DEMONIAC. 
In the execution of his pm'pofcs: he may either com- 
miffion an angel, or let loofe a devil; as well as bend the 
human will, or communicate any particular impulfe to 
matter. All that revelation makes known, all that hu¬ 
man reafon can conjefture, concerning the exiftence of 
various orders of fpiritual beings, good and bad, is per¬ 
fectly confident with, and even favourable to, the doc¬ 
trine of daemoniacal polFefiion. It is not however to be 
diftembled, that fome ingenious divines have conceived 
thofe perfons, who are called deemoniacs, to be merely 
lunatics and epileptics. Their reafoning on the fubjett 
is to this effect: The Greeks and Romans of old, fay 
they, did believe in the reality of daemoniacal pofleffion. 
They fuppofed that fpiritual beings did at times enter 
into the Ions or daughters of men, and diftinguifii them- 
lelves in that fituation by capricious freaks, deeds of 
wanton mifehiefj or prophetic enunciations. But in the 
inftances in which they fuppofed this to happen, it is 
evident that no fuch thing took place. Their accounts 
Ol the (late and conduct of thofe perfons whom they be¬ 
lieved to be poflefled in this fupernatural manner, (how 
plainly that what they aferibed to the influence of de¬ 
mons were merely the effects of natural difeafes. What¬ 
ever they relate concerning the larvati, the cerriti, and 
the lymphatici , (hows that thefe were merely people dif- 
ordered in mind, in the fame unfortunate fituation with 
thofe madmen and idiots and melancholy perfons whom 
we have among ourfelves. Feftus deferibes the larvati 
as being funofi et viente moti. Horace fays, 
Hdlo.de percuffd , Marius cum pracipitat fe , 
Cerritus fuit? 
Plato, in his Timaeus, fays, Ovoei; ya,/> b me? B@a.7rrcrui 
fjcavriK'/tq bhQiovk, aAvjfiotLucian deferibes dasmoniacs 
as lunatic, and as flaring with their eyes, foaming at the 
mouth, and being fpeechlefs. 
It appears (till more evidently, that all the perfons 
fpoken of as poflefled with-devils in the New Teftament, 
were either mad or epileptic, and precifely in the fame 
condition with the madmen and epileptics of modern 
times. The Jews, among other reproaches which they 
threw out againff our Saviour, faid, “ He hath a devil, 
and is mad ; why hear ye him ?” The exprefilons “ he 
hath a devil, and is mad,” were certainly ufed on this 
occafion as fynonymous. With all their virulence, they 
would not furely aferibe to him at once two things that 
were inconfiftent and contradidtory. Thofe who thought 
more favourably of the character of Jefus, aflerted con¬ 
cerning his difeourfes, in reply to his adverfaries, “ Thefe 
are not the words of him that hath a daemon meaning, 
no doubt, that he fpoke in a more rational manner than 
a madman could be expedted to fpeak. The Jews ap¬ 
pear to have aferibed to the influence of daemons, not 
only that fpecies of madnefs in which the patient is raving 
and furious , but alfo melancholy madnefs. Of John, who 
fecluded himfelf from intercourfe with the world, and 
was diftinguifhed for abftinence and adts of mortification, 
they faid, “ He hath a daemon.” The youth, whofe 
father applied to Jefus to free him from an evil fpirit, 
deferibing his unhappy condition in thefe words, “Have 
mercy on my fon, for he is lunatic and fore vexed with 
a daemon; for oft times he falleth into the fire, and oft 
into the water,” was plainly epileptic. Every thing in¬ 
deed that is related in the New Teftament concerning 
daemoniacs, proves that they were people affedted with 
fuch natural difeafes as are far from being uncommon 
among mankind in the prefent age. When the fymptoms 
of the diforders cured by our Saviour and his apoflles as 
cafes of daemoniacal pofleffion, correfpond fo exadtly 
with thofe of difeafes well known as natural in the pre¬ 
fent age, it would be abfurd to impute them to a fuper- 
natural caufe. It is much more confident with common 
fenfe and found philofophy to fuppofe, that our Saviour 
and his apoflles wifely, and with that condefcenfion to 
She weaknefs and prejudices of thofe with whom they 
Vol. V. No. 295. 
