of LIBERTY, to the ingenious author of the ESSAYS on TASTE, and on GENIUS. SERMONS on the late General Faft, Feb. 27, 1778, continued: See our laft Number. XIII. At Peckham, in Surry. By R. Jones. 8vo. 6d. Dilly. Good fenfe, rational piety, and a jult conception of the true character of the times, are the diftinguishing marks of this difcourfe. That the author is a diffenter, will be apparent to all who shall pe rufe his fermon. He has a glance or two at the (fuppofed) imperfections in the Fox M for the day;-at the fupineness of men who accept any ting for a prayer to God, which their fuperiors give them; -and at fpiritual dignities, &c. all of which might, perhaps, have been spared, without injury to the compofition. XIV. In a Country Church, on the Fait Days, Dec. 13, 1776, and Feb. 27, 1778. 4to. I S. White. In this anonymous fermon, the author, in common with other Fastday preachers, infits much on divine judgments, or public punishments by providential afflictions; but wherefore it is that he has withheld his name, with that of the place where his difcourfe was delivered, may be matter of fpeculation to fome of his readers. Perhaps it is a prudential omiffion, on acconnt of fome gentle ftrictures on the great as well as the finaller finners of this country; but be this as it may, we, from certain figns and tokens infer, that he is not wholly unwilling to let the public understand that they are obliged, for the prefent performance, to the learned Archdeacon of St. Albans. ++ RURICOLA has been written to, according to his direction; but no answer having been received, it is feared the letter may, by. fome accident, have been wrong delivered. lib conftitution, the extent, and spirit of which our ancestors well underflood and felt: but there are too many of their defcendants who fem neither to feel nor comprehend them. Let us, however, be careful, while we combat the doctrines maintained by the advocates for the revolted colinies, left in difputing their rights, we give up. our own. The following cenfure is paffed on certain public measures:— "Wherefore then fhould the people of this nation be confident of the divine protection? are they not rather led to confider the reluctance of the colonies to the fupremacy of the British legislature as a juft retribution for the abolition of the King's fupremacy in a very great part of his Majefty's dominions in North America! in the eye of impartial juftice may not their open and avowed rebellion, their bold and infolent declaration of independency, be the natural and gradual refult of the manly refiftance of a free people fuffering under the iron rod of oppreffion, and bereft of their conftitutional rights? and what if confequences may very foon, perhaps at this very time, be produced in the Eaft, worn out under oppreffions, and almost exhausted by rapine, as unexpected and important to this nation as thofe which have lately. fprung up in the Western world!" THE MONTHLY REVIEW, Fot JUNE, ART. I. Letters the Rev. Dr. Worthington, in Anfwer to his late Publication, intitled, "An impartial Enquiry into the Cafe of the Gofpel Demoniacs." By Hugh Farmer. 8vo. 3 s. 6 d. fewed. Buckland. 1778. R. Worthington's Impartial Enquiry into the Cafe of the Gofpel Demoniacs, was written with fo illiberal a fpirit, and was in other refpects fo defective, that, at first, we apprehended it would not be deemed worthy of an answer. It fhould feem, however, that there were fome things advanced in it which deferved to be confidered; and Mr. Farmer, it appears, thought that certain parts of the fubject were capable of farther and fuller illuftration. Thefe circumftances have given rife to the prefent performance, which abounds with the fame acutenefs of reafoning, and the fame accuracy and extent of learning, that were difplayed by this Writer in his Efay on the De moniacs of the New Teflament. The letters are fix in number; and the firft of them is principally employed in expofing Dr. Worthington's ungenerous treatment of the advocates for the antidemoniac fyftem. In the fecond letter, Mr. Farmer enters upon the main question, and examines the arguments which the Doctor hath alleged, from the writings of the Heathens, from the writings of the Jews, from the language of Chrift and his apoftles, and from the fentiments of the primitive Chriftians, in favour of his own notion of poffeffing demons. Thefe arguments are fhewn to be groundlefs; the importance of determining the opinion of the ancients concerning poffeffing demons is maintained; and our Author vindicates himself from the abfurd reproach of feeming to have a great tenderness, and even a great veneration for these demons. Dr. Worthington is `pleafed to tell the world, that Vid. Review, Nov. 1777. VOL. LVIII. E e Mr. There Mr. Farmer hath made short work with the devil and his angels; and hath done more than all the exorcifts put together ever pretended to that he hath laid the devil, and all other evil fpirits; banished them out of the world, and in a manner destroyed their very existence. To this Mr. Farmer replies: may be much wit, but indeed, Sir, there is no truth in this language. I have never denied; nor could I, without great abfurdity, take upon me to deny, the exiftence of evil fpirits originally of a rank fuperior to mankind. And, as we are ignorant of the laws of the fpiritual world, it would be great prefumption to take upon us to determine the sphere of their operation. That they have no dominion over the natural world, which is governed by fixed and invariable laws, is a truth attested in the ampleft manner by reason, by revelation, and by our own experience. But the queftion is, whether poffeffions are referred to fallen angels, or to human fpirits. To fay they are referred to the latter, is by no means to banish the former out of the world. I do not remember, that Mede, or Sykes, or Lardner, were ever charged with, or even fufpected of, what you impute to me, and what you might, upon the fame grounds, have imputed to them.' In the third letter, Dr. Worthington's explication of demoniacal poffeffion is confidered; from which it appears that he hath no conception of its real nature, nor hath pointed out those peculiar fymptoms, on which the ancients founded their belief of it. Hence Mr. Farmer takes occafion to state the true notion of poffeffing demons, and to fhew upon what ground it was that demoniacs were anciently diftinguished from the difeafed, and even from lunatics. When poffeffions were diftinguished from difeafes; by the latter, the ancients meant fuch diseases as affect only the body, or imply fome diforder in the corporeal fyftem while the former fuppofed an alienation of mind, fuch as did not proceed from any diforder in the corporeal fyftem, but from the immediate prefence and agency of a demon. As to the diftinction made between poffeffions and lunatics, there is no difficulty in accounting for it. By demoniacs, fuch as were emphatically fo called, and without any farther description, the ancients always meant madmen, or poffeffed madmen. By lunatics they meant epileptics. The latter denomination expreffed the peculiar fymptoms of their diforder: the former was given them, because the paroxyfms and periods of it were fuppofed to be regulated by the moon. Mr. Farmer, in his fourth letter, comes to Dr. Worthington's principal argument in favour of the reality of demoniacal poffeffions, which is, that poffeffions and difpoffeffions are attefted as facts in the New Teftament. As this is the argument which the Doctor hath most laboured, and on which many others lay the the greatest ftrefs, our Author examines it with peculiar attention and, in the courfe of his reafoning upon the fubject, he thews, first, that the poffeffion and difpoffeffion of demons, as explained by Dr. Worthington, even fuppofing them to be real facts, are not, in their own nature, objects of fenfe; and therefore cannot be fupported by the teftimony of fense: fecondly, that the reality of poffeffions and difpoffeffions neither was, nor could fitly be, eftablished by the authority of Chrift and his apoftles, confidered as infpired and infallible perfons: and, thirdly, that the language of the New Teftament, relative to poffeffions, did always imply certain outward and fenfible fymptoms and effects; was ufed principally to exprefs those fymp toms and effects; and commonly without any other intention. Having ftated these things in a very diftinct and able manner, and having offered fome peculiar reasons for believing that poffeffions in the New Teftament denote only madnefs, without any reference to the cause from which it might proceed, Mr. Farmer goes on to fhew farther, in the fourth place, that the Evangelifts might defcribe the diforder and cure of demoniacs in the popular language, that is, by poffeffions and difpoffeffions, without making themfelves anfwerable for the hypothefis on which this language was originally founded. In fupport of this opinion, it is alleged, first, that it is cuftomary with all forts of perfons, to fpeak on many subjects in the popular language, though admitted to have been originally grounded on a falfe philofophy; and, fecondly, that it is certain, in fact, that the facred writers do, in feveral inftances, adopt the popular language, though grounded on opinions now known to be erroneous, without any defign of establishing the truth