Here was no madness, nor epilepfy, nor any other natural diforder. The multitude marvelled at the greatnefs of the miracle, faying, "it was never fo feen in Ifrael." Our Saviour had juft before opened the eyes of two blind men; and, if this dumbness was no more than a natural failure, or obftruction in the organs of fpeech, there could be nothing more wonderful in this miracle, than the two foregoing ones. But there was a poffeffion in this cafe, which was not in the former ones. And the wonder lay in the difpoffeffion, which being the firft difpoffeffion of the kind, that our Saviour ever performed, the like to it might juftly be faid had never been feen in Ifrael.'

The people expreffed the fame aftonishment, when our Saviour healed the paralytic, Mark ii. 12. and indeed Christ's divine power was no lefs manifefted by the cure of diseases, performed in an inftant, at his command, than by the expulfion of evil fpirits out of the bodies of men. In the cafe mentioned by this writer, the people who confidered the cure as a difpoffeflion, might very naturally obferve, that it was never fo feen in Ifrael. They fpoke according to their conceptions.

St. Matthew informs us, that "there was brought unto Jefus one polieffed with a devil, blind and dumb; and that he healed him, infomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and faw." Matt. xii. 22. St. Luke reprefents this miracle in fomewhat a different manner, which afcertains it no lefs. "And he was cafting out a devil, and it was dumb; and it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb fpake, and the people wondered." Luke xi. 14. According to this account, the devil was dumb himfelf, as well as the man.'

St. Matthew fays exprefly it was the man, that was blind and dumb: δαιμονιζομενος τυφλος και κωφος, and that he braled him, εθεράπευσεν αυτον. In St. Luke, the Cambridge MS. has damovouevos, the demoniac. However, in the common editions, these words are immediately added, gλɑanoev ö χώρος, the dumb fpake, viz. the man. This latter text is therefore a precarious foundation for the doctrine of dumb devils.

• Our Saviour refutes the Pharifees with their own opinion. "If 1 by Beelzebub caft out devils, by whom do your fons caft them out?" He argues upon the fuppofition of their being in reality caft out. There were fome exorcifts among themselves, whom they allowed to have the power of ejecting devils.'

If these fons of the Jews were not fome of the disciples, commiffioned by Chrift, we cannot fuppofe that the devils they caft out could be any thing more than fome natural disorders, which they cured, not as our Saviour did, by an abfolute command, but by medicinal arts, We are told, that the feven

fons

fons of one Sceva, a Jew, fome years afterwards, affected this authority. If thofe exorcifts ever fucceeded, what fort of demons must they have been, who fubmitted to their injunctions?

The Pharifees were daily lying in wait to catch him in his words. Here was a fair opportunity for them, if he talked of things [Luke xi. 17. 26.] which had no real existence, not only to catch him in his talk, but to expofe the falfehood of his pretences, by affaring the aftonished multitude, that there was in truth no poffeffion in the cafe.'

What reafon have we to fuppofe, that the Pharifees were able to rectify the notions of their countrymen? Or how could they pretend to demonftrate, that madness was not a demoniacal poffeffion? The attempt, if they had been wife enough to know the difference, would have been totally fruitless. It was an error of a speculative nature, not easily eradicated; and therefore our Saviour, who did not come to teach them natural philofophy, accommodated his difcourfe to their capacities and conceptions. If he had denied the reality of demons and demoniacal poffeffions, they would probably have brought a heavy charge against him before the Sanhedrim. This will account for his expreffions and conduct on many occafions, and obviate this question, propofed by our author, were not the difciples to be trufted with this esoterick doctrine?'

Speaking of the lunatic, Mat, xvii. he says:

If this was no more than a common epilepfy, what was there in that distemper, for the cure of which fo much fasting and prayer, and fo much faith too, was requifite, more than for the removing of other diftempers? But faith in what? Not furely, that there was no devil to be caft out: but that there really and truly was. Otherwife why fhould they be fo feverely reproved by our Saviour for the want of it? "O faithlefs and perverfe generation, how long fhall I be with you! how long fhall I fuffer you!" But wherein lay their fault, if there was no devil to be ejected? Were they upbraided for not believing a thing to be, which never had any existence?'

