Lord, and upon the Inhabitants of Babylon, and upon her Princes, and upon her Wise-Men:—A Drought is upon her Waters, and they shall be dry’d up; for it is the Land of graven Images, and they are mad upon their Idols.” Jer. 50. 35–38. “I will do Judgment upon the graven Images of Babylon.” Jer. 51. 47. 52.
Thus, therefore, I think it evident, “That the Author of the Grounds, &c. has not given a probable Account, how the Jews came out of the Babylonian Captivity, more firm Believers of the Unity of God, and more averse to Idolatry, than they were, when they went into Captivity; Dr. Prideaux, in his Connexion, seems to me, to have given a much more probable Solution of that Affair.15
As for what the Author of the Grounds, &c. affirms, (from Berosus in Josephus, against Apion, Book 1.) That “the religious Books of the Chaldeans give a Relation of Matters FROM THE CREATION, to the Time of Abraham, so little different from that contain’d in the Pentateuch, that one of the Accounts must, in all probability, be borrowed from the other.”16 Josephus is here quoted, for what he does not say, who expresses himself only thus. “Berosus, after the Manner of the most antient Historians, treats of the DELUGE, and the Destruction of Mankind, just as Moses reports it; and of the ARK also; and how the first Father of our Race was preserv’d in it a-float upon the Mountains of Armenia. He runs thro’ the Genealogy likewise of the Sons of Noah, their Names, and their Ages; and so carries on the Train, from Noah himself to Nabulassar.” Now an Account from the Creation, and from the Deluge, are two very different Things; nor do I see any Reason, which makes it probable, that Moses borrow’d his Account of the Origin of Things from the Chaldeans, as this Author would insinuate; Moses having had no intercourse, that we know of, with the Chaldeans; nor the Jewish Nation, indeed, ’till after the Building of Solomon’s Temple, to which, both their Civil and Religious Establishments, and, consequently, their Accounts of Things, were long prior. The Chaldean Account, from the Flood downward, agreeing with the Mosaick, is, indeed, a very good Proof of the Truth of the Chaldean Accounts of those Affairs; but no Proof at all, that Moses, who had no intercourse with the Chaldeans, borrow’d his Accounts of the Creation and downwards, from them. Besides, Josephus affirms, “That most antient Historians agreed with the Mosaick Account of the Deluge”; which is no more a Proof, that Moses borrow’d his Account from the Chaldeans, than from the Aegyptians, or Phoenicians, with whom Moses, and the Jews, had then much more intercourse. All that we can fairly infer from the Passage quoted, I think, is this, “That most antient Historians agreeing with the Mosaick Account of the Deluge, shews, that the Tradition of that Affair was pretty General, and, consequently, that it is very probable, that it was true”; which is a great Confirmation of the Truth of the Mosaick Account of Things. But so much for this Digression, which I hope the Reader will pardon.
The Egyptian Typhon
The Aegyptian Typhon seems to have been of the same Stamp with the Persian Arimanius. And Plutarch says, That “Typhon begat two Sons, Hierosolymus, and Judaeus”;17 which is a small Sample of the Kindness the Aegyptians had for the Hebrews: He also Interprets the antient Stories of Giants, and Titans, concerning evil Demons; for he, with some other Grecian Philosophers, acknowledg’d such, which the Stoicks, as well as Epicureans, utterly deny’d, deriding the Punishments of another Life.
The Doctrine of Evil Demons, according to the Heathens.
§II. Plutarch acknowledges powerful and surly evil Demons, who were the Authors of unlucky Days, who were worshipp’d by Beating, Lamentations, and Fasting, obscene Words, and contumelious Speeches, by which their Fury was appeas’d, contrary to the Nature of the good Demons.18 These Demons, they conceiv’d to have Bodies, and some of them so gross, that they might be wounded with a Sword, whence Spencer explains a Magical Rite, mention’d Ezek. 33. 26. Ye stand upon your Swords.19 For they had their Swords in readiness drawn and glittering, to keep the Ghosts and Demons in awe, whom they had conjur’d up. Which is not a more unphilosophical Notion, than that of several of the Hebrew Doctors, “That the Aerial Demons, Eat, and Drink, Generate, and Die, as Men.”20 Nor than that Conceit of several of the Fathers, “That the Fall of Angels, was their falling in Love with Women, and having impure Commerce with them,” whence the Giants were begotten, as some of them say; Demons, as others. Most of the Fathers believ’d, “That they had Bodies of apurer Kind.” The Heathens generally believ’d, “That the Demons were pleas’d and allur’d by the Scent and Fumes of the Sacrifices they offer’d to them, and which they thought a Sort of Food to them”; whence it was customary for the Sacrificers, to pour the Blood upon the Ground, or into a Ditch, to entice the Demons to come, themselves Banquetting, about the Blood, upon the Sacrifice, that so they might gain the Friendship and Society of the Demons, and the Faculty of Divination. Whence the Jews were commanded to bring the Animals, which they sacrific’d, unto the Door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, and their Blood was to be sprinkled upon the Altar, that the Children of Israel might no more offer their Sacrifices to Devils, Sehirim, to hairy, or Goat-like Demons. Lev. 17. 7.21 This Kind of Idolatry, amongst others, the Israelites learn’d from the Aegyptians, who had a mighty Veneration for the Goat, which they religiously abstain’d from killing; and the Mendesians (a People of Aegypt) thought it an Honour to bear the Name of Mendes, a Goat in their Language, which they deify’d, and to which they built Temples.
§III. A SECOND Class of Evil Demons, or Genij, is acknowledg’d by some later Heathen Writers, (who, probably, took the Hint from the Christians, whose Doctrines were then well known;) these were said to be vitious in their Nature, and to tempt Men to vice. “There are differences of Virtue and Vice among Demons, as among Men,” says Plutarch.22 The same Author, in the Life of Galba, relates the Speech of an Officer to his Soldiers, then about to revolt, wherein he represents the Fickleness of their Temper, “That chang’d so often in so short a Time, not upon any rational Consideration, but by the impulse of some Demon, that hurried them from one Treason to another.” As the former Class of Evil Demons were suppos’d to bring upon Men Natural Evils, so the latter were suppos’d to tempt them to Moral Evil.
Now this Doctrine of the Pagans, concerning Evil Demons, must, of necessity, fall in, either with the Manichean, or with the Christian, Scheme; with the Manichean, if they were originally constituted Evil; with the Christian, if they became such by an abuse of their own Liberty.
Petavius saith, that several of the Fathers suppose, “That, when the World was made, the several Parts of it were committed to several Orders of Angels, that he who is now the Devil, was the Chief of the Terrestrial Order, and that his Sin was this, that, He envy’d and could not brook the Dignity bestow’d upon Man.”23 Which Conceit of theirs, That Envy was the Devil’s Sin, has been entertain’d by many.
Of Nemesis and the Furies, Ministers of divine Vengeance.
§IV. A THIRD Class of Evil Demons, but not so reputed upon account of their vitious Nature, are the Ministers of divine Vengeance, call’d Furies, Dirae, Erynnyes, Alastores, Dii impii, Hecate, Proserpina, with Nemesis at their Head. So, according to some Expositors, the Evil Angels, mention’d Psal. 78. 49. were not morally Evil, but are denominated Evil, as being Angels of Punishment. Such were those, which Atteius invok’d by Name, when he curs’d Crassus, as Plutarch relates in his Life.24 Some of these they suppos’d,
