to be the case of the youth described in the Gospel. His father represents him both as lunatic and sore vexed with a demon. He was what some modern physicians * call epileptic madt. He was not considered as being mad or vexed with a demon at all times, but only under the paroxysms of his epileptic disorder, which returned at the changes of the moon ‡. These observations serve to account for the language of the evangelists, both when they distinguish possessions from lunacies, and when they join them together as kindred disorders.

obscura est ratio; quia tum plenius cerebrum est humoribus; unde et tunc idonei magis qui a dæmone vexentur. Talis epilepticus ille qui a Matthæo, xvi. 14, lunaticus dicitur: Lucæ autem ix. 39 dæmoniacus vocatur. Hanc rem sic expressit Juvencus, 1. iii.

Nam cursus lunæ natum mihi demonis arte

Torquet."

Vossius on Idolatry, l. ii c. 19. p. 203. Stillingfleet, Orig. Sacr. p 166. See also Grotius on Matt. xvii. 15, and Mark ix. 27; and the citation from Lucian produced above, p. 48, note *. Pricæus, on Matt. iv. 24, in the 5th volume of the Critici Sach, p 8296, hath the following note: • Basil de fœneratoribus agens, Μηνιαίοι απαιτηται, ὥσπερ οἱ τως επιληψίας ποιούντες δαιμονες, κατα τας περιόδους της σελήνης τους πτωχοις

tro. Isiodorus Orig. iv. 7. de Epilepticis, hos vulgus lunaticos vocat, quòd per hunc cursum comitetur eos insania dæmonum."” *Mead, p. 46, 47.

† See Mead, p. 46. This learned writer observes concerning the lunatics of the Gospel, "li autem aut insani erant, aut insani simul et epileptici." Medica Sacra, p. 83. See above, p. 53, note +.

It is very observable, that our Saviour, in curing this young man, not only commanded the unclean spirit to come out of him, but also to enter no more into him. His afflicted father might have feared that his son's disorder, though it now suddenly ceased, might return at the next change of the moon. Our Saviour, therefore, in his great goodness, assures him it should return no more.

3. It may be observed further, that the reason which induced the antients to ascribe madness and epileptic fits to possession rather than other disorders, could not be that very general one commonly assigned, viz. that in the earliest ages men could not account for the epilepsy (for example) without having recourse to a supernatural agency. For, without having recourse to that agency, they could not account for the palsy, the leprosy, and other disorders, as was shown above. The true reason therefore must be drawn from the peculiar symptoms of the epilepsy, and certain kinds of madness, which were such as seemed to them to argue not a transient act of some evil spirit, or an effect produced in the human body all at once by his operation upon it; but his entrance into the body; his seizing the mind, thereby preventing the regular use of the rational faculties, and sometimes of the corporeal senses; and his causing the patient to speak and act under his direction. Now, these symptoms do not at all agree with other disorders, such as the palsy, the leprosy, and pestilence, which, nevertheless, were ascribed to the anger of the gods. It is a matter, however, of little importance, to determine precisely what the reason was of the antients ascribing either epileptic or maniacal cases, rather than other distempers, to demoniacal possession. The fact itself, with which alone we are concerned, is sufficiently established by the concurrent testimony of Pagans and Jews, and the writers of the New Testament. I will only add, that,

4. The account here given of demoniacs is confirmed

by

by the antient Christian writers, who describe demoniacs as persons disordered in their mind. Celsus, we have seen*, plainly supposes that Christians understood them to be such. And Justin Martyr, in express terms, says, "that those who are seized and thrown down by the souls of the deceased, are such as all men agree in calling demoniacs and mad." Eusebius represents Montanus as seized with possession and madness †. Indeed, all the demoniacs of the antient Christians were mad, melancholy, or epileptic persons.

* Page 62.

↑ Eccles. Hist. 1. v. c. 16. The following passages from Lactantius (Divin. Institut. 1. iv. c. 27. p. 345, 347. ed. Dufresnoy) fully explain the sentiments of the antient Christians, both concerning the demoniacs in their times, and those who were cured by Christ. "Nam sicut ipse (sc. Christus) cùm inter homines ageret, universos dæmones verbo fugabat; hominumque mentes emotas, et malis incursibus furiatas, in sensus pristinos reponebat: ita nunc, &c. Ecce aliquis instinctu dæmonis percitus, dementit, effertur, insanit.” Minucius Felix also (Octavius, c. 27.) gives the following account of those actuated by demons: "Hi sunt et furentes, quos in publicum videtis excurrere, vates et ipsi absque templo, sic insaniunt, sic bacchantur, sic rotantur.'

