enjoyment of them, intended to make them one of the most powerful principles of our activity. "No paffion produces greater changes in man: its empire extends even to brutes. The timid animal that trembles at the approach of another that is even weaker than itself, becomes animated by love. At the command of love he ftops, fhakes off every fear, attacks and defeats his equals, or even his fuperiors in ftrength. There are no dangers, no labours by which love can be difmayed. It is the fpring of life. In proportion as its defires die away, man lofes his activity; and by degrees, death deprives him of every other fenfation. "Corporeal pleature and pain are the real and only springs of alk government. We do not properly defire glory, riches, and honours, but the pleaferes only of which glory, riches, and honours, are the reprefentatives; and whatever men may fay, while we give the workman money that he may drink, to excite him to labour, we must acknowledge the power that the pleasures of the fenfes have over us.” In fine, our author's doctrine is that "Man is a machine; which being put in motion by corporeal fenfibility, ought to perform all it executes. It is the wheel, that moved by a torrent, raises the piftons, and with them the water defigned to be thrown into the bafon prepared to receive it.”—But neither is the affertion true or the allufion apt; if, by man's being a machine, we adopt the ideas of the materialift. If Man be confidered as a machine, it fhould be rather as a spiritual than a material one. His principle of action is innate, and does not proceed from the external caufes that excite his corporeal fenfibility. There is a wide difference between the love of pleafure and averfion to pain, the general motive of all his actions, and his acquired attachment to, or defire after, particular pains and pleasures, arifing from his corporeal fenfibility. The former is a metaphyfical principle independent of experience, the latter a phyfical motive derived from habit. Man is a felfmoving wheel, poffeffed of an internal principle of motion; and not a wheel moved by an external torrent, as our author fuppofes. External caufes, indeed, more powerful than his innate principle of action, may counteract and even over-power fuch principle: but they are not, therefore, the fole cautes of his action. The voluntary motion of a man, in walking, may be checked; nay he may be involuntarily carried a contrary way, by the force of the wind, water, or other means: but are we, therefore, to conclude his voluntary motion equally mechanical? Surely not! (To be continued.) A Tra A Tract on the Law of Nature and Principles of Action in Man. (Continued from p. 256.) Having afferted the actual existence of the devils, our author proceeds to illuftrate their efficacy and mode of action. Thefe he confines to human beings only; the brutes, he observes, having never been fubject to fpiritual delufions, or to be actuated by infernal fpirits, fince the time that the ferpent deceived our firft parent. His remarks on this head, turning on the fubject of fuicide, are fomewhat fingular. "How common is it for Men to lift their hands against their own life, and deliberately to exclude themfelves from all poffibility of repentance? It must be allowed indeed, that real 'Madness, or Lunacy, and other natural diftempers and phrenzies, are frequently the Prin ciples of Action which occafion Suicide; but we have too many inftances of deliberate Self murder, wherein no fuch natural caufes can with juf tice be alledged, though generally affigned by the coroner's juries, through a falfe notion of mercy, which inclines them to adopt the erroneous maxim, that "all Men are mad who kill themselves." But nothing is more falfe! "If the Brute Creat on were equally liable to voluntary deaths, Suitide might with more probability be attributed to natural caufes only, as they are almost equally liable to diffempers; but herein appeas a ca pital distinction between Human Nature and that of Brutes. None of the BRUTE CREATION ever violate the univerfal Principle of SELFLOVE, which the Divine Author of Nature has given them for their prefervation! And though MAN is alfo endowed with the fame Prin ciple, as I have already fhewn, yet the very BRUTES make fo much better ufe of it than MAN, that in them we diftinguish the fame Principle, even by another name, and call it INSTINCT- -an INSTINCT of Self prefervation-an Inftinct, because it is never violated. How are we to account for this feeming Superiority in the BRUTES? Why fhould HUMAN NATURE be more fubject to Depravity than they are? MAN, who, in addition to that natural light with which he was endowed at the time of his creation, has fince acquired an additional power of difcernment and prudence for his prefervation, even a Divine Knowledge of GooD and EVIL, that he " may know how to refuse the EVIL, and chufe the GOOD;" and yet is in general infinitely more depraved than the very BRUTES! Let any reafonable Man confider how impoffible it is, by natural caufes, to account for fo extraordinary a circumftance! That MAN, endowed