writing " difdains to name. 

V. 

But, he thus proceeds — <c Yes, but Plato 
" is produc'd as making the moft pernicious 
cC Delufions the favourite Employment of 



tC ScllfJLQVSS I . 



This report, furely, was not form'd, to fup- 
port the title, which he aflumes, and to rea- 
lize his pretences to the love of truth I The 
paffage of the Sermon, which the Reviewer 
reprefenteth, in his way, is this — cc When 
" the fame authors (authors referr'd to in the 
<c Sermon) make the moft. pernicious delufions 
<£ the favourite imployment of ctaipoveg: when 
" they, * &£* Yet, Plato alone is named by 
the Reviewer,, as if no other had been men- 
tion'd with him. 

This piece of ingenuity is immediately fol- 
low'd by a moft appoiite and rigorous inter- 
rogatory — " Do's Plato ever fay fo, direBly 

c< and in Terms'? " In order- to anfwer him, 

■ 

1 Review, />. 1 6, 17. 2 P. 11. 

C in 



[ I0 ) 

^n iome meafure, according to his wifdom, 
let me be permitted to afk — Do I appeal to 
Plato y as faying fo, direBly and in terms ? 
or, have I lay'd a ftrefs on Plato's, Jingle au- 
thority ? The Reviewer may here give occa- 
fion to fufpect, that he was ferious, and di- 
rected by the fimphcity of his heart, when, 
he talk'd of " margins fiufFd with the pomp 
<c of references ; " and that, during his di- 
flurbance at the appearance, he fancy 'd them 
defign'd only for oftentation, amufement, or 
terror to elegant men, unaccuftom'd to fuch 
hideous fights. An intelligent reader may be 
inclin'd to think them intended for another 
ufe, and fuited to the fubjecl under confide- 
ration. Of the Beings defcrib'd in the Ser- 
mon, the feveral authors, quoted in confirma- 
tion of the defcription, had only irnperfefl 
notices. It was neceflary, then, to colleSl their 
fentiments, that all might jointly fupply the 
light, which no one cou'd fepar ate ly fupply. 

Before we leave that acute queflion of the 
Reviewer, may it not be properly inquir'd, 
why the teftimony of Plato is call'd for di- 
reBly and in Terms? Will not this cautious 
writer fubfcribe his aflent to any propofition, 
the truth of which is not declar'd direBly and 
in Terms ? What refinements might be ex- 
pected from him, fhould he undertake to com- 
ment upon any important article of religion, 
received in our church ? 

VI. But, 



[ v 3 

VI. 

But, he go'th on immediately to this obfer- 
vation, in the Sermon x , — <c When they (the 
<c philofophers there fpoken of) pronounce 
" them (Soiifjiovis) the inventors and incouragers 
iC of fuch practices, as are moft injurious both 
" to individuals and to communities of men j 
" they muft, by neceflary confequence from 
" their own reafoning — be prefum'd to look 
c< upon $ai(Jt,oves, as extremely evil." 

The Reviewer, in his tranfcript of this 
paflage, hath quaintly diftinguifh'd — pre- 
fum'd — by Italic characters. Cou'd the au- 
thors, there pointed out, have furnifh'd him 
with any colour of argument, in defence of 
his own tenet; their fenfe wou'd, undoubt- 
edly, have receive a better air from his pen ; 
and a demoitjlration, in his behalf, been rais'd 
out of fuch materials, as he will not, at pre- 
fent, allow fufficient to fupport even a pre* 
fumption againft him. 

VII. 

He afks again, * " Where do's Plato pro- 
" nounce Demons to be the Inventors and 
" Incouragers of pernicious Delufions ? " And 
then he adds — " Mr. H. refers to Plato in 
" Plutarch, T. 2. p. 3 36. Idem in Phcedro, 
11 p. 240. Confer, idem de Rep. 1. 2. p. 364. 
41 and 378 — 381 — 2. But in all thefe Places 

* p. ii. 2 P. 17. 3 not there, but/>. 361. 

C 2 « there 



[ * ] 

C£ there is not one Word about Demons en- 
" couraging pernicious Delufions. " How is 
this prov'd? Why, as ufual- — it is affirm* d. 
And, were the moft peremptory conclufions 
the moft pertinent too, who wou'd venture 
to gain fay him ? But, his hardieffe having 
already been expos'd, the juftnefs of his pre- 
fent deeifion may reafonably be fufpected ; at 
leaft, 'til all the places referr'd to, be duly 
confider'd and compar'd. In the firft, Plato 
(according to x Plutarctis citation) forms a 
direcl oppofition between the characters of 
Seo) and fraipoveg ; to the former attributing 
what is favorable or benign and Jingidarly ex- 
cellent*, to the latter, the contrary. Plato, 
then, herein juftifyeth fome part of the de- 
fcription of Salfioveg, in the Sermon. And, 
had the Reviewer thought fit to have taken 
proper notice of Xenocrates's opinion, which 
Plutarch immediately fubjoineth to that of 
Plato, the fcholar might have given him a 
clearer idea of the mailer's fentiments, and 
fupply'd fome other diftinguifhihg features, 
which belong to the Beings there fpoken of. 
The expediency of paying attention to what 
was added, in Plutarch, to Plato § words, is 
plainly fuggefted in the very next fentence of 
the Sermon, which beginneth thus — " and 
" Plutarch fuppofeth, that feveral inquifitive 
<c heathens (whom he citeth as confentient 
" with Plato herein) were juflly led 2 , &c." 

