Etrine of poffeffions. For the oncerning it, confidered as a philofophy, they neither have or indeed could decide by their ority, for the reafon here al

gard to thofe who have hitherthe common hypothefis conoffeffions, it may be doubted hey have fufficiently accounted duct of Chrift and his apoftles fing language conformable to nefis. They have pleaded, "that = and authoritative decifion of on would have done great inGospel, the prejudices of manvour of the power of demons violent and inveterate to yield e; and that to have begun with these prejudices, must have

preconverfion of multitudes, and to conceive of these first pubThe Gofpel as infidels