diftempers which they were empowered to cure, or to rectify any phyfical mistakes concerning them and therefore could not deliver any inftructions on this head without exceeding their commiffion. Nay, the question concerning poffeffions could not be directly and immediately determined by the authority of Christ and his apoftles without great impropriety; the miracles performed upon the poffeffed being a part of that evidence of the Gospel, which muft for ever be judged of by natural reason alone. The first publishers of the Gofpel, however, though they did not enter into any philofophical difquifitions concerning the nature of diseases, yet did effectually fubvert the entire fyftem of fuperftition which then prevailed, by afferting the nullity of demons, and clearly fhewing, that to allow their power, was to contradict the first principles of the Gofpel. This they did on the most proper occafion, viz. when inftructing men in the doctrines of Chriftianity. Now,

as

as you learn a man's fyftem of astronomy or phyfic from the account he profeffedly gives of it, not from his defcribing certain celeftial appearances or bodily difeases in the language of the vulgar; fo the real sentiments of the apoftles concerning demons are to be gathered from their profeffed doctrine concerning them, not from their defcription of demoniacs, in which they employed, as it was fit they should, the language which then prevailed.

I

CHA P. III.

T still remains, that we point out the inconveniencies attending the commom explication of the Gofpel demoniacs, and the advantages which result from the account given of them in the two preceding chapters.

Some may be ready to ask, • Whence this zeal to fhew, that revelation doth

'not

not countenance the doctrine of real poffeffions? What prejudice can the Gospel fuffer from this doctrine? And what advantage can it derive from the contrary one? The very adverfaries" of real poffeffions allow, that it was a matter of indifference with respect to the evidence of Christianity, whether thofe efteemed demoniacs were really such, or only laboured under a natural disease; inafmuch as in either case a real miracle was performed, when their cure was effected. But what can be more evident, than that the ejection of devils from the bodies of men is a greater miracle than the cure of natural diforders? What a luftre doth it reflect on the character of Chrift, to see him first compelling them to confefs his name, and then condemning them to filence? Was it not a wife difpenfation, to permit the devil, about this time, to give fome unufual proofs of his exiftence, power, and malice, in attacking men's bodies, in or

der to convince them what a dangerous enemy he was to their fouls? Above all, was it not fit, and even necessary, that he who came into the world as the great antagonist of the prince of darkness, should give a fenfible and public fpecimen. and proof of his power over him and his confederates by difpoffeffing them "; and hereby raise our hopes of his perfect triumph over them at the end of the world? In a word, the more carefully we examine the miracles of Jesus relating to the poffeffed, the more clearly shall we perceive their ftrict connection with the great end of the whole Christian difpenfation, the redemption of mankind. Scarce therefore can we injure Chriftianity more than by denying the reality of diabolical poffeffions." In answer to this reafoning, I obferve,

"See Dr. Warburton's Serm. vol. iii. p. 218. and Dr. Doddridge's Fam. Expof, vol. i. p. 211. 2d ed.

• I take no notice here of what is fometimes urged in favour of the common hypothefis, viz. 1. That

1

1. That it is not fupported by the tef timony of Scripture. Neither our Saviour

"That the difpoffeffion of devils by Chrift, and the compulfive teftimony they bore him, served to clear him from all fufpicion of a confederacy with these infernal fpirits." For we have already had occafion to obferve, that though our Saviour Speaks of the ejection of demons as an act of hoftility against them, fuch as it was not natural to refer to the prince of the demons; yet this hath no relation to the devil, (fee above, p. 16.) and was spoken to his adverfaries, merely upon their own principles, the only principles upon which he could argue with them. Differt, on Mir. p. 388. With regard to the teftimony which, it is faid, the demons were compelled to bear to Chrift, it hath been fhewn, that it is not only groundless, but highly unreasonable, to fuppofe, that God fhould compel the devil to bear teftimony to Chrift, and then direct Chrift to reject it, and even to work a miracle upon that lying fpirit, that he might not difcredit the truth he had published. See above, p. 258. The abettors of the common hypothefis would do well to confider, whether it be a good way of clearing Chrift from all fufpicion of acting in concert with devils, to affirm, that thefe wicked fpirits were by him, or on his account, introduced into Judea, and that they were the first who proclaimed his divine character, though afterwards he en

nor