1 — B-to7q t» St^ei >£ GregA-tltx, rci $' cLAltyuva Tb'ruv ^cupoaw 
micMw<n. * P. II. 

The 



[ *3 ] 

The Reviewer might hence have learn'd to 
acknowledge, that I have not appeaPd to 
Plato immediately, in the firft reference, but 
to Plutarch's reprefentation of his thoughts. 
And, x Plutarch having produc'd him as 
agreeing with feveral other philofophers in the 
notion of (paJuXoi Saipovsg, it might not have 
mifbecame a Reviewer, to have confider'd, 
in this part of his Review, what thofe other 

f'hilofophers had alio fay'd upon the Subject, 
n Plutarch, their accounts were properly 
plac'd together; and, thro' the affemblage, 
improve the light and ilrength of each other. 
But, our author having judg'd it more con- 
venient for him to poftpone the evidences of 
Empedocles and Xenocrates, I mail follow him 
in his own way, and proceed to 

VIII. 

The next reference, made immediately to 
Plato, in Phcedro, p. 240. The words of the 
place declare a variety of evils, with mod of 
which an immediate or prefent pleafure had 
been intermingled by fome luipw 2 . The 
pleafure intermix'd hath the appearance of an 
allurement to thofe evils. The author, there- 
for, of it (fome Haipuv) mayjuftly be call'd the 
inventor or incourager, at leaft, of a pernici- 
ous delufion > if, thro' his propofal of a pre- 
fent pleafure, men might be induc'd to in- 

* As cited in the Sermon, p 1 1 . 

1 Eft j£ $*i *) «*** tta.ua.* v.'KK'i i\% tfii^i occiput reus •srAw- 

volve 



[ M ] 

volve themfelves in guilt. According to the 
ufe which * Clemens Alexandrinus hath made 
of this paffage of Plato, (and this philofo- 
pher might be, perhaps, as well underftood 
by that Father, as by the Reviewer) the Scu^ay, 
therein fpoken of, was either } &Qu\Xxfj8j/j@* 
<5W£cA©^, or fome immediate vaffal and agent 
of that &^%w r Saifjiov&v. 

IX. 

The next references to Plato are thus pro- 
pos'd — " Confer, idem de Repub. 1. 2. p. 364. 
" & P> 27% — 381 — 2. *" Here the Re- 
viewer fhould have attended to the manner •, 
in which thefe references are made. Plato is 
not therein cited, as offering direct, indubi- 
table evidence, in regard to the prefent fub*- 
jecl: of debate ; but, a collation of him with 
the other authors, referr'd to at the fame 
time, is recommended to the reader. And, 
with what pertinence this office was recom- 
mended, a brief furvey of the paflages will 
evince. 

In the firft, which occurreth 1. 2. de Rep f 
p. 364. the dyig) and pd,v\m; are charg'd with 
attempting to delude, not only fome few in-? 
dividuals, but whole ftates, into a perfuafion, 
that they were inabl'd by the foot, (whofe 
aid they pretended to ingage, by 'maScot, Bvcrlcu, 
tKciyuyou Tivig) to clear men from the dange- 
rous coiifequences of any wrongs, whereof 

1 Strom. I. 5. p. 701, &fcq. Edit. Oxon, 
1 Serm. p. 1 I. _ 

they 



[ «.y 

they had been guilty. That the (paZxoi or 
7rovv](}M Scu'fjLdveg might incourage their votaries, 
to make an attempt of this pernicious nature, 
1 Porphyry and 2 Jamblichus will authorife 
us to maintain. And thofe Beings, as the 
3 former alfo obferveth, (ZxXoi?) «va< .9W*, — 
and according to the latter — vttoz^ov^) rrjv 
rav Stuv mapxa-iav. It may ftill, then, feem 
probable, that by Bto\ in this paflage of 
Plato, SotlfjLoveg are to be underftood; efpeci- 
ally feeing this ufe of Beet is fay'd by Proclus 
(no incompetent judg of Plato's language) to 
obtain in many places of that author. 

X. 

