the senses of mankind: for otherwise they cannot answer the end proposed by them. The bare ejection of demons, therefore, how great a miracle soever it may be in itself, or how much superior to the cure of bodily disorders, is no miracle at all with regard to mankind, can carry no conviction to them, because it doth not fall under the notice of their senses. In a word, inasmuch as there is no clear and certain proof of the reality either of possessions or of dispossessions, Christianity can derive no advantage from the common doctrine concerning them*. 7. On * I omitted to take notice, in the beginning of this chapter, of an advantage which a learned person supposes that Christianity derives from the common doctrine; because it hath not hitherto, I believe, received the sanction of any other writer. It is not fit, however, that it should be quite overlooked. He pleads, that the expulsion of evil demons by Christ, cuts off that subterfuge against his miraculous cures, which supposes them to be the effect of a strong imagination, by which the devil (according to his conception of him) could not be affected. Warburton's Serm. vol. iii. p. 238–241. I do not undertake to determine how great the force of imagination may be in demons, in the sense in which this word is used by this writer, nor how far it may be objected against his qwn hypothesis, that demons had such a strong previous persuasion of Christ's power, that they scarce left room for the exertion of it in their expulsion. I would only observe, that if any one be capable of believing that Christ's cures of all the various kinds of diseases to which mankind are liable, performed in an instant, without the use of any natural means, on the absent as well as on those who were present, especially when considered in their connexion with his other miracles, such as his giving limbs to the maimed, and life to the dead, and his controlling the elements; if any one can believe that all these things are the effects of fancy, he will hardly fail to ascribe possessions (the symptoms of which are at best so disputable) to the same cause. Nor, indeed, will 7. On the contrary, this doctrine doth Christianity the greatest prejudice in many respects. ; With some, perhaps, it may weigh but little to observe, that the common explication of the Scripture demoniacs gives occasion to numberless superstitions * particularly to those shameless impostures, the possessions and exorcisms of the Roman church+; and thus discredits the wonderful cures performed by Christ upon demoniacs, and brings disgrace upon the Christian name. If you choose to call this only an abuse of that explication, it is nevertheless such an abuse as every Christian should wish to see prevented or removed, especially as it hath occasioned a vast effusion of human blood. But in truth, to represent the Gospel as authorizing the doctrine of possessions, hath a natural and necessary tendency to rivet this superstition in the minds of Christians, which in every age hath been productive of the greatest mischief. A learned writer ‡, of whom we have had frequent occasion to take notice, affirms, "that it is an unquestionable fact, that the evangelic history of the demoniacs hath given occasion to the most scandalous frauds, and sottish superstitions, throughout almost every age of the church, the whole trade of exorcisms, accompanied with will it be an easy matter to afford him evidence to his satisfaction. The autient prophets, though they performed miraculous cures, are never said to have confirmed the divinity of those works by casting out demons. * See above, ch. i. sect. ix. p. 99, and Dissertation on Miracles, p. 101, 8vo. and p. 63, 12mo. + Mead's Preface to his Medic. Sacr. p. 4. Dr. Warburton, Serm. vol. iii. p. 241. all all the mummery of frantic and fanatic agitations, having arisen from hence." And this celebrated writer would willingly persuade the world that these evils are the consequence of the anti-demoniac system*, self-evident as it is that they wholly arise from his own. But his argument proceeds on a supposition neither true in itself, nor admitted by those against whom he is disputing, "that Jesus and his apostles, instead of rectifying the people's follies and superstitions on this head, chose rather to inflame them, by assuring certain of the distempered that they were really possessed by evil spirits †.” After what hath been already offered on this subject, I will not say any thing in vindication of Christ and the evangelic history from the false imputation of asserting the doctrine of demoniacal possessions. Nor will I affront the reader's understanding, by proving that those who deny this doctrine are not answerable for its abuse. What those have to answer for, both to God and to mankind, who too hastily represent the Gospel as asserting and supporting this doctrine, when they themselves are sensible of its pernicious tendency and effects, I leave them to consider. This doctrine prejudices Christianity in another view. It hath been shown that all the symptoms ascribed to the Gospel demoniacs are such as belong to natural disorders; and therefore, by asserting that revelation ascribes these disorders to a supernatural cause, we do revelation the most material injury; we set it at variance with reason and experience, and fix an indelible † P. 242. * P. 241. reproach reproach on those who professed to be commissioned by God to publish it to the world. Again, the common doctrine concerning possessions affects the very foundation on which the Gospel is built, the evidence of miracles in general, and the miraculous infliction and cure of diseases in particular. If demons can inflict grievous diseases, deprive men of their reason and senses, render them dumb and blind, and cause them to suffer the most exquisite torments, they can work miracles: for the infliction of a disease by the agency of any spiritual being, answers to the just definition of a miracle, as an effect produced in the system of nature, contrary to the general rules by which it is governed. All diseases so inflicted are ever represented in Scripture as genuine miracles, and as full and sufficient tests of a divine interposition. When Zacharias was struck dumb, and Elymas blind, ought we not, according to the New Testament, to conceive of these effects as real miracles, and to refer them to God alone? Now, if evil spirits are capable of producing the very same effects, how can they mark the immediate hand and of God? agency Let us next consider how the doctrine of demoniacal possessions affects another species of miracles, the cure of demoniacs. If you understand the ejection of demons in the literal sense, abstracted from the cure of bodily disorders, the miracle in this case is not only secret and insensible, and therefore not adapted to the conviction of mankind (as was observed above), but is evidently such as lies within the compass of a demoniacal power. For if demons can enter, they can certainly quit, the bodies of mankind. Thus you absolutely destroy the validity of one of the most illustrious attestations to Christ's divine commission, his expelling demous, or restoring demoniacs to the regular exercise of their rational faculties. If you understand the ejection of demons, as including in it the cure of such disorders as are supposed to proceed from the influence of demons, you still destroy the credit of Christ's cure of demoniacs. For, if demons can inflict diseases, why may not they as easily remove them? The Fathers expressly taught, "that demons contrived to cure the horrible diseases they had inflicted, by first prescribing remedies, and afterwards ceasing to afflict the patient *." This observation is not without foundation. If, for example, demons, by making some alteration (a very slight one would suffice) in the organ of vision, or by placing some external obstacle before it, can deprive men of their sight, what can prevent them from restoring it? Nevertheless, neither reason nor revelation allows them this power. "Can a demon open the eyes of the blind†?" is the language of common sense. This miracle is mentioned both by the antient prophets and by our Savionr himself§, as one of the peculiar glories of the Messiah. * Lædunt primo, dehinc remedia præcipiunt ad miraculum nova, sive contraria, post quæ desinunt lædere, et curasse creduntur. Tertull. Apol. c. 22. Vid. Cyprian. de Idol. Van. p. 206.-Minutii Felicis Octav. cap. 27. The learned bishop Stillingfleet, notwithstanding his zeal to maintain the reality of possessions, doubted whether they did not disparage the miracles of our Saviour: see above, p. 76. Is. xxxv. 5, 6. § Matt. xi. 5. + John x. 21. The |