It is utterly improbable, that their fault fhould be a want of faith, refpecting the existence of demoniacal poffeffion; for this was a general perfuafion.

Chrift diftinguifhed Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had caft feven devils, by appearing firft to her after his refurrection.... If we only look upon her in the light of a mad-woman, cured by the charity of Chrift, what merit could this be in her? Nor could her fubfequent behaviour, were it ever fo good, and grateful for fuch a mercy, be paralleled with that of a repenting finner, for whom there is so much joy in heaven. But above all things, had this woman ever been disturbed in her senses, Christ

R 4

Christ would never have pitched upon her, of all others, to carry the tidings of his refurrection to the apostles; left they should fufpect, that he had returned to one of her raving fits, fince, as it was, when fhe, with feveral other women, who never were under any fuch imputation, " told them thefe things, their words feemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not."

Surely our author does not mean to fuggeft, that repentance is better than innocence!- Perhaps it was not madness, of which this woman was cured; and if fo, the objection falls to the ground. If she had been difordered in her fenfes, or fubject to epilepfies, he had likewife been, for fome time, in her perfect fenfes.

There is a cafe of another woman, which is not foreign to this enquiry: I mean that of the woman, who was bowed together with a fpirit of infirmity eighteen years. . . . Our Saviour exprefsly afcribes it to Satan: "whom Satan hath bound."... This fpirit of infirmity therefore was an evil fpirit, which caused it. And that no inferior demon, but Satan himself, who thus bowed her together.'

A fpirit of infirmity feems to be only an oriental expreffion, implying nothing more than the fimple word infirmity. Thus ! we read of a spirit of jealoufy, Numb v. 14. a fpirit of whoredoms, Hof. iv. 12. a fpirit of fupplications, Zach. xii. 10. a fpirit of counsel and might, a fpirit of knowledge, Ifa. xi. z. a fpirit of fear, of power, of love, 2 Tim. i. 7. and a fpirit of flumber, Rom xi. 8. Yet nobody ever thought of making jealoufy, whoredom, and flumber, demons or devils.

The devil had the boldness to enter into the body of one of our Lord's chief difciples in perfon, left the defigns fhould mifcarry in the hands of any being of inferior malice and abilities.'

This perfonal poffeffion, if we mistake not, takes off the greatest part of Judas's guilt. For he could only be a mere paffive inftrument, an impotent demoniac, when poffeffed by a being of fupernatural abilities.

But we do not mean to write an answer to this author, or to controvert all his arguments and obfervations; and therefore e fhall close this article with two or three extra&s from the Appendix, which contains what he ftyles the Scripture Demonology, agreeable to the foregoing principles.

The author affigns the following reafons, why fome of those, who are mentioned in the gofpel, are called unclean fpirits.

They might be reckoned fuch on feveral accounts. First, on account of the impure and filthy thoughts which they fuggefted, and the fins of uncleannefs, to which they instigated, and tempted mankind. Secondly, on account of their delighting

in

in the fat and blood, and steam, and entrails of the beafts offered in facrifice to them, as Tertullian obferves, upon the best authority. For the word of God affures us, that the gods of the heathens actually did eat the fat of their facrifices, and drank the wine of their drink offerings + And hence St. Paul very properly reckons, that the partaking of their facrifices, was partaking of the table of devils, and drinking of the cup of devils II. But a heathen writer, who was much attached to demons, goes ftill farther; and fays, that their chief delight was in blood, and impurities; and that they entered the bodies of thofe that feafted upon their facrifices, that they might have a continued, and full enjoyment of them . But thirdly, they are called foul and unclean fpirits likewife, from the parts of the human body, which they entered and occupied. "This wicked and unclean fpirit, fays an antient writer, that inhabits a man's belly, as a ferpent his hole in the earth; and being unclean, is fit to dwell in that place, which is the receptacle of ordure, they appofitely call ventriloquifts" The perfon in whom he fpake did not open his mouth. This fpirit was therefore most commonly called Eylasgubos §: and fometimes, Εγαςριμαντις, Στερίομαντις, and Εντερομαντις, a diviner from the belly, the breaft, and the entrails. This was the

of the Old Teftament, above taken notice of. Sometimes the voice feemed to proceed from under the arms, and fometimes out of the earth.