In the next paflage, extant p. 378, are men- 
tion'd the extreme injuftice, unnatural cruelty, 
and difcord amongft the Srm, continu'd either 
by infidious practices or by open violence. 
The imputation, indeed, of fuch enormities 
■ to the S-zo) is there condemn'd ; as capable of 
producing ill impreflions on the minds of the 
young efpecially, and propagating wrong no- 
tions of the Beings, commonly diftinguifhM 
by that name. But, fuppofing Sulpom to be 
here intended by it, the tranfactions will be, 
in fome degree, fui table (as thofe were, which 
the former paflage records) to fuch agents - y 
and the narration found to contain fome foot- 
fteps of truth. Nor is this fuppofition ground- 
lefs. Plutarch, having mention 'd fads, which 

« de abfl. I, 2. fiS. 41 & fefy * ds mjji. Sett. iv. c. 7. 

i loco at, 

refemble 



[ It) 

refemble thefe, * fay'th that they were mors 
properly attributed to Sat^oyig, than either to 
Stot 3 or to uvd^co7roi : and citeth Plato, Pythago- 
ras, Xenocrates, and Chryjjppus, as concur- 
ring in the fame opinion. The opinion feemr- 
eth to have been founded upon a jufl perfua- 
fion, that, in the fads, to which it relateth, 
were imply 'd fuch guilt and fuffering, as 
cou'd not be afcribed to Stoi: and fuch pow- 
er, as belongeth not to human nature. Plato, 
then, having (according to Plutarch) attri- 
buted the like fads to Socl^ong, may, not im- 
probably, be thought to have intended the 
fame Beings, in thispaflage; w T here he men- 
tions the ftories, concerning the various dif- 
ienfions and wars of Sec), and pronounceth 
them improperly apply'd to the Beings, w r hich 
Bio) was fuppos'd to denote. 

XI. 

In pages 38 1 — 2 of Plato, it is inquir'd, 
whether the 3-sot may, in fome cafes, be 
efteem'd i^cwrcLito\\ig Xj yov\rdjov\ig ? And, in the 
anfwer, {viz. I £ XI £) it is imply'd, that the 
ads, fpecify'd in the inquiry, had been, or 
might, without abfurdity, be attributed to 
them. But the anfwer implyeth not only, 
what is. not abfurd, but alfo what is ftridly 
true, provided fclppm be here likewife com- 
prehended in the term ,<W. By thofe (accor- 
ding to Porphyry 2 ) y vs-do-a, yoqjeia cftlehetf) 

■ T. 2. p. 360. z de akft. I. z.feft.^i, 42. compare 

Jamblich. & Libm. as cited in Serm. p. 1 1 . f 



[ wj 

tirhyottg $ mda'w <pcti]a<riag xtoi, k^ uTTAJrjircU- 
itcctvo) %l& t? reyflzoyictg — to $ ;J/ewd@* t#to<c 
c«e«w. But the ■ Reviewer obferves, that 
<c P/tf/0 condemns Homer, and other Poets, 
iC for fuch figments, and adds, ndvT*j dock 
<c dtydjSig to iaifiivilv ts xai to 9-&gv." Elated 
with this fentence, he proceeds, after a fhort 
intermiffion, to alk, " Is it not a very ftrong 
" argument to prove that Plato thought De- 
cc mom Encouragers of Frauds and Delufions, 
" that he exprefsly fays, The nature of Gods 
<c and Demons is altogether free from Delu- 
" Jions ? , ' 

The fentence, Tidnti doa> &c. feemeth to 
be a conclufion, defign'd to rectify miftakes, 
in the preceding debate. And, as no exprefs 
mention had before been made of Salpoveg, 
or the (Jaipivtov $@i) it appeareth, that they 
were rightly fuppos'd to be comprehended in 
the term 3*o), during the courfe of the dii- 
pute ; feeing they make part of the fubject, in 
the conclufion. Well : but is not the con- 
clufion directly contrary to the notion of <W- 
fjions, maintain'd in the Sermon ? No : in the 
Sermon it is prov'd, that lulpmg reprefentetli 
good, as well as evil fpirits: of the former 
this conclufion is to be underfloodj whil'ft 
the latter are, 'tis probable, meant by Sec) y 
where it is intimated, that \hnrdvn and yoq- 
rda, were not thought inconfiftent with their 
nature. 

• P. i ?/ 
D XII. But 



[ x8 ] 

XII. 