with fuch a fuperiority of Know ledge for SELF-PRESERVATION, and alfo endowed with Self-love in common with the rest of the creation, fhould yet be fubject to fuch monitrous depravity, as to lofe all sense of both, while the BRUTES are never known to violate that univerfal Principle, Self-love! except it be for a reasonable caufe, that they risk their own lives in defence of their young, to preferve their fpecies, or through gratitude, as dogs will defend their masters, which furely is no depravity! To what extraordinary cause then shall we attribute this very fingular fuperiority of BRUTES in a circumstance fo neceffary to happiness. The caufe is obvious, BRUTES have never been fubject to fpiritual delufions, or to be actuated by infernal Spirits, fince the time that the ferpent deceived our first parents!" Mr. Sharp, indeed, is not unaware of the celebrated inftance, fet forth in the Goffel, in which the devils entered into the herd of fwine; which leads him to the confideration of the cafe of the Gadarene demoniacs! "There is no inftance, I believe, fince that time, of brutes being really actuated by evil fpirits, except one; and that was (be pleafed to obferve) by exprefs permiffion of our Lord himself, viz. when the Devils entered into the fwine by the lake of Gennefareth. For it appears, that the demons had no power to enter into the animals, till our Lord had exprefsly granted it: for- the devils befought him, faying, "If thou caft us out, fuffer us to go away into the herd of twine, and "he faid unto them, Go." The permiffion being thus gained, the animals immediately acquired a new "Principle of Action," too limi lar to that which actuates poor abandoned finners among Men (as when the devil entered Judas, and led him, not only to betray his Lord, but to punish the horrid treason with his own hands, contrary to every conceivable natural Principle of Action) fo the unhappy brutes by Gennefareth were no fooner fubjected, like mankind, to the bondage of infernal fpirits, than they immediately loft that principle of felf-love, which in them (because never violated but at this particular time) is called Inftinét; and by the immediate confequence of that lofs, they have afforded us a notable example of the baneful effects of diabolical infpiration." To this paffage our author fubjoins, in a very long note, a reply (if we may fo call it) to Mr. Farmer's Effay on the Demoniacs, as well as to his tract on our Saviour's temptation in the Wildernefs.-Now, as thefe tracts have lately much engaged the attention of theological readers, we fhall, apologizing for our incapacity to make a fatisfactory abstract, give an extract of the whole note. "This particular cafe of the Gadarene Demoniacks has been violently attacked by the oppofers of the common received doctrine concerning the reality of demoniacal poffeffions. Three very eminent and learned men among them, for inftance, have endeavoured to accommodate to their own notions the evangelical history of this matter, and by the failure of their feveral attempts have proved, that the literal meaning of the terms in which the Evangelifts have related the feveral circumftances of that cafe (and no lets than three Evangelifts out of the four have mentioned it) cannot poffibly be fet afide, without railing up in its ftead the most glaring abfurdities; One of thefe gentlemen (notwithstanding his own errors) has very fully and juftly cenfured the miferable fhift to which the other two learned men were reduced, in attempting to defend their own groundless hypothefis, VOL. VI. "A farther argument (fays he) in favour of real poffeffions, is taken from the deftruction of the herd of fwine, which the Demons are ⚫ faid to have entered, and stimulated to instantaneous madnefs. This cafe is confidered by fome' continues he as a decifive proof of the power of Demons, both over the human and brutal race, and is thought even to have been purpofely defigned by Providence to refute the oppofite opinion. To enervate this argument, Dr. Sykes fuggefied, and Dr. Lardner firenuoufly contended, that the fwize were frighted by the two madmen, and fo driven down the pitci 'pice into the fea. On the other hand' (fays he) the advocates for The common hypothefis infift upon it, (to my apprel ention' [con tinues he] with great reafon,) that it was impoffible for two men, however fierce, to put fo vaft a herd of fwine as two thousand into motion in an infant, and to caule them all to rush with violence down a precipice into the fea; fwine, contrary to the nature of most other animals, running different ways when they are driven. But this part of the controverfy might well be spared; it not appearing from the hitt ry, that the men ever fell upon the herd, or made any attempt to drive them into the fea. Nay, the hittery exprefly refers their deftruction to a different caule from the behaviour of the madmen, An Efay on the Demoniacks of the New Teftament. p. 280, 281. Many other infurmountable objections are alledged by the fame inge nious writer, and may be feen at large in pages 283 to 290, if what I have already quoted fhould not be thought amply fufficient to confute the groundlefs fuppofition of the other two learned men. And he very justly concludes thereupon- For thefe reafons,' fays he, I cannot accede to the opinion of thofe learned writers, who afcribe the def⚫truction of the fwire to the malmen.' But then (unfortunately for himielt) he immediately adds Neither' fays he, can I fee any juft, ground for afcribing it to the agency of Demons.' p. 291. "He tells el'ewhere, that what is call d the ejection of demons, is the cafe of a natural diforder,' p 18 and 189- that there never was, nor can be, a teal Demoniack,' p. 240- that the Demoniacks fpoken of in the New Testament were all either madmen or epilep ticks,' Prop. vi, p. 9a.