THIE CASE OF SAUL, &c. But the Spirit of the Lord departed 66 from Saul, and an Evil-Spirit from "the Lord troubled him." xvi. 15. T 1 Sam. HE literal Meaning of this Text being rejected by the Author of a late "Essay on the Demoniacs of the "New Testament," we must have recourse to a comparative view of the context (which he seems to have neglected) in order to ascertain the real state of Saul's disorder. And we shall thereby be enabled to form a clearer judgment concerning the doctrine of Possess A Possessions and Spiritual Influence, which is so far from being foreign to the subject of the preceding tract, viz. "THE LAW OF NATURE and PRINCIPLES OF ACTION IN MAN," that without a competent knowledge of it the compound Nature of Man cannot be sufficiently understood, nor the principles of Human Actions properly investigated. The Opinions and Suppositions of the learned gentleman, whose labours have obliged me to examine the Case of Saul, are interwoven with much intricate sophistry, and are dispersed through, several other tracts besides that on Demoniacs, containing in all, more than 1,100 pages, so that I should too much exceed the proposed limits of my present undertaking were I to attempt a regular examination of them but, luckily for me, he has reduced my labour by referring the decision to a single Example; "for if you can prove the "the REALITY OF POSSESSION IN ONE "INSTANCE from the Language of Scrip ture," (says he, see note in p. 131) you may prove it in ALL.” And if such proof should really be produced, it will effectually confute the presumptive assertion of the same Author, which follows in the very next sentence-" And if (says he) you can "account for the scripture language 66 concerning POSESSIONS in' ANY in"stance, without allowing their reality, 66 you may account for them in EVERY "instance." This latter assertion therefore must fall of course, if the former be proved, because they are manifest contradictions, which cannot exist together. Now the Example already mentioned in the preceding Tract on the Law of Nature, &c. (see note in p. 190) concerning the Evil-Spirit from the "Lord" which "troubled" Saul, is the 66 ONE 66 ONE INSTANCE which I have chosen as › a proof of "THE REALITY OF POSSES→ "SION;" for this Example is of more consequence in the present dispute, perhaps, than any other; because the Author of "the Essay on the De"moniacs" has explained away the literal sense of the sacred Text where this fact is related, in order to secure from objection a contrary assertion. of his own concerning the evidence of the OLD TESTAMENT on THE DOCTRINE OF POSSESSIONS. With regard to the Prophets of THE OLD TESTAMENT, (says he) they stand clear from all "suspicion of countenancing the Doc"trine of REAL POSSESSIONS. It is not pretended that they ever expressly laught it. In all their writings, no "traces of it are to be found, no men"tion (says he) of a SINGLE IN STANCE of reputed possession, NOR "ANY ALLUSION. TO IT. For with re"gard to SAUL" (continues he)" of "whom 66 66 66 "whom we read, that AN EVIL-SPIRIT "FROM THE LORD TROUBLED HIM, it "is sufficient to observe, that the word "SPIRIT is often applied to THE TEMPER “ AND AFFECTIONS of the human mind; "and that the Jews were wont to call "all kinds of melancholy an Evil-Spirit. “Saul's disorder, therefore (says he) "was a deep melancholy," (p. 173, 174.)-By which he must mean a mere natural disorder, or "a deep Melancholy" void of any supernatural or spiritual influence, though he does not expressly say so; for otherwise the assertion would not answer the purpose of his argument in that place: but a view of the context will demonstrate that Saul was really disordered, by an EvilSpirit. The History of that Monarch, indeed, affords incontestable proofs of Supernatural Spiritual Influence (both Good, and Evil) on the human mind; so that Saul was really a very remarkable example of that compound nature of |