But, after ximtv, ago, d-tydjSis, &c. in the 
1 Review, the next fentence we read is this, 
— " Mr. H. was fo far confcious of this, that 
" he has put this Note immediately after the 
" References before mention'd, viz. " Where 
" indeed, he (Plato) ufeth the Word Beo)-, 
cc yet (Saipmg, 'tis probable, are to be un- 
" derftood by it: " Why fo? For, thus Pro- 
clus fays, " that Plato, in many places, calls 
u Demons, Gods: Ergo, in this Place." Thus 
can the Reviewer rally or reafon, you fee, with 
equal felicity. Confcious of this — what? — 
ci that in all thefe places, (as he is pleas'd to 
" fay) there is not one Word about Demons 
<c encouraging pernicious Delujions?" Such a 
confcioufnefs might, 'tis true, refult from the 
perufal of thofe places, by a perfon of our 
Reviewer s fkill and penetration. In me, who 
pretend not to the like abilities, they pro- 
duc'd a different perfuafion. And, not the 
note only, whereof the Reviewer fpeaks, but 
each reference may mew, that I was con- 
fcious of what I had read, and of what I 
wrote: confcious, that I had not attempted 
to abufe my reader, ~ by diverting his atten- 
tion from clear to contejlable evidence, — that 
I had not made an indifcriminate claim to 
Plato's fuffrage ; but only in one inftance ap- 



1 P. 17- Sec Scrm. p. 1 1. 

2 See Review, p. 1 6, 17 compared with Remark V. 



peal'd 



[ *9 ] 

appeal'd immediately to him; in another, 
upon Plutarctis report; and, in regard to all 
the other references, wherein his name occurs, 
fuggefied the expediency of comparing the 
tenor of his language with that of Plutarch, 
of Porphyry \ of Jamblichus and of Libanius^ 
all cited at the fame time, with the fame de- 
iign. I was alfo confcious, that thefe authors 
did not only place the tenet, in fupport of 
which they are quoted, above all danger of 
juft exception ; but that they might likewife, 
upon comparifon with the three laft pafTages 
of Plato, afford fome ground of probability, 
that thefe, or fome of thefe, Prod us had in 
view, when he obferv'd, that Plato, in many. 
places, apply'd to Salens the appellation of 
Bsoi. To one confcious of thefe feveral points, 
it was needlefs, as well as unbecoming and 
abfurd, firft to form conjectural premifes, and 
then prefs an illative particle to introduce a 
peremptory conclufion. 

XIII. 

From Plato the author of the Review 1 ad- 
vanceth to E?npe docles ; and afketh, " How 

does it hence appear (from Empedocles's 
c verfes, I fuppofe) that Demons were con- 

ceiv'd by Empedocles to be malevolent Be- 
" ings delighting or delighted (thus is he 
" pleas'd with repeating his own Abfurdity) 
" in promoting wickednejs? He imagin'd, in- 



IL 



<C 



1 Review, p. 19. and agnin p. 37. 

D 2 " deed, 



[20] 

" deed, that if Demons were guilty of any 
u crimes, they "were punifh'd by Jtrange re- 
" v 'Jut ions 'till they were purify d; and then 
IC they were rejlord to their own natural Re- 
cc gion and Order, But what is this to ma- 
tc levolent, maleficent Beings, promoting Mi^ 
"fry among men ?" And — " what is all 
« this to evil Demons or Devils wand'ring 
<c thro* the Air, about Sea and Land, and 
<{ ftriving with Affiduity and Fiercenefs to 
<c delude Men into Ruin, and actually making 
(C fme of the Species their Prey? 

Here the Reviewer wou'd infinuate, (ac- 
cording to his ufual ingenuity) that the de- 
fcription of Scjpoveg, in the Sermon, was 
founded on Empedocles r s> authority alone: and 
then his accumulated, fevere demands prove, 
(as clearly as any reafonable man can expect 
him to prove) that the defcription can receive 
no confirmation from the verfes of that phi- 
lofopher. Yet, concerning their import 
Plutarch feemeth to have entertain'd a diffe- 
rent opinion. In one of the pages, wherein 
1 he hath preferv'd them, an exprefs diftincli- 
on, between xw^ 1 anc ^ (paJuXoi Soupong, had 
been premis'd. And, after Plato's, Xeno- 
crates's and Hefiod's accounts of thofe Be* 
ings, it is added, EpTreSoKXfjg 3 £ $Ua$ pffir) 
die ov on rug Sccifiovag coy i^^d^coart ii 'ovfyfAftiXq- 

l Vhitarch. T» 2. p. 361. 



