1

nor his apostles did ever affert or intimate, that the devil enjoyed an extraordinary, liberty at the time of Chrift's coming into the world; much less did they attempt to account for his having fuch liberty then allowed him, or fhew that it was fit that it should be granted. Not one of the reasons affigned for the devil's giving fome unusual proofs of his power at this period, are taken notice of in the New Teftament. The more weighty and important those reasons are fuppofed to be, fo much the more difficult is it to account for this filence. If it was even neceffary, that Chrift fhould exhibit a fpecimen of his triumph over the devil, by difpoffeffing him from the bodies of men, how comes it to pafs, that dif

joined them filence. On the other hand, underftand the ejection of demons as, I apprehend, it ought to be understood, concerning the miraculous cure of a difeafe, and there will at once appear no more ground for afcribing to the devil this, than any other miracle of the Gofpel.

poffeffions

poffeffions are never spoken of in this view, by thofe who certainly beft underftood their intention? Whenever God commiffions his meffengers to perform miracles for the conviction of mankind, he instructs them to explain to the world the great ends proposed by them. This was the cafe with regard to all the prophets both of the Old and New Teftament. They never left it, nor could they fitly leave it, to human conjecture to determine for what purposes their miracles were wrought. Nor can we learn what those purposes were in any other method, than by the declarations of a prophet, or by the nature of the works themselves; and the latter will give us very little affiftance without the former. The filence of Scripture therefore concerning what is fupposed to have been the grand and peculiar defign of the cure of demoniacs, is a fufficient reason for rejecting it; unless it can be clearly and certainly inferred from the nature of the work itself, which

no

no one will affirm, that underftands it aright.

2. The entire reafoning we are now examining, is built upon this falfe hypothefis, viz. that the fpirits, who were thought to take poffeffion of mankind, were devils or fallen angels. But we have fhewn, that poffeffions were always referred to fuch human fpirits, as were supposed to be converted into demons; that there is only one devil, and that he is never mentioned in Scripture in any connection with the fubject before us. All the arguments therefore urged to prove the propriety and neceffity of his extraordinary agency in the age of the Gospel, and of Chrift's public triumph over him, by expelling him from human bodies, militate against the Chriftian difpenfation; and if they proved any thing, would prove, that God ought to have allowed the devil a power, and afforded Chrift a triumph, which were.

not granted:

Cc

3. The

3. The reafoning ftated above proceeds upon another falfe fuppofition, viz. that poffeffions were more frequent in the age of the Gospel than at any other time: a fuppofition contradicted by all the monu ments of antiquity. So that had it been true, that the Scripture had referred poffeffions to the devil, it would not have followed even from hence, that the devil gave any unusual proofs of his power at the commencement of the Chriftian æra.

4. Were it true, not only that the devil was the spirit who poffeffed men's bodies, and that poffeffions were more frequent in the age of the Gofpel than any other; yet the cafes of reputed poffeffions defcribed in the Gospel do not contain any convincing proof of the power and interpofition either of the devil or any evil fpirit. The agency of demons, (whatever fpirits you understand hereby) it not an object of fight; their entrance into the human body falls

notice of any of our fenfes.

not under the

There is not

therefore

therefore the fame evidence to be had of it, as there is of a perfon's being difeafed or dead. Accordingly the writers on demonology find it neceflary to lay down rules for diftinguishing' true from pretended poffeffions, and to appeal to certain outward fupernatural symptoms, (such as the gifts of tongues and prophecy,) as proofs of an immediate inspiration thus making one miracle neceffary to atteft the reality of another. It feems then to be the general sense of mankind, what is indeed felf-evident, that we cannot yield a rational afsent to

See above, p. 148.

• Several ill attefted inftances of perfons infpired by demons with thefe gifts, are recited by the learned Dr. Macknight, in his Effay on the De The Chriftian revelation,

moniacs, p. 179, 180. however, in agreement with right reason, ever fupposes the gifts of tongues and prophecy to be the effects of a divine agency. Why then do the advocates of that revelation affign them an infernal origin A zeal for demonifm hath led Chriftians, in many other inftances, to obfcure the brightest evidences of the Gospel.