the Rife and Progrefs of the Colonies of South Carolina and Georgia," that a frolling Moravian preacher came to Carolina, to the family of Dutartres, and filled their heads with wild and fantattic ideas, which produced mifchiefs, for which three perfons were defervedly hanged in 1724. Now it happens, that none of the Moravian Brethren, whatever nonfenfe they may be accufed of, ever came to Carolina, till ten years after that date, at leaft. Mr. Garden, on whofe exatnefs the Author of that book relies, may, in 1738, have heard of a Moravian being at Puryburg, and confounded his ideas. Certain it is, that none of the Moravian Brethren were in Carolina fo early; nor could I ever learn that any of them were ufed to spread Jacob Behmen's books, whatever their merit or demerit may be.

Feb. 5, 1780.

I am, Gentlemen, yours, &c.

AN OLD CORRESPONDENT.

It I fee in your Monthly Review for Jan. 1780, an account of an Article in the Philofophical Tranfactions, relating to a machine which Mr. Le Cerf, watchmaker at Geneva, pretends to be the inventor of. It was not of his invention; Mr. Louis Preudhomme,` of Geneva, was the inventor. Le Cerf arrogated to himfelf the invention of an inftrument he does not even underftand, but has fpoiled. Some papers relative to this machine, are in the hands of the Prefident of the Royal Society, and I believe Lord Mahon has, fince the communication of Le Cerf's paper to the Royal Society, been informed by fome of his friends at Geneva, of the true ftate of the facts relative to this machine; but I know not whether the Royal Society, confiftent with its ufages, can now do any thing in the matter. When the Tranfactions of the Geneva Society of Arts fhall appear, the fact with regard to Le Cerf will, I am informed, be fet in its true light. However, I fhould hope, Lord Mahon will, if. he has received true and fatisfactory information, give it to the Royal Society. I am, Gentlemen, yours.

Feb. 6, 1780.

J. H.

§i§ In answer to an application which we have received, relative to a paffage in our Review for laft month; we need only refer our Correfpondent to the late publications of Dr. Priestley, for inftructions relating to the methods of imitating, and even excelling, with respect to their medical qualities, the waters of Spa, and others of that clafs.

1 Dr. FRANKLIN's Political and Miscellaneous Pieces in our next. Alfo Mr. FELL'S Demoniacs.

* The defgn of a General Index to all the volumes of The Monthly Review, is poftponed for the prefent.

An accident has prevented Mr. Hey's Letter from appearing in this Month's Review. It will be given in our next.

THE

MONTHLY REVIEW,

For MARCH, 1780.

ART. I. Damoniacs. An Enquiry into the Heathen and the Scripture Doctrine of Dæmons. In which the Hypothesis of the Rev. Mr. Farmer. and others on this Subject, are particularly confidered. By John Fell. 8vo. 5 s. Boards. Dilly. 1779.

WHE

7HEN we began to read the preface to this publication, we flattered ourselves that we were about to peruse, at leaft, a candid difcuffion of the fubject mentioned in the title.. We fufpected, however, before we had finished it, that we were miftaken and now that we have gone through the whole work, we find ourselves obliged to confider Mr. Fell as a prejudiced and conceited writer, whofe performance is equally de ficient in judgment and in candour. We have had occafion, heretofore, to reprove Mr. Fell for his pertnefs and arrogance; but he has not profited by our admonition. In his prefent publication, Mr. Farmer is treated with an air of fuperiority and contempt; which would have been unjuftifiable, even if Mr. Fell had been as much fuperior to Mr. Farmer, with refpect to judgment and learning, as Mr. Farmer is to moft writers on this contraverted fubject. The opinions of this Author are, in general, advanced with the confidence of infallibility, and the principles and spirit of those against whom he writes, are arraigned and condemned with equal feverity and prefumption. Mr. Fell has yet to learn, that modefty and humility are qualities neceffary to give a writer of his moderate abilities and attainments a claim to attention, and that judicious inquirers will not take confident affertions for conclufive arguments, but will ever fufpect the foundness of that writer's judgment, and the goodness of his caufe, who, inftead of proving that the fyftem which he oppofes is not well founded, is perpetually declaiming on its tendency and confequences, and inveighing against its

abettors.

VOL. LXII.

The greater part of the publication before us is little more than a vehement declamation upon the tendency and confequences of denying the agency and influence of fuperior evil beings in the natural and moral world. To affert, that the world is under the fole government of God, and that no other Being has any power or dominion over the course of nature, is prepofterously reprefented as ftriking at the foundation of both natural and revealed religion. The Reader may judge by the following inftance, how well qualified our Author is, critically to examine, and fairly to ftate, the opinions of others.

Near the beginning of his firft chapter, the defign of which is to prove, that the greatest part of those Deities to whom the Heathens facrificed, were by them confidered as exifting prior to the creation of man,' he has quoted a paffage from the beginning of Hefiod's Theogony, containing a poetical and allegorical account of the origin of the immortals always exifting, and of the earth in its prefent form, &c. In his remarks upon it, he fays, among other things, The ancient Greeks acknowledged one Supreme Deity, the Creator of the universe, whom they confidered as incapable of any evil, and to whom they afcribed every perfection, while, at the fame time, they worshipped a multitude of other gods as intelligent beings, fuperior to the nature of human fouls; and thought thefe deities to have been brought into being by the First Cause, along with the different parts of nature, prior to the existence of man. This is evident from thofe paflages in Hefiod's Theogony, which we have just quoted.'

Without inquiring into the truth of this obfervation, which may easily be contraverted, we have only to remark, that in the paffages quoted from Hefiod, no mention is made of a Supreme Deity, the Creator of the univerfe, incapable of evil, and poffeffed of every perfection,' or of any First Cause, by whom other deities were brought into being.' Mr. Fell has feveral times in this chapter repeated this title, the Creator of the Univerfe, as given by the Heathen to their chief deity, but has not produced a fingle paffage from any of their writers in support of his affertion. Ovid's Ille Opifex Rerum-Mundi Fabricator, will bear no fuch interpretation. It is doubtful at least, whether even those philofophers, who allowed that the world had a beginning, had any proper idea of a creation. Mr. Fell is confident that they had, and arrogantly declares, that to affert that he is called,' in a paffage not quoted, the fource of nature, who had once been a man, and that,' in another, he is reprefented as being filled with terror, whom the Heathens confidered as the Creator of the Universe, must be evident proof, either of

*Hor. lib. iii. Od. 4. v. 42, &c.

very great inattention to the language and defign of ancient writers, or else 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 worfe 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 exist without a denial of the strongest 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 highest moral obligations which are due to God, then genuine virtue never can be found but in the exercife 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 position inconfiftent with the common ufe of words, with all just notions of human nature, and with the united teftimony of ancient and modern hiftory.

The fecond chapter is entitled, The Teftimony 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 those 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 ftate 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 hesitation, that Mofes, in this description 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 fet afide 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 destroyers, 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 diffidence. 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 answer with all brevity, that the word fchedim, is not derived from a verb which fignifies to lay wafte, and to deftroy; that it ought not to have been rendered the deftroyers; that it does not exprefs the supposed cruel nature of thofe falfe gods; and that it doth not refer to those 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 fpecified 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 worthip of deceafed perfons, even when reasoning with idolaters, where dead men were known to be worshipped."