[ M 1 

AWiyiov fjfyi yd% <r<ps ^'©-, SV. as In the Ser- 
mon * ? Here they are reprefented as rejected 
with deteftation, in all parts of the vifible 
world 5 and regarded as the objects of uni- 
verfal horror. And, will not this reprefen- 
tation contribute, in fome degree, to evince 
their malevolence and maleficence? Ill-fated 
Beings, furely, if every where treated with 
extreme abhorrence; whilft free from the 
guilt of all 7r^fjf/.fjL£^ifjLctja 9 which might argue 
their malignity towards man, or infolence to- 
wards the Deity ! But, the Reviewer (led 
by his exuberant benevolence to perpetual fo- 
licitude about their welfare and credit) 2 tells 
you from Plutarch, that cc when Demons 
" fimid, they underwent fevere Punifhments, 
" tofs'd from the Air to the Sea, from Sea to 
" Earth, from Earth to the Sun, from the Sun 
" to the Air, till being thus punifh'd and 
" purify'd, they again obtain their natural 
" Region arid Order/" It is readily allow'd, 
that a miftaken notion, concerning the dura- 
tion of their punilhment and final allotment, 
might eafily be entertain'd by Pagan philofo- 
phers. But, befides the words, wherein the 
opinion, about their reftoration to their natural 
order, is exprefs'd, thofe alfo, which immedi- 
ately follow in Plutarch, might havedeferv'd 
the confideration of the Reviewer. Thus Plu- 
tarch then proceeds 3 — Txtojv 3 ^ tcov tomtom 
cLfcXtyoi Xeyec&al (poc<ri <zz£< Tu^^, cog Seiva, (2 

1 P. 1 2, and about the clofe of this remark. 

2 Review, p. 37. and before, in p. 19, J P, $61. 



L 2i J 

\5Grc @Gcvx ft over (Japuas eipydcat 9 ■ ii Txrdv'Q, 

izrgcijfAocIa, TcLoy^otc,) cvtnXycri kclkco'v y/jv oux rt 

'&rci<rcLv it QdAaos'ctv, ura, Siicviv ..eScomv — ■ i. e. It 

M fay'dy that there are relations concerning 

Typhon, which bear a very ?iear refemblance 

to thefe and the like (viz. what had been juft 

before produc'd, in the verfes of Empedocles) 

importing, that he, thro' envy and malignity y 

committed horrible crimes ; and that, having 

cans' d a general perturbation, he at the fame 

time fill 'd both the whole earth and Jea with 

calamities, and afterwards was punijh'd. 

Shou'd the Reviewer be here tempted (as he 

is accuflom'd) fhrewdly to inquire, " How 

' c does it hence appear, that Demons were 

}* conceiv'd by Empedocles to be malevolent, 

" 7naleficent Beings, delighting in promoting 

" wickednefs, or in promoting Mifery among 

"Men? — 7 I mull take leave to anfwer, 

that, in Plutarch's opinion, it doth hence 

appear, that Empedocles'* defcription import- 

eth ilich a notion of them ; feing he fay'th, 

in the paflage already cited, that between this 

defcription, and the relations concerning Ty- 

phon, there is a very near refemblance. Well : 

but what are the reports about Typhon to the 

purpofe ? mull harmlefs Salmons be traduc'd, 

becaufe that monller hath met with his de- 

ferved character? Here I mull again take 

leave to interpofe the judgment of Plutarch, 

in order to ward off the expollulations of 

the Reviewer; and to produce his words 1 — 



1 Refcrr'd to in Remark X. 



1 B«X/iW 



[ .« ] 

£gXr<oy — J el rd <zj& 7*v Tv(p£vu — - IroQX /jSjja 
pyre Slav , &ct9qpci]oL pyre. dv9^a7rcav t d\X& oca- 
pcvuv fJLiydXoov , Sfjfcft vopiifyv]zgy dg tL W\diw 
^ YlvdayiyiG Kj -ztvox&Tqg ilj X^v(ri7T7rog, itto- 
/bS/JOi lug 'zsrctXut SeoXoyxg, Vppeofizvi^i^g jj8i/j dv- 
Ggu7rav ytyovivat teyxiri, x,. t. A. 2 i. e. The 
opinion of thofe defervetb preference, who, 
thinking that the things, recorded of Typhon, 
imply fuch paffions and incidents, as agree not 
either to gods or men, but to great demons, 
as Plato, and Pythagoras, and Xenocrates, and 
Chryfippus thought, afenting to ant tent di- 
vines, fay that they (demons) are more power- 
ful than men, &c. 

What the things were, which the accounts 
of Syphon contained, page the 22 d will (hew; 
and, at the fame time, fo far confirm what 
is faid of Sai^ong in the Sermon, as to leave 
nothing more to be fupply'd, than what may 
be eafily collected from other authors, quoted 
in the fame place. 

