themselves in reality the gods of the Heathens; though, had he thought this to be the cafe, it would have been much to his purpose to have clearly and fully stated it, in order to give proper force to his argument against celebrating festivals in their honour. The whole reasoning of St. Paul concerns the idols and demons of the Gentiles, thofe fpirits whom they regarded as gods and lords; and whoever they were, the apoftle hath not urged one argument against eating things facrificed to them, that fuppofes or implies their having any degree of power; but urges quite different confiderations, drawn from the circumstances under which fome Christians partook of thofe facrifices, which might make it an act of religious honour and worship, or might provė a ftumbling-block to their weak brethren. He grants, that things offered in facrifice to the heathen demons underwent no change, and that no man was either bet

ter

ter or worse for partaking or not partaking of them. He also admits, that the demons themselves were mere nothing; and (knowing that fome Chriftians at that time were disposed to afcribe a real power to these demons, and probably foreseeing the fame difpofition in others, in after ages) fhews that the nullity of demons was a juft and neceffary inference from that fundamental article of Christianity, there being but one God and one Lord over mankind. The reader cannot fail obferving, that St. Paul is here profeffedly stating the doctrines of the Gospel, and the idea which he himself had of them. Indeed, he elsewhere reprefents it as the main defign of his commiffion, to destroy the doctrine of demons, or, to use his own words, to turn men from thefe vanities unto the living God.

From the whole of what occurs in this section, may we not infer, that there is

Acts xiv. 15. Compare Theff. i. 9.

much

much injuftice in reproaching the Scrip tures with countenancing the doctrine of demoniacal poffeffions? Did the facred writers first introduce this doctrine? It is not even pretended that they did. Did they ever affert it as a part of that revelation which they were divinely commif fioned to publish to the world? They could not thus affert it; for it overturns the main doctrine and evidences of the Jewish and Chriftian revelations. On the contrary, they have done every thing they could fitly do, to banish it out of the world, by carefully inftructing Chriftians in the abfolute nullity of demons, by continually inculcating this principle upon them, with a zeal equal to its great.. importance, and by establishing it upon the clearest evidence. If you regulate your judgment concerning demons by that of the writers either of the Old or New Teftament, you must allow, that there never was, nor can be, a real demoniac.

CHAP.

CHA P. II

Proceed to folve the several objections, which have been urged against the foregoing explication of the Gospel de

moniacs.

That the persons spoken of in the New Teftament as demoniacs, were really fuch, many have attempted to prove, ift. From what was faid and done by the demoniacs themselves. 2dly, From the deftruction of the herd of fwine, which the demons are faid to have entered, and stimulated to an inftantaneous madness. And, 3dly, From the expreffions used by our Saviour in performing, and his disci ples in recording, the cure of demoniacs. Under these three heads may be comprized all the objections, drawn from the New Testament, against the doctrine advanced in the preceding chapter.

SECT. I.

FROM what was faid and done by the

demoniacs themselves, fome have concluded, that they were infpired and affifted by fuperior agents, fuch as demons are commonly fuppofed to be.

It must, however, be allowed, (what seems to furnish a prefumptive argument against this opinion) that the New Tefta ment never reprefents the language and behaviour of the demoniacs, as the effect and evidence of a fupernatural agency. We are only therefore to examine, whether fuch agency can be juftly and certainly inferred from the facts themselves.

1. It is pleaded, that the demoniacs knew, and proclaimed, Jefus to be Meffiah". The

m Some add, that the demoniacs afcribed to Chrift higher characters than other perfons did. But whoever compares their refpective declarations, will find this to be a mistake. Compare John i. 49. fv. 42. vii. 41. xi. 27. with the titles afcribed to Christ by the demoniacs. Is it not strange, that Chriftians fhould refer to devils, the firft difcovery of the divine claims of the Son of God?