• Origen describes the prieftefs of the famous oracle of Pythian Apollo, and the manner of her receiving the fpirit, in words which may be seen below; but which are so obscene, that I must excufe myself from tranflating them, that I may not offend the delicacy of the English reader-" Therefore, as he infers, pray confider, whether the uncleannefs of this fpirit be not fully evinced from hence? And this, as he goes on, is not what hath happened only once or twice, which perhaps might be tolerated; but conftantly, whenever the Pythonefs is thought to foretell future events.”.

Tert. Apol. p. 23.

" 1 Cor. x. 21.

+ Deut. xxxii. 38. Eufeb. Præp. Ev. iv. 23. ex Porphyrio. Ham. in A&t. xvi. not. b. ex Photio. § There is a peculiar propriety in the term Eyfaspidos; which fignifies, not only a ventriloquift; but likewife a fallacious one. For in the proper meaning of the word, Mudog is a fable: And therefore is particularly applicable to the lying oracles of the heathens. • 4 Ισορήλαι τοινον περι της Πυθίας-ότι περικαθεζόμενη το της Καραλιας τομιον, ή τε Απολλωνος προφήτις δεχεται πνευμα δια των γυναικείων κόλπων. δια τελων, ὁ εδε θεμις ην τῷ σωφρονι (και) ανθρωπῳ Βλεπειν, επω λεγεται (q. λεγέσθαι) η και άπλεσθαι. Origen contra Celf. lib. vii. P. 333.

Well

• Well therefore on this, and the former accounts, might fome fpirits be denominated foul and unclean in the gospel.'

In this paffage the author gives a very ftrange account of Spirits. He feems very seriously to tell us, that they delighted in blood, fteam, and entrails; that they eat the fat, and drank the wine of their offerings; that they entered the human bodies through the nether parts; inhabited the belly; had full enjoyment of thofe, who feafted upon their facrifices, &c. But thefe, we apprehend, are the fancies, dreams, and fictions of fuperftition, without the leaft foundation in truth, or any probability in the nature of things. For what, in the name of wonder, has a spirit to do with blood and entrails? And who ever fuppofed, except a bigotted idolater, that the gods eat the fat, and drank the wine, that were offered by their votaries ? The paffage which our author produces from Deutronomy, is nothing more than a farcafm on the fuperftitious credulity of idolaters.

Having mentioned a writer of the fixteenth century, Hieronymus Magius, who pretends, that he had seen feveral perfons poffeffed by unclean spirits, our author goes on, and produces the following teftimonies, concerning ventriloquifts:

Other authors of good credit, who flourished about the fame time, and later, affirm, that they themselves, among many others, had feen ventriloquifts, and heard them fpeak out of their bellies, and other part of their bodies.

"Aug. Eugabinus affirms, that he himself had feen fuch women, called ventriloquia (which is the fame with the Greek sylasp), from whom, as they fat, a voice came out of their fecret parts; and gave anfwers to enquiries. And Cælius Rhodiginus (lib. viii. Antiq. Lect. cap. 1o.) faith, this is not to be entertained with laughter; for not only he faw fuch a woman; and heard a very small voice coming out of her belly; but innumerable other people, not only at Rhodigium; but in a manner through all Italy. Among whom there were many great perfons, who had her ftript naked, that they might be fure there was nofraud; to whom a voice anfwered unto fuch things as they enquired. Hieron. Oleafter alfo, upon Ifaiah xxiv. 4, faith, he faw fuch a one at Lisbon; from under whose arm-holes, and other parts of her, a fmall voice was heard, which readily ahfwered to whatever was afked *.".

These are all grave writers, who lived not above two ages ago; and whofe teftimony has a right to be received by us, as it was by bishop Patrick; who gives his fanction to it. And what hath been, may be again.'

* Bishop Patrick's Comment on Lev. xix, 31.

What,