Before we leave the verfes of Empedocles, 
it may be obferv'd, that the Reviewer afFedts 

1 "Plutarch, T. 2. p. 360. where ihefe words immediate!/ 
follow - ' ' >y tuoXby t») $tu>wj,<l t tpvaiv \jZTe0&8MVlx$ »jj*^, ti 
*j N S«ov OTA dy.iysc, bSt ctxa&lov tyJiAdu ctXcc x} "^vxv^ $v<t4 
ju crupec]®' a*(&r l o'4 c* 0"m«hA*;e«?, v,d(.viw ISiypjapuo ttj >S7c-jtv xj 

Tfa? J h-lw imrot^rli, Thefe are here added for the fake of 
propofing a reformation of them. In Head then, of — cd&vicr4 
ci o-wj— it might be better to read — aiS-ia-j h aiv — In- 
Head of — Giycfyjl/M — to read — ctx°f^V — Inftead of -4r 
iTnru&TV — to lead — iKilflEQtVfa^ The Reviewer, perhaps, 
may rind the pafTage cited by an antient Chriflian writer, and 
then pretend, that he ther.ee produe'd t£c true reading of it. 

to 



[ *4] 

to cite them (not from Plutarch, p. 361, 
where they firft occur, but) from Plutarch^ 
p. 830. And, proving that he now had pret- 
ty well conquer'd the faftitium or fright, 
which a " pomp of references' 1 had former- 
ly rais'd, he grow'th familiar with them; and 
bravely thus prefenteth the reader with the 
following lines *S 

Ai8e£/ov ft\v yd() <r$i fAv(&> zrovlcvSt Staxet • 

Hovj@» b* %q x^ovog xSag u7riiP[\}(Ti. ' yoci'x ig 
>/ 
ewyetq 

HsAtg cLx.d[jia,vi@* ' ouQep®* e//.SaAe otvxig 

AAA©^ <5° e^ a A A* $ex*l at ?vy exert Si weefleg. 

and adds, " Thus Plutarch gives us thefe 
" Lines in his Treatife De vitando are alie- 
c< no, p. 830." Do's he fo? Alas! thefe fame 
references have drawn a fort of vengeance 
upon our author ; and, in aggravation of it, 
have made his own " eyes and hands " the 
inftruments of expoiing the raftinefs of his 
pretences to familiarity with them. In the 
830 th and 83 i ft pages of Plutarch, the lines 
above cited, appear exactly thus — 

Al6i(/ov p\v ycLp tr(pi i*.iv@* woflovSe oiattet. 
Xlo9}@» q xficvog xSctg ccve7r]vcre ' ycuct, & 1$ 

ewyctg 
HeAi* ctKccpuv]©^, oS* uWep(^> 'tfj&ctte Stvcug. 

Thus ends p % 830. and then immediately, in 
/>. 831. follow, «AAoy 9 i% aAAtf $i%Sj<u twm- 

1 Review, ^ 37. 



[ M ] 

<?rjs rj x* t. A. in Plutarch's plain profe. A- 
bout falfe flops and falfe accents I propofe 
no qucilion. But, why did he tell his reader, 
M Thus (or as he hath exhibited them) Plu- 
" tarch gives us thefe Lines in his Treatife" 
&c. whereas, in Plutarch we read — Uci}^ 
3 amoves Z$a,g dniflwz — id the Reviewer's co- 
py - Tl6fl@4 $* \q -xfiovoq xtiocg a,7ri7f]vcre — iri 
Plutarch — aiS'sp®* \\j&olM diveug — is fol- 
low 'd by — aXXmv $' Wj aXXa Si^ejai toxics j) 
k. t. A. in the Reviewers copy — by 

AAA^ $' t£ cluXXx Sixfoil wyixo'i ' r j vrdv}eg. 

If it can, after all, be fuppos'd, that he 
really tranlcrib'd thofe verfes from p. 830 of 
Plutarch; yet, might it ftill feem ftrange, 
(cou'd any thing be ftrange, in the conduct 
of fuch a waiter) that the claufe, which im- 
mediately precedeth them, fhou'd be pafs'd 
by, without the notice of a Reviewer, There- 
in are mention'd ol &ivjha,roi tL xyivoirtliig e- 
jcetvoi & EfjnrefroKhittg i'ccifjiovig. The epithets 
are remarkable; and might have reminded 
our author of paffages in a certain book, re- 
lating to certain Beings, vulgarly call'd fali'n 
angels. Amongft theie muft the $aifjLoveg and 
SoufiinoL of the New Teftamcnt be left, in 
defiance of all his attempts to refcue them. 
And, whether he will acknowledg it or not, 
the characters of malevolence and malejicence 
ftand fix'd indelibly upon the Beings fo call'd, 
in profane as well as facred authors. 

E XIV. JE#- 



[ I*] 

XIV. 

