tinction between them.

Such marks of

diftinction, however, the Gospel ought to have pointed out, if there be indeed any real difference between the demoniacs there defcribed, and all others

;

efpecially if it be true, (as we are told it is) that the ancients often mistook natural diforders for demoniacal. How comes it to pass, that neither our Saviour, nor the apoftles, took care to guard mankind against falling into an error, on a subject, which, according to the bishop of Gloucefter, bears an intimate relation to the doctrine of redemption? Our modern writers upon demonology have laid down rules for diftinguishing true from pre

y..

tended poffeffions, fuch as fpeaking in unknown tongues, revealing fecrets, and foretelling future events. But neither are

See Cudworth's Intell. Syft. p. 704, 705, and Jortin's Rem, on Ecclef. Hift. vol. i. p. According to Plato, (if we may rely on

19.

thefe

rules, nor those of his lordship, us in the Gospel; and we are left much wisdom, I apprehend) to of poffeffions as we do of all the diforders relieved by Christ, by the of the case itself. You might as ably affirm, that the lame, the the deaf, the dumb, or the perfons d with fevers, palfies, and leproho were cured by Chrift, were diffrom those labouring under the odily defects or diforders, in other es, and in other ages, as affirm ncerning demoniacs. And thus you destroy the evidence of the Gospel from Chrift's miraculous cures.

, if the demoniacs of the New ent are the fame fort of perfons ofe mentioned in other writings, certainly were, if we are to judge

Alexandrinus, Strom. i. 405, Oxon. was not the infpired or poffeffed perfon but the demon in him, who fpake by his

P. 17.

1

defcribed), why should these disorders be afcribed to different caufes? We have no reason to believe, that the human system is not, in all countries, and at all times, equally governed by the fame laws. Why then should we afcribe, the fame effects (viz. maniacal and epileptic diforders) to a fupernatural caufe in Judea, in the time of Chrift, and to a natural caufe in all other places, and even in Judea, at all other times? The agency of demons fhould be admitted in both cafes, or in neither.

SECT. IX.

PROP. IX. There is no fufficient evidence from REASON for the reality of demoniacal poffeffions; nay, reason strongly remonftrates against it.

IT

T hath never yet been proved from reason, that the fpirits of dead men have power to enter and torment the

living;

g; to govern their bodily organs in erfect a manner as their own fouls

Ho; to deprive them of their underings, and to render them blind, deaf, Humb. Reafon fhews us, that they no fuch power. Nay, the advoof poffeffions do now admit, that it hly abfurd to afcribe this power to pirits of dead men. On this account that they labour ftrenuously to

that by demons we are to underfallen angels. The light of nature, ver, difcovers not the existence of angels, much lefs doth it furnish n evidence of their power to take ion of mankind in the manner exd above. Nor are angels concernthe prefent queftion; or any spirits, those which once dwelt in flefh ood, as we have fhewn already. f what has been urged to prove,

z Differt. on Mir. p. 161.

lowed by all, that there never was a real demoniac,

It may be farther obferved, that, whoever the demons of the ancients were, it hath not hitherto been proved by reason, that the disorders imputed to them cannot proceed from natural caufes. You fay, that, by the fole operation of these causes, you cannot account for the epilepfy and madness. What then? Will it neceffarily follow from hence, that these disorders proceed from a cause that is fupernatural? Are you perfectly ac ́quainted with all the fecrets of nature, or with all her wonderful operations in the human fyftem? Do not very many of them efcape the moft diligent fearch? Why then do men, however learned, pronounce with certainty, that epileptic and maniacal disorders do not fall within the limits of nature? We are subject to other difor

ders