Leviathan

but the Later, called them sometimes Daemoniacks, (that is,
possessed with spirits;) sometimes Energumeni, (that is agitated,
or moved with spirits;) and now in Italy they are called not onely Pazzi,
Mad-men; but also Spiritati, men possest.

There was once a great conflux of people in Abdera, a City of the Greeks,
at the acting of the Tragedy of Andromeda, upon an extream hot day:
whereupon, a great many of the spectators falling into Fevers,
had this accident from the heat, and from The Tragedy together,
that they did nothing but pronounce Iambiques, with the names of
Perseus and Andromeda; which together with the Fever, was cured,
by the comming on of Winter: And this madnesse was thought to proceed
from the Passion imprinted by the Tragedy.  Likewise there raigned
a fit of madnesse in another Graecian city, which seized onely
the young Maidens; and caused many of them to hang themselves.
This was by most then thought an act of the Divel.  But one that
suspected, that contempt of life in them, might proceed from some
Passion of the mind, and supposing they did not contemne also
their honour, gave counsell to the Magistrates, to strip such as
so hang'd themselves, and let them hang out naked.  This the story
sayes cured that madnesse.  But on the other side, the same Graecians,
did often ascribe madnesse, to the operation of the Eumenides,
or Furyes; and sometimes of Ceres, Phoebus, and other Gods:
so much did men attribute to Phantasmes, as to think them aereal
living bodies; and generally to call them Spirits.  And as the Romans
in this, held the same opinion with the Greeks: so also did the Jewes;
For they calle mad-men Prophets, or (according as they thought the
spirits good or bad) Daemoniacks; and some of them called both Prophets,
and Daemoniacks, mad-men; and some called the same man both Daemoniack,
and mad-man.  But for the Gentiles, 'tis no wonder; because Diseases,
and Health; Vices, and Vertues; and many naturall accidents,
were with them termed, and worshipped as Daemons.  So that a man
was to understand by Daemon, as well (sometimes) an Ague, as a Divell.
But for the Jewes to have such opinion, is somewhat strange.
For neither Moses, nor Abraham pretended to Prophecy by possession
of a Spirit; but from the voyce of God; or by a Vision or Dream:
Nor is there any thing in his Law, Morall, or Ceremoniall, by which
they were taught, there was any such Enthusiasme; or any Possession.
When God is sayd, (Numb. 11. 25.) to take from the Spirit that was
in Moses, and give it to the 70. Elders, the Spirit of God (taking it
for the substance of God) is not divided.  The Scriptures by the
Spirit of God in man, mean a mans spirit, enclined to Godlinesse.
And where it is said (Exod. 28. 3.) "Whom I have filled with the
Spirit of wisdome to make garments for Aaron," is not meant a spirit
put into them, that can make garments; but the wisdome of their own
spirits in that kind of work.  In the like sense, the spirit of man,
when it produceth unclean actions, is ordinarily called an unclean spirit;
and so other spirits, though not alwayes, yet as often as the vertue
or vice so stiled, is extraordinary, and Eminent.  Neither did the
other Prophets of the old Testament pretend Enthusiasme; or,
that God spake in them; but to them by Voyce, Vision, or Dream;
and the Burthen Of The Lord was not Possession, but Command.
How then could the Jewes fall into this opinion of possession?
I can imagine no reason, but that which is common to all men;
namely, the want of curiosity to search naturall causes; and their
placing Felicity, in the acquisition of the grosse pleasures of
the Senses, and the things that most immediately conduce thereto.
For they that see any strange, and unusuall ability, or defect in
a mans mind; unlesse they see withall, from what cause it may
probably proceed, can hardly think it naturall; and if not naturall,
they must needs thinke it supernaturall; and then what can it be,
but that either God, or the Divell is in him?  And hence it came to passe,
when our Saviour (Mark 3.21.) was compassed about with the multitude,
those of the house doubted he was mad, and went out to hold him:
but the Scribes said he had Belzebub, and that was it, by which he
cast out divels; as if the greater mad-man had awed the lesser.
And that (John 10. 20.) some said, "He hath a Divell, and is mad;"
whereas others holding him for a Prophet, sayd, "These are not
the words of one that hath a Divell."  So in the old Testament
he that came to anoynt Jehu, (2 Kings 9.11.) was a Prophet;
but some of the company asked Jehu, "What came that mad-man for?"
So that in summe, it is manifest, that whosoever behaved himselfe
in extraordinary manner, was thought by the Jewes to be possessed
either with a good, or evill spirit; except by the Sadduces,
who erred so farre on the other hand, as not to believe there were
at all any spirits, (which is very neere to direct Atheisme;)
and thereby perhaps the more provoked others, to terme such
men Daemoniacks, rather than mad-men.

But why then does our Saviour proceed in the curing of them,
as if they were possest; and not as if they were mad.  To which
I can give no other kind of answer, but that which is given to
those that urge the Scripture in like manner against the opinion
of the motion of the Earth.  The Scripture was written to shew
unto men the kingdome of God; and to prepare their mindes to become
his obedient subjects; leaving the world, and the Philosophy thereof,
to the disputation of men, for the exercising of their naturall Reason.
Whether the Earths, or Suns motion make the day, and night; or whether
the Exorbitant actions of men, proceed from Passion, or from the Divell,
(so we worship him not) it is all one, as to our obedience,
and subjection to God Almighty; which is the thing for which the
Scripture was written.  As for that our Saviour speaketh to the disease,
as to a person; it is the usuall phrase of all that cure by words onely,
as Christ did, (and Inchanters pretend to do, whether they speak
to a Divel or not.)  For is not Christ also said (Math. 8.26.)
to have rebuked the winds?  Is not he said also (Luk. 4. 39.)
to rebuke a Fever?  Yet this does not argue that a Fever is a Divel.
And whereas many of these Divels are said to confesse Christ;
it is not necessary to interpret those places otherwise, than that
those mad-men confessed him.  And whereas our Saviour (Math. 12. 43.)