Xenocrates is the only witnefs, whofe e- 
vidence remaineth undefended. And the paf- 
fage, in which it is exprefs'd, is thus produc'd 
by the Reviewer — * av^oTras *di Qcvd^eo7rcig 9 
cu x^e^ " 1 ™i™s* (viz. writes the Reviewer) 
yjfizocdv "^TnCp^docg x, tcov ioqtgov o<tcu 'nrXriyag ti- 
vctg, 7j KoireTxg, f i\ vrj^stoig, v\ ou/Ttprjpiag, y ai~ 
^oXoyictv $XX<ri)>) kcii Tuffccivxcrai *z?(2g$ %&\v ccXXo 
X&qov t()£7rov T ). The reader will be eafily led, 
by this admirable grammatical ftru&ure of 
the words, to fufpect, that the Reviewer muft 
here have meddled with language, of which 
he had only a ilender knowledg. In Plu- 
tarch 2 we read thus — O3 Suwp^tq* k, rm 
vifjiifitov tag a,7rc(p^y[oug K t£v zopjuv ccott stXyi* 
ycig Twcts, v) x,07rfl#g, i) vyj^eiccg, $ Svo-Qyifjuocg. rj 
dt%poXoyictv s^xa-iv, xrt Beuiv upoug #ts ocufuovcov 
ciZTcu Tirpocr^zeiv ^vj^av* uTXa. eivai (pvcr&tg cv tca 
<5&{i'Xjj?lt, peydxag /$/) Kj lo^upjig, cvsptTnsg 3 %. 
Q>tv()poo7rciqt eel %otiozo-i rotg ToixToig, tl tuFxccvuccu 
'srpog ib\v aXXo x e ^°v T?i7r*ty, Herein are re- 
counted feveral hurtful, infamous practices, 
which Xenocrates judg'd to be unfuitable me- 
thods of honouring either the deities or good 
demons; and alfo declar'd to be the delight 
of thofe vaft, powerful, malign and gloomy 
Beings, (call'd above (pcwXoi Suipovig) which 
inhabit the air. But, the Reviewer thus 
gently reprefenteth the fenfe of the place — 

» Pvevicw, p. 36. * De If. £c Of. />. 361. 

" Xeno- 



[ *7 J 

" * Xenocr cites indeed talked of gloomy , morofe 
" Demons that rejoice in fuch days, in which 
" Men iiuote their Breafts, mourned, and 
" fafted ; and if they have but thefe, they 
" turn to nothing worfe!' — have but thefe — 
what muft become, then, of <Wp?^*a* and 
cu%ooKoyia? why were they fupprefs'd in the 
Reviewer s account ? The phrafes — have 
but thefe — and — nothing worfe — he hath 
diftinguifh'd by Italics; as if he thought his 
demons thereby fufficiently vindicated. But, 
what worfe wou'd the Reviewer have ? Is 
there not fufficient moral malignity (as he 
calls it) here pointed out, when the tenor of 
the whole paffage is confider'd, and compared 
with another of the fame purport, in Vlu- 
tarch-, referr'd to like wife in the Sermon? 
Surely, even the Reviewer muff, upon fe- 
cond thoughts, be inclin'd to acknowledg, 
that a delight in receiving fuch tokens of ve- 
neration from deluded mortals, as confided in 
wounding their bodies, in finiiter and ob- 
fcene expreffions, may argue a difpofition di- 
rectly contrary to (permit me thus far to imi- 
tate, for the fake of oppofing, him) moral 
benignity. He ieemeth conicious, it muft be 
own'd, that this fingle teftimony is intirely 

1 Review, f. 36, 37. 

2 De def. orac. p. 417. lo(>7u,<; 5 ■*£ $u2^«f, ucaree v^uiqeu X?rc~ 
(pgjLoctq t£ cx.v@(>w7ra.c 3 cm <£$ cu l iio'p. y,JA y^ %j<;.cdbra<TfAQt , w,rc-iou re 
xj X.07TET01, zrohXjc^s 3 'srccXiv au&orisfiytit* ^£9; lego~S, (AX9*& te 
icKKxt ogAvipyjcu £i\j,-cut %va cud HA'*?, Siu)v (dp **9&i 3 ^cu^jVcju 

(AvdiOC. ' X. T. A. 

E 2 fuffi- 



[ *«.] 

fafficient to expofe all his cavils: and fay'th, 
(in defpair, as it were, of bringing off his 
clients) " Take this Hypothefis — take this, 
" I fay, and ftill, I afk, what Evidence have 
" you for morally malignant Beings among 
" the antients ? v Then he immediately and 
happily thus anfvvereth himfelf, " Xenocrates, 
" who was himfelf a dark, gloomy Fellow/' 
Such is the confequence of fixing a bad cha- 
racter on our author's " good demons, departed 
" fouls, vanities, nothings y\ — the true En- 
glijh, in that noble Tbefaurus, whereby he 
is govern 'd, for fralfjioveg or Sctifjiovia, ! Xeno- 
crates was, unqueftionably, a forry, imper- 
tinent fellow — For, who, except fuch a fel- 
low, wou'd have talk'd in that manner againft 
thofe Beings, before he knew, what pleas 
wou'd be offer'd in their behalf, by their ftre- 
nuous patrons in fucceeding ages? And, a 
dark fellow too he was, — 'tis plain enough — 
his language was Greek. Befides, Laertius 
fcems to be call'd upon to prove, that he de- 
ferv'd an ill-name. For, thus ends the Re- 
view, Erratum, p. 37. for (rxvQpoTr&s, Laertius 
read (ncv9^7ros 7 vicl. Laertius. Our author 
muft here be advis'd to confider what was 
fiy'd above 1, concerning references to au- 
thors. Exaclnefs in making them may be 
reafonably expe&ed from all writers; and, 
from thole of his own clafs, is indifpenfably 
requir'd, in order to lefien, in fome degree, 