561 
converfed, which fo eminently diftinguifhed the charac¬ 
ter of the Author of our holy religion, and muft always 
be a prominent feature in the character of the true 
Chriftian, adopted the vulgar language in fpeaking of 
thofe unfortunate perfons who were. groundlefsiy ima¬ 
gined to be poffefled with demons, though they well 
knew the notions which had given rife to fuch mode.s 
of expreflion to be ill-founded, than to imagine that 
difeafes, which arife at prefent from natural caufes, were 
produced in days of old by the intervention of daemons, 
or that evil fpirits full continue to enter into mankind in 
all cafes of madnefs, melancholy, or epilepfy. Bolides, 
it is by no means a fufficient reafon for receiving any 
doctrine as true, that it has been generally received 
through the world. Error, like an epidemical difeafe, 
is communicated from one to another. In certain cir- 
cumftances, too, the influence of imagination predomi¬ 
nates, and reftrains the exertions of reafon. Many falfe 
opinions have extended their influence'through a very- 
wide circle, and maintained it long. On every fuch oc¬ 
cafion as the prefent, therefore, it becomes us to inquire, 
not fo much how generally any opinion has been receiv¬ 
ed, or how long it has prevailed, as from what caufes it 
has originated, and on what evidence it refts. 
When we contemplate the frame of nature, we behold 
a grand and beautiful fimplicity prevailing through the 
whole. Notwithftanding its immenfe extent, and though 
it contains fuch numberlefs diverlities of being, yet the 
fimpleft machine conftructed bydtuman art does not dill- 
play eafier fimplicity, or an happier connexion of parts. 
We may therefore venture to draw an inference, by ana¬ 
logy, from what is obfervable of the order of nature in 
general to the prefent cafe. To permit evil fpirits to 
intermeddle with the concerns of human life, would be 
to break through that order which the Deity appears to 
have eftablifhed through his works; it would be to in¬ 
troduce a degree of confufion unworthy of the wifdom 
of Divine Providence. 
In giving this large abftraA from the writings of thofe 
authors, who contend that “ Dasmoniacs” imply per¬ 
fons afflicted either with epilepfies, or lunacy, and not 
“ poflefled by evil fpirits,” we have been directed by 
that candour, w ith which we are delirous of paying am¬ 
ple attention to the arguments of both (ides. From the 
fame principle however we may be allowed to obferve, 
that no fpeculative difficulties can outweigh pofitive 
fadts; and, that the fa£t, viz. “whether perfons were or 
were not actually poflefled by evil fpirits,” muft be de¬ 
termined by the exprefs word of Scripture. The Gofpel 
of St. Matthew at once decides the queftion. For in ch. iv. 
v. 24, we read, “ They brought unto him all fick perlons, 
that w'ere taken with divers difeafes and torments, and 
thofe which were poflefled with devils, and thofe which 
were lunatic, and thofe which had the palfy.” Here we 
have a diftindt enumeration of diforders; and a particular 
mention of daemoniac pofleffion, as one feparate and dif¬ 
ferent from all others. St. Luke, in his Gofpel, ch. iv. 
v. 33, relates, “ There was in their fynagogue a man, 
which had an unclean devil.” On which words Dodd¬ 
ridge remarks : “ It is well known, that a late and learn¬ 
ed writer hath revived the notion, long fince maintained 
by Mr. Jofeph Mede and Dr. Bekker, that thefe fup¬ 
pofed daemoniacs were only lunatics or epileptics. But 
on the moft impartial perufal of what has palled between 
him and his learned antagonifts, I am fully convinced, 
that there is no fufficient reafon for departing from the 
received interpretation; and I fhould think this ftory 
alone a convincing proof on the fide of it. It is molt 
incredible, that an Evangclijl fhould have been left to 
aferibe this man’s diforder to the Jpirit of an unclean Damon, 
if it were only lunacy or the falling-fckncfs ; or that a Phy~ 
feian, of common fenfe, fhould fpeak of it as a memora¬ 
ble circumftance, that fuch a diflcmper did not hurt a man 
by leaving him.” It is probable that Kypke had this 
paflage of St. Luke in view, among feveral others, 
7 D wheat 