of thofe opinions. Part of what our ingenious Writer hath here advanced, we fhall lay before our Readers: It was generally fuppofed by the ancients, that the earth was placed in the centre of the univerfe; and that the fun, the planets, and the fixt ftars, did all move round the terraqueous globe in twenty-four hours. On the other hand, the true fyftem of the world fuppofes the diurnal and annual motions of the earth, while the fun rests in the centre of the planets that furround him. Nevertheless, in direct contradiction to this fyftem, the facred writers af fert both the immobility of the earth, and the motion of the fun. God laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be moved for ever. The fun rifeth; and goeth down, and hafteth to the place where be arofe: he cometh forth out of bis chamber, bis going forth is from the end of heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it. Many other expreffions in fcripture relative to the fun, contradi&t the doctrine of modern philofophers. Accordingly when this doctrine was published, or rather republished, to the world by Copernicus, and confirmed by others, it provoked the rage of bigotry as much as the antidemoniac fyftem E e 2 can can do. Twice was the famous Galilei charged with herefy, and committed to the prifon of the holy office, for maintaining that the earth was not, and that the fun was, in the centre of the world; and for contradicting the fcriptures by both thefe propofitions. Pope Urban the Fighth, at whose infligation the Copernican tenets were condemned by the inquifition, might argue in fome fuch manner as you have done in reference to poffeffions. "Galilei," might his holinefs fay," makes the facred writers both deny what is true, and affirm what is falle; which is the fouleft indignity that could be offered them. The Saviour of the world hindelf afferts it as a fact, that Ged cauferh his fun to rije. This fact is confirmed by the testimony of fenfe, as well as by the authority of an infallible teacher. But Galilei withstands this plain declaration of a fact; and, in flat contradiction to Chrift, fays, God does not cause the fun to rife. Now, if Chrift reprefents God as doing, what he does only in fhew, I do not know how he could be vindicated, if he were accused of being no more than a juggling impoftor. If he was mittaken in this inftance, how fhall we know when we may give him credit? His credit, and that of all the prophets, must be held facred and inviclable, for the sake of the great truths they deliver; and which, if impaired in fome refpe&s, will be expofed to the like treatment in others. Now, Sir, return a just answer to this reafoning of the Pope against Galilei, and you will thereby refuse your own reafoning against the author of the Effay. It might, with much reafon, I apprehend, be replied to his holiness, "that the prophets of God never received, nor profeffed to have received, any fupernatural inftruction on any points of philofophy;. at leaft, not on thofe points, on which they exprefs thenfelves in conformity to erroneous fyllems of it: and, confequently, that our judgment on fuch fubjects is not to be determined by their modes of fpeaking. Nor have thefe divine. meffengers profefedly taught any erroneous principles of philofophy; not even as their own private opinion, though many incidental expreflions are accommodated to that falfe philofophy which prevailed in their time." Now, this, we have feen, is precifely the cafe with refpect to poffeffion. It is not included in the fupernatural inftruction of the first founders of Chriflianity. Accordingly, they never teach it as a doctrine; nor do they affert it as their own private opinion, though they adopt the vulgar language concerning it. It might be replied farther to Pope Urban, that the facred writers had just the fame reafon, as all other perfons had, for ufing' technical terms, without making themselves anfwerable for the falle opinions that firft gave rife to them." Why do Proteftants, who have no faith in Popifh faints, as well as Papifts who have, ftill affirm concerning any one, that he has St. Anthony's fire; or that he has St. Vitus's dance? Why do even thofe physicians who deny the influence of the moon over the diftemper called lunacy, nevertheless, affirm concerning certain patients, that they are lunatic? Why do thofe who laugh at the notion of the incubus or night mare being an intelligent agent, as well as Dr. Worthington, who very gravely defends it, ftill use the terms to express a bodily indifpofition? Wherefore, to this very day, do aftronomers, that have adopted the fyftem of Copernicus, fpeak of the fun as rifing, fetting, and moving? Be caufe |