very great inattention to the language and design of ancient writers, or elfe of that kind of prejudice which admits of no cure.' We believe, that many perfons whofe attention and judgment are equal to Mr. Fell's, will ftill be of opinion, that Horace referred to the chief deity of the Heathen. Whether they or Mr. Fell be under the worse kind of prejudice, must be left to others to determine.

In the fequel of this chapter, he labours to prove, in oppofition to Mr. Farmer, that the Pagans never confounded their natural with their hero gods, or even affociated them together. His proofs are vague and inconclufive; but his affertions are as pofitive as if they had been fupported by demonftration.

The chapter clofes with the following paragraph, which we give our Readers as a fpecimen at once of the loose reasoning and of the illiberal fentiments of this writer.

Idolatry, indeed, is in its very nature the nurfe of vice; because it cannot exift without a denial of the ftrongest moral obligations. Nothing can be more repugnant to reason, and the first principles of natural religion. That which fetteth afide our moft folemn duties towards God, muft, in its confequences, be pernicious to the interefts of mankind; the religious worship therefore of any creature is the height of wickedness. Hence the extenfive influence of this crime, which was a continued oppofition to the light and dictates of nature, clearly proves all idolaters to have been void of true morality and religion. For if genuine virtue doth not include a refolute and steady obfervance of thofe facred duties which we owe to our Maker, it is an empty name, and not worth cultivating: if, indeed, we alfo understand by it, thofe higheft moral obligations which are due to God, then genuine virtue never can be found but in the exercise of pure religion, undefiled with idolatrous practices. To talk therefore of virtuous Heathens, if idolaters be meant, is an abfurdity, too great for language to exprefs!'

That idolatry and fuperftition have a tendency to corrupt the mind and manners, will readily be allowed; but that no virtuous characters are to be found amongst idolaters, is a pofition inconfiftent with the common ufe of words, with all just notions of human nature, and with the united teftimony of ancient and modern history.

The fecond chapter is entitled, The Testimony of Scripture concerning Heathen Gods. The defign of it is to prove, that the worship of dead men is never mentioned, or even referred to in the Old Teftament; that that kind of idolatry was not practifed in the neighbourhood of Judea, till after the time in which the books of the Old Teftament were written; and confequently, that the only deities to which the Jews and neighbouring nations facrificed, were the heavenly bodies, or thofe which

N 2

are

are called the natural and primary gods of the Heathen. To this end he first quotes a paffage from Deuteronomy, chap. iv. ver. 15-19, as defcribing the state of idolatry in the time of Moles. The generality of readers and commentators, we believe, are of opinion, that by the likeness of male or female, ver. 16. is intended, the likeness of man or woman: but Mr. Fell afferts, without hefitation, that Mofes, in this defcription of the idolatry of his own times, doth not even intimate that any of their emblematic figures were in the fhape of men.' In order to set aside the proofs, which Mr. Farmer has brought from the writings of the Old Teftament, that the Pagan deities were confidered as dead men, an interpretation different from that of the most eminent and learned commentators is put upon the paffages that he has quoted. In particular, the Hebrew word, Schedim, Deut. xxxii. 17. and Pfal. cvi. 37. is af ferted to fignify not deftroyers, as is generally imagined, but diftributers, feil. of good things. It might have been imagined, that the fingularity of this interpretation was fufficient to have infpired even Mr. Fell, with fome degree of modefty and diffi dence. On the contrary, he feems to rife in pofitiveness and affurance upon the occafion. 'But,' are his words,' he, that is, Mr. Farmer,' thus goes on: "the word fchedim, is derived from a verb which fignifies to lay wafte, to destroy, and ought to have been rendered the deftroyers. It expreffes the fuppofed cruel nature and character of thefe gods, who were thought to delight in, and who were accordingly worshipped by, the deftruction of the human fpecies, and who required, as appears from the context, even the blood of their fons and daughters." To this we anfwer with all brevity, that the word fchedim, is not derived from a verb which fignifies to lay wafte, and to destroy; that it ought not to have been rendered the defroyers; that it does not exprefs the fuppofed cruel nature of thofe falfe gods; and that it doth not refer to thofe mischiefs which they had formerly occafioned, but to those bounties which they were then thought to give.'