» Remark I. 

the 



[>9] 

the drudgery of purfuing them. He had in 
view, it may be fuppos'd, Laert. 1. 4. fegm. 6. 
where Xenocrates is call'd Qspvig xa) Q>cvS^i»7rog. 
What conclusions the Reviewer -will allow to 
be drawn from the countenance ', it may not 
be eafy to fay. Yet, the gravity and aufterity, 
which appear'd in Xenocrates^ can hardly be 
thought fufficient to invalidate his authority ; 
efpecially, when the excellent character, by 
which he is diftinguifh'd in Laertius *, and 
other authors, (cited by the commentators) 
fhall have been duly confider'd. 

XV. 

The authorities cited in the Sermon, in 
fupportofthe ufual interpretation of Scupw 
and Suipoviov, may be now thought abundantly 
vindicated from the cavils and general nega- 
tives of the Reviewer. Yet ftill muft not 
the reader be deny'd the diverfion of behold- 
ing our author triumph, as it were, in his 
own defeat. No fooner had Xenocrates been 
difmifs'd, than he thus courageoufly proceed- 
ed 2 — " But what Evidence is there for even 
<c fuch a Notion ? — (as that philofopher en- 
" tertain'd of <W^oi/g?, I fuppofe, he means) 
" In the firft Place, the whole Hypothefis is 
" mere Fiction. In the fecond Place, there 
" was no Notion of fuch malevolent Beings as 
" delighted in promoting wickednefs. And 
" thirdly, not a word of their porTeffing Men, 

» Loco cit. 6c fegm. feq. * Review p. 38. 

" and 



[ 3° ] 

« and inflicting Mifery upon them, or wan- 
" dring thro' the Air, and Earth and Sea, for 
<c any fuch Purpofe." 

See, with what matchlefs prowefs do's he 
furmount all difficulties, and lay his oppo- 
nents proftrate, at every ftep he takes! what 
wonderful execution may be done with a ftile, 
directed by cc eyes and hands ", like his ? And, 
who will dare to refift any arguments of this 
formidable tenor ? For my part, I was in- 
clin'd to be thankful to him, for fufpending 
his notice of me, whil'ft all his other adver- 
faries feel the heavy effects of his ability, thro* 
a courfe of many pages — which they, per- 
haps, may be tempted to call one tedious pa- 
renthefis. 

But, 'tis vain to expect any lafting fecuri- 
ty, from the aflaults of fo refolute an enemy, 
L the 64 th page he returns to take a parting 
firoke: and, fenfible wherein his main flrength 
lyeth, he very rhetorically pronounceth his 
adverfaries guilty of making " fuch reflexions 
C£ as are unworthy of Men, and moft un- 
" worthy of Preachers of the Gofpel." How 
doth he prove his charge ? with much eafe — 
he boldly pronounceth it. But, hath he not 
confirm'd it by adding, that the " Gofpel 
" teacheth a Charity, that thinketh no Evil, 
Ci and hopeth all things.''' A flagrant viola- 
tion of that charity, undoubtedly, which the 
Gofpel injoineth, to expofe the attempts, 
that are made to pervert it's language, and 
fubjeel: it to the capricious humour of every 

enemy 



enemy to its purity! But, thus antifcriptu- 
rifts, not contented with invading hiftorical 
parts of the facred volume, feem refolv'd to 
extend their violence even to the divine rules 
of practice, by crude, perverfe applications. 

Mr. 'Twe/Is's Anfwer to the Enquirer, &c. 
and the EJfay in vindication of the literal 
fenle &c. (which I have read with pleafure) 
feem no otherwife obnoxious to the Re- 
viewer's calumny, than as they contain con- 
futations of his tenet. Of the reflexion, in 
the Sermon, wherewith he is offended, e- 
nough hath been fay'd in the Preface. His 
rage is now kindl'd : and, as it's bounds may 
not be eafily fix'd, forbearance, in this cafe, 
becometh charity to him. I wou'd orly, 
therefor, improve the charity, with an ex- 
preflion of hope, that (fhou'd his bands be 
again imploy'd upon the fubject) he may be 
able to (hew the conqueft of his tranfperts, 
by publifhing, inftead of a j'econd Review of 
the like tenor, a retractation of the Jirji. 



FINIS. 



DATE DUE 



**^PMBMBi