Chrift and other demoniacs; much less

doth it point out any clear marks of distinction between them. Such marks of distinction, however, the Gofpel ought to have pointed out, if there be indeed real difference between the demoany niacs there defcribed, and all others; especially if it be true, (as we are told it is) that the ancients often mistook natural diforders for demoniacal. How comes it to pass, that neither our Saviour, nor the apoftles, took care to guard mankind against falling into an error, on a subject, which, according to the bishop of Gloucefter, bears an intimate relation to the doctrine of redemption? Our modern writers upon demonology have laid down rules for diftinguishing true from pretended poffeffions, such as speaking in unknown tongues, revealing fecrets, and foretelling future events. But neither are

> See Cudworth's Intell. Syft. p. 704, 705, and Jortin's Rem. on Ecclef. Hift. vol. i. p. 19. According to Plato, (if we may rely on

thefe

thefe rules, nor thofe of his lordship, given us in the Gospel; and we are left (with much wisdom, I apprehend) to judge of poffeffions as we do of all the other disorders relieved by Christ, by the nature of the case itself. You might as reasonably affirm, that the lame, the blind, the deaf, the dumb, or the perfons afflicted with fevers, palfies, and leprofies, who were cured by Chrift, were different from those labouring under the fame bodily defects or disorders, in other countries, and in other ages, as affirm this concerning demoniacs. And thus you would destroy the evidence of the Gospel arising from Christ's miraculous cures.

Now, if the demoniacs of the New Teftament are the fame fort of perfons with those mentioned in other writings, (as they certainly were, if we are to judge Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. i. 405, Oxon. ed.) it was not the infpired or poffeffed person himself, but the demon in him, who fpake by his voice, Id. p. 17.

of both by the fymptoms of their diforders, and the language in which they are described), why should these diforders be afcribed to different caufes? We have no reason to believe, that the human system is not, in all countries, and at all times, equally governed by the fame laws. Why then should we afcribe the fame effects (viz. maniacal and epileptic diforders) to a fupernatural caufe in Judea, in the time of Chrift, and to a natural cause in all other places, and even in Judea, at all other times? The agenty of demons fhould be admitted in both cafes, or in 'neither.

SECT. IX.

PROP. IX. There is no fufficient evidence from REASON for the reality of demoniacal poffeffions; nay, reafon ftrongly remonftrates against it.

IT

T hath never yet been proved from reafon, that the fpirits of dead men have power to enter and

torment the

living i

living; to govern their bodily organs in as perfect a manner as their own fouls can do to deprive them of their underflandings, and to render them blind, deaf, and dumb. Reason fhews' us, that they have no fuch power 2. Nay, the advo cates of poffeffions do now admit, that it is highly abfurd to afcribe this power to the fpirits of dead men. On this account it is, that they labour ftrenuously to prove, that by demons we are to underftand fallen angels. The light of nature, however, difcovers not the existence of fallen angels, much lefs doth it furnish certain evidence of their power, to take poffeffion of mankind in the manner explained above. Nor are angels concerned in the prefent queftion; or any fpirits, except thofe which once dwelt in flesh and blood, as we have fhewn already. And if what has been urged to prove,

that the poffeffing demons had once been men, be just; it will, I apprehend, be allowed by all, that there never was a real demoniac.

It may be farther obferved, that, whoever the demons of the ancients were, it hath not hitherto been proved by reason, that the disorders imputed to them cannot proceed from natural causes. You fay, that, by the fole operation of these causes, you cannot account for the epilepfy and madness. What then? Will it neceffarily follow from hence, that thefe disorders proceed from a cause that is fupernatural? Are you perfectly acquainted with all the fecrets of nature, or with all her wonderful operations in the human system? Do not very many of them efcape the moft diligent fearch? Why then do men, however learned, pronounce with certainty, that epileptic and maniacal disorders do not fall within the limits of nature? We are fubject to other diforders