trymen, how great things God had done for

them'.

The lofs of the fwine would propagate the fame, as well as establish the reality of the miracle performed upon these demoniacs. The cure of a demoniac in this obfcure part of the country, might have been little known or remembered, had it not been attended with fome extraordinary and affecting circumftances; fuch as would neceffarily excite the attention of

f Mark v. 19. Luke viii. 39. Concerning one of the demoniacs, we are told, that he did accordingly publish in Decapolis how great things Fefus had done for him. And all men did marvel. Mark

v. 20. As the demoniacs were well known in thefe parts, their cure must have a greater effect here, than amongst perfect ftrangers.

t

They that fed the fwine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country, divulged every where both the lofs of the fwine, and the cure of the demoniacs, Mat. viii. 33. Mark v. 14. Hereupon the people came in a body to Jefus, faw with aftonishment, the demoniacs reftored to the use of their reason, and received a particular account and full confirmation of what had befallen the fwine, Mark v. 15, 16. Luke viii. 35, 36.

man

mankind, and naturally lead them to an inquiry into the character of Christ, and thus prepare them to receive the fubfequent preaching of his apoftles. Moft highly beneficial to them was this miracle, if their temporal lofs was the means of their gaining everlasting bleffings.

3. The miracle performed upon the fwine was calculated to correct the falfe notions, concerning the power of demons, which were entertained in that age, as well by Jews as Gentiles, by both of whom Gadara was inhabited. Very far were either of them from wanting (what fome have fuppofed it was the exprefs defign of Chrift on this occafion to give them) proofs of the great power of demons over mankind. The belief of their power was already too deeply rooted in the minds of men, and was the ground of much idolatry and fuperftition.

Let us examine then the nature of the miracle in queftion, and fee whether it contains any proof of the power of de

mons,

mons.

1

The outward and fenfible effect, which was all that could be defigned for the conviction of mankind, confifted in transferring the disorder of the demoniacs to the fwine; or rather in the swine becoming mad, immediately after the men were cured. Now, upon what ground do you affirm that this effect was produced by demons? If they had any concern in it, it was by foliciting the interpofal of Chrift; which looks like an acknowledgement of their own impotence. It took place at the command of Christ: to him therefore, and to that divine power by which he acted, it is most natural to refer it. You allow that God was the author of the miracles performed upon the demoniacs. The history afcribes them to him in the moft exprefs terms ", calling them, (as we have just now feen) great things which God had done for the demoniacs; not things which he permitted the devil to do for them. Now, the hiftory

will no more allow you to doubt of God's being the author of the diforder of the fwine, than of the cure of the demoniacs; for, by the fame fovereign word, GO, both these miracles were accomplished. You cannot therefore afcribe them to different causes. That the madness of the fwine was not owing to a demoniacal agency, is farther evident from hence, that their disorder terminated in their deftruction; an event which it was the intereft of the demons to use all poffible means to prevent; because, according to (what is deemed) their own conceptions of things, it expofed them to fome terrible punishment", Now, fince it clearly appears, that the madness of the fwine was not owing to the agency of demons, is it not a natural inference from hence, that the madness of the demoniacs was not owing to that caufe; that the request in particular made in the name of the demons to enter the herd of fwine, and confequently all the other parts of their

conversation with Christ, did not proceed from a demoniacal influence? We shall hereafter have occafion to confider the language in which the evangelifts defcribe the cure of the demoniacs, and the diforder of the fwine; we only obferve here,that the facts themselves are referred to God.

If the foregoing obfervations are just, the history before us does not exhibit a fingle inftance of the power and interpofition of demons; though here, where we have famples of the highest degrees of infanity, proofs of their agency were most to be expected. At the fame time, it reprefents God as the only being in the univerfe, who inflicts and removes difeafes at his pleasure, not excepting those which fuperftition ascribed to evil spirits. On both these accounts, this history, on which so much stress is laid by the advocates of real poffeffions, seems to me to discredit, rather than confirm the extravagant notions which the Heathens, and (from

them)