-And, with refect to the particular caie be 'fore us, he alerts, that all that can be inferred from their' (the Evangelifis) faying,' that "the demons came out of the men, and "entered into the herd of fine," is, that the madnels of the former * was transferred to the latter, in the fame fenfe as "the leprofy of "Naanan was to cleave to Gehazi, and to his feed for ever." p. 292 He allows, however, what a learned writer', fays he, contends for, that in the cafe before us,' __“ the power of imaginition could have no "place." It was never faid, that the fwine fancied theinfelves poifel- ́ fed; their diforder, I admit,' fays this author, was real, but not therefore demoniacal. So great a miracle as that wrought upon them,' continues he, can be afcribed to no other agency than that of God.' p. 293. ་ ८ Certain it is, that no created being whatfoever, whether good or evil, visible or invifible, can have any power to act without the knowledge and permiflion of the Almighty; but, at the fame time, we mult remember, that there is a very material difference between "the 66 agency ་ agency of God," and the permiffion of God.-God is, indeed, said to do what he only permits, as I have ellewhere remarked (fee notes in pages 134 to 137) and he fometimes grants his permiffion to very unworthy agents, both fpiritual and temporal, which act with views and intentions very oppofite to the actual purposes of God, that are really effected by their actions; for the hiftories of all nations fufticiently testify, that even the vices and malicious difpofitions of the enemies both to God and man, are frequently permitted to act as inftruments of divine vengeance (fee my Tract on the Law of Retribution, pages 125, 184, and elsewhere) to promote the eternal justice, and glory of the Almighty, as he alone can bring good out of evil. But in all fuch cales, wherein there is manifest evidence of evil in the production of events, though the fame are certainly by the fufferance or permiflion of God, yet it would be highly injurious to truth to afcribe the agency to God. In the cafe before us concerning the Gadarene Demoniacks, the permiffion and the agency are clearly diftinguished by the Evangelifts in the most exprefs rerms. So the demons befought him, faying, if thou caft us out, fuffer us to go away into the herd of fwine. And 'he faid unto them, Go.' Matth. viii. 31, 32 And all the demons befought him, faying, Send us into the wine, that we may enter into them. And forthwith Jefus gave them leave. Mark v. 12.And they (the demons) befought him (Jeius) that he would fufier them to enter into them' (the herd of swine) and he suffered them! Luke viii. 32. 6 "Thus the Divine Permiffion is clearly and distinctly declared; and the fame faithful hiftorians leave us as little room for doubt concerning the agents in this matter: for, when they (the demons) were come out, they entered into the fwine: and behold, the whole herd of fwine ran violently down a fleep place into the fea, and perished in the waters' Matth. viii. 32. And the unclean fpirits went out, and entered into the fwine, and the herd ran violently down a fieep place, &c.' Mark v. 13.-Then went the Demons out of the man, and entered into the fwine: and the herd ran violently down,' &c. Luke viii. 33. "Here is the most exprefs evidence of three Evangelifts, that demons, or unclean fpirits, entered into he fwine; and the confequences of that entering are as clearly noted;-the animals rushed headlong to their own apparent deftruction! A circumflance which was never known to happen, either before or fince that time, to any brute animals whatfoever; fo that it is unreasonable to attribute that fingular deprivation of natural instinct in brutes to “a natur ad disorder," because the circumitances of it mult neceffarily be allowed to have been totally unnatural to brutes; though with mankind, alas! it is far otherwife; for we have almost daily examples of men that are absolutely actuated with the fame violent delire to rush headlong out of the world! But the reafon of this remarkable difference between men and brutes I have already (I hope) fufficiently explained. "Now, if it is unreasonable to attribute this fingular destruction of brute animals to a natural diforder, it is much more unr afonable, nay, it will appear profane and blafphemous to fay, that it can be X X 2 fcribel |