"

The proofs of this point, in that most learned and penetrating writer, Mr. Joseph Mede, p. 30, must not be here omitted, though they are also to be found in Wetstein, vol. i. p. 283. Canon. Apost. 79. σαν τις δαίμονα έχη, κληρικός μη γενέσθω. Balsamon in Can. thus explains what it is to have a demon: ὁ δαιμονιζομενος εστέρηται λογισμου και δια θέσεως. He afterwards calls the demoniac μαινομενον, and distinguishes μανιαν εκ διαλειμματος, aut διηνεκώς. Vide Chrysostomi Epist. προς Στα grigior dasporwvra. "Eum omnino affectum videbis prout quos nos melancholicos appellamus. Vide eundem de precibus in ecclesia pro energumenis." Homil. 4 et 5. De incomprehensibili Dei Natura, versusfinem, inter Sermones ad Pop. Antioch.

E 2

SECTION

SECTION VII.

Prop. VII. Demoniacal possessions (whether they are sup-. posed to be real or imaginary), and the disorders imputed to them, were not peculiar to the country of Judea and the time of Christ; nor doth it appear that they abounded more in that country, or at that time, than any other.

IT hath been confidently asserted, that there were no demoniacs, or not so many, amongst any other people as the Jews; nor amongst them but about our Saviour's time. Hence unbelievers (unhappily prejudiced against the Gospel by such misrepresentations of it) have asked, "How came it to pass, that the devil had more power over the worshippers of the true God, than over those who had renounced their allegiance to him? And how came the devil to exert his power at the appearance of his judge and avenger, rather than at any other time, when he might do it with more hopes of impunity? or, Can we regard Christ as the Saviour of mankind, if he gave the devil new powers to destroy them?"

In answering these objections, Christian writers, instead of inquiring into the truth of the fact, have chosen rather to take it for granted, and set themselves to account for it.

"There might be possessions in former times," say they, though there are none now. A greater liberty and power might be allowed the evil spirit in the age of Christ than in any other, on account of the intimate relation that demoniacal possessions have to the doctrine

of

of redemption*, and for other weighty reasons, such as the glory that accrued to God, and the testimony that wa borne to Jesus †, when Satan was cast out by a divine power." On this last account, one ‡ learned writer affirms, that "in the possession of the bodies of men he seems to have been, in part, FORCED upon the employment." Nevertheless, according to the same writer, there could have been no great backwardness on the part of the devil to torment mankind; for he says, "It would be strange could we find no marks of the rage of his expiring tyranny §.”

* Bishop Warburton's Serm. vol. iii. p. 229.

This

+ Id. p. 217. Dr. Macknight's Truth of the Gospel History, p. 169. Stillingfleet, Orig. Sacr. p. 166. This last very learned writer is at a loss to determine whether frequent possessions, at and after the time of Christ, were owing to the malice of the devil, in order to disparage the miracles of our Saviour, or to the providence of God, in order to augment his glory.

+ Warburton, p. 220, 221.

§ P. 217. Dr. Jortin thought (as Jenkins also did) that Providence suffered evil spirits to exert their malignant powers so much at that time, toive a check to Sadduceism amongst the Jews, and to Epicurean atheism amongst the Gentiles. Remarks on Ecclesiastica! History, vel. i. p. 14. In the 2d volume, p. 17, 18, he says that Christ cured possessed persons, to show that he came to destroy the empire of Satan, and to remove all suspicion of a confederacy with evil spirits. Semlerus likewise (p. 2, note 1) admits that the devil might then be allowed some unusual power: "Minime tam multos homines singulari quadam diaboli ipsius operatione male habitos fuisse.—Paucos autem-forte novo atque antea inaudito mali vehementis genere a diabolo vexatos fuisse; ut appareret, adversus Sadducæorum errorem," &c. See also p. 48, 49. The Scripture hath given no intimation of the devil's being allowed any unusual power in the age of the Gospel. As to possessions, to which our present inquiry relates, they are always

referred