demons is the cure of a natural disorder, and is included in Chrift's restoring the diseased to health; efpecially as our Saviour, when applying to himfelf the pro phecies concerning his miracles, doth not fpecify the ejection of demons, though, at that very time, he cured many of evil Spirits. Accordingly, we find in fact, that the evangelists' have included reputed poffeffions under those natural maladies, which the prophets foretold Christ should heal. Were there any thing fupernatu ral in what is called poffeffion, would the prophets of God have been inspired to

q Matt. xi. 4, 5.

* Luke vii. 21.

f. They brought unto him many that were poffeffed with demons, and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were fick; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Efaias the prophet, (chap. liii. 4. Himfelf took our infirmities, and bare our fickneffes, Matt. viii. 16, 17. See above, fect. iv. p.

64, &c.

fore

the Melliah's cure of natural diland not of thofe which were fuaral? Be this, however, as it will, be allowed, that the Old Teftafilent on the fubject of poffeffions, not be employed to establish their

regard to the prophets of the "eftament, it must, I apprehend, e be allowed, that they were not Fnal authors of the doctrine of pof

In Chaldea, in Egypt, in Greece, other countries, the doctrine of generally prevailed from the earst. From the Gentiles, it was

magi amongst the Chaldeans taught, that as full of fpectres, εἰδώλων πλήρη εἶναι τὸν gen. Laert. Proem. fegm. 7. From Diolus (lib. i. p. 12. ed. Rhodomani), it that the doctrine of demons was enin Egypt. Pythagoras maintained, that vas full of fouls, and that these were e deemed to be demons and heroes, Elvas ιέρα ψυχῶν ἔμπλεων· και τέτες, δαίμονας τε voμíota. Diog. Laert. Pythag. lib. N 2

de

1

fion, and even in Judea itself. We need no other proof than the New Teftament, that the doctrine of demons, and (what was grounded upon it) that of demoniacal poffeffions, were common both amongst Jews and Gentiles, in our Saviour's time; as was fhewn above. Indeed, both the language and fentiments of mankind concerning poffeffions, were formed long before our Saviour's appearance in the world. Nor can any thing argue a greater ignorance of antiquity, than to treat this doctrine as one of the peculiar discoveries of the Gospel of Chrift. Whether the

viii. 31. Thales (Id. lib. i. §. 27.) Pythagoras (Id. lib. viii. § 32.) Heraclitus (Id. lib. ix. § 7.) Plato and the Stoics taught, that all things were full of demons, (Plat. Conviv. p. 1194. Plutarch de Placit. Philof. lib. i. cap. 8.) See alfo Varro apud August, de Civ. Dei, lib. vii, cap 6.

19.

t

P. 139. See alfo Matt, xii. 27. Acts xix. 13,

doc

be true or falfe, it doth not aphave been originally founded on n. We may, without fear of ontradicted by the records of antironounce it to be the invention of magination. Indeed, at first fight, y appears to be the genuine offpagan fuperftition.

however, may be ready to object, ugh the doctrine of poffeffions first introduced by Chrift or his

yet that it received the fanction uthority. To those who raise this ,we are not backward to make the g conceffion, "That our Saviour ming, and the evangelifts in rethe cure of demoniacs, do use odes of expreffion, which were in the age and country in which ed." It will be our business, in el", to fhew, that they did not Eve their fanction to the hypothe

modes of expreffion were originally built. In this place, I would only obferve, that when they are profeffedly ftating and explaining the Christian revelation, they never affert the reality of demoniacal poffeffions, or represent it as a part of that doctrine which they were immediately inftructed and commiffioned by heaven to publish and confirm. This is a fact which cannot be denied; nor can it be accounted for on any other fuppofition, than that the doctrine of poffeffions made no part of that revelation which they received from God. This doctrine is not only unfupported by revelation, but contradicted by it. For,

II. It is inconfiftent with the fundamental principle both of the Jewish and Christian difpenfations, with the proper evidence of miracles in general, and with the nature of that miracle in particular, which was performed upon demoniacs.

The