This, however, is but one inftance out of many, in which Mr. Fell has replied to Mr. Farmer in the fame concife and convincing manner.

Mr. Fell's principal arguments in fupport of his own opinion are, that whenever the particular objects of idolatrous worship in Judea or the neighbouring countries are specified in the Old Teftament, no others are mentioned than the fun, moon, planets, and hofts of heaven;' and that even the writers of the New Teftament are fo far from reprefenting all the Pagan deities as nothing but dead men, that they do not take any notice of the worship of deceased persons, even when reafoning with idolaters, where dead men were known to be worshipped.

-It might have occurred to him, that as the filence of the writers of the New Teftament is no proof that the worship of dead men had not obtained in their time; fo the filence of the writers of the Old Teftament is no proof that that kind of idolatry was not practifed in the age in which they lived. He tells us, indeed, that there were no facrifices offered to dead men in the days of Mofes; for the Grecian heroes, the first deified human fpirits, were not then even born: nor was that fuperftition ever practifed among the nations round Judea, during the time of any of the prophets; But for these things we have only his word: he has not vouchfafed to offer any proof of his affertions.

In the two next chapters, Mr. Fell proposes to confider the various application of the term, Damons, among the ancient Greeks, and by the facred penmen.' Thefe chapters are princi pally employed in combating Mr. Farmer's ideas and reafoning on the fubject. Mr. Fell's inquiry into the meaning of the term, as used by the ancient Greeks, is very fhort and indecifive: and we have not the fhadow of an argument to prove, that poffeffing demons were not confidered by them as human spirits converted into dæmons after death. With refpect to the facred writers, it is Mr. Fell's opinion, that the apoftles,' agreeably with the established and common ule of the word, as fignifying, intelligent natures in general, and more especially, beings fuperior to men, have applied it to fuch intelligent natures as are fuperior to mankind,' and particularly, to thofe malignant fpirits, the head of which is "Satan," &c.' that is, to the devil and his angels. With these two chapters the Inquiry properly ends.

The reft of the publication, which is by far the greater part of it, comprehending fix chapters, is taken up in answering the objections that have been alleged against the doctrine of poffeffions, and afferting the common notions of the agency and influence of angels both good and evil,' in the natural and moral world. Through the whole, we meet with more railing than reasoning: Mr. Farmer, his opinions and arguments, are treated with much fcorn and abuse; and the most unworthy practices and defigns are charged upon him, and other oppofers of dæmoniacal poffeffions. Mr. Fell (as well as his predeceffor, Dr. Worthington) feems to forget that all Chriftians are agreed, that the facts contained in the evangelical history are true. The matter in debate refpecting the prefent fubject is, what the facts were, or what is the fenfe and meaning of the language in which they are recorded. It is in vain, therefore, to quote text after text, in which dæmons are faid to be caft out, &c. The fame principles upon which we reject the literal fente of the phrafe, this is my body, will justify us in rejecting the

N 3

literal

literal fenfe of, the devils, or dæmons, went into the herd of fwine. Mr. Fell thinks otherwife. He understands the Mofaic account of the fall literally, the angels of God afcending and descending upon the Son of Man literally, and poffeffions by evil fpirits, that is fallen angels, literally. And with the fame reafon, he may believe, that Jacob wrestled with an angel literally, that God held two converfations with the Devil upon the character of Job, that Michael and his angels fought in heaven with the Dragon and his angels, or any other abfurdity that is founded upon a literal expofition of figurative expreffions, fcenical representations, or popular phrafeology. But his belief is to himfelf, and he has an equal right with every other man to ftate and defend it. It is the manner in which he writes to which we object, and which must be condemned by every one who reckons gentleness and meeknefs among the virtues. Mr. Farmer is injuriously ranked with Bolingbroke, Hume, and Dodwell; if he makes ufe of conditional expreffions, he is charged with drawing inferences from fuppofitions and conjectures; if he omits them, he is a dogmatist. They who reject Mr. Fell's ideas of angelical and diabolical agency, are pofitively afferted to contradict the Scriptures; and, ftrange as it may appear, are fufpected of a defign to overthrow men's faith in the wifdom and ftability of divine provi dence.' Mr. Fell, like other writers on the fame fide of the queftion, does not perceive, or will not acknowledge, any difference with refpect to the wifdom and goodnefs of the Supreme Governor, between admitting the power and influence of visible, and those of invifible beings, over our bodies and minds: he even afferts, that it is more confiftent with thofe perfections to afcribe the entrance and continuance of fin and mifery in the world to fuperior wicked fpirits, than to any original imperfection in human nature, or the influence of bad men in corrupting and oppreffing others. We shall give our readers a paffage or two upon this head, as a very favourable specimen of the Author's manner of writing and reafoning.

In oppofition,' fays he, to that account, which hath been fo often juftly urged from the Holy Scriptures, concerning the entrance of fin into this world, and the rife of human calamities, the following objections may, perhaps, have been alleged, "That the origin of evil, both natural and moral, is a fubject which hath employed, and hitherto perplexed, the greatest popers and divines in every age; and that fome judicious perfons will probably be of opinion, that the Mofaic history of the fall, however explained, is not a complete folution of it, or that, if it hath removed fome difficulties, there are others remaining." To this, or to any thing of the like import, if it fhould be pleaded, the following brief anfwer may be given, "That the Mofaic hiftory of the fall was never intended as a

folution

folution of the origin of evil, far lefs as a complete one, nor was it ever fo urged, that we know of, by any Chriftian divine; none, therefore, but either injudicious or uncandid perfons will reprefent the fubject in this light." Our bufinefs, at prefent, is with the following question, "Will any Christian divine take upon him to fay, that the account which is delivered to us by the facred penmen, concerning the introduction of natural and moral evil into this world, is not a just one?" According to the Holy Scriptures, neither human calamities, nor death, nor the evil paffions of men, are from the original conftitution of nature, but were brought into the world by that fin to which the Devil first feduced man. The history of the fall, the previous threatening of God in cafe of difobedience, and the fentence pronounced on Adam's tranfgreffion, together with the confequent alteration in the state of the world, and in the con dition of mankind, do all naturally lead us to a fource of hu man calamities very different from the original conftitution of nature. That account which is given us in the Bible, concerning the introduction of natural and moral evil among men, hath hitherto been received by Chriftians in general, as authentic; the principles and defign of the Gospel everywhere fuppofe its truth; there is nothing in it contradictory to human reason, or inconfiftent with our natural ideas of the divine perfections, for nothing injurious throughout the whole affair is attributed to the agency of God. The origin of evil is a fubject not within the comprehenfion of the human mind, because we are, at prefent, deftitute of thofe common principles without which a clear knowledge of the matter cannot be conveyed to us: if there were a proper medium through which fuch information could be given, we thould undoubtedly perceive, that God was no more the contriver and agent in the first rise of moral evil, than he was, according to the Scriptures, in the entrance of fin into this world.'

In the next paffage that we shall quote, Mr. Fell, after the load of abuse that he has thrown upon Mr. Farmer, in the preceding three hundred pages, and the many pernicious views and fentiments he has afcribed to him, many of which are afterwards repeated, generously acquits him of all bad intentions.

Far be it from us,' fays he, to impute any evil design to this writer; we doubt not, he really meant to ferve the caule of virtue, which he thought could not be more effectually done, than by removing every thing which appeared to him in the light of fuperftition. But we have a right to affirm, that in fupporting his hypothefis concerning Dæmoniacs, and in pointing out what he apprehends to be the true fource of human calamities, he urges thofe very arguments that have been fo often alleged both against the truth and neceffity of a revelation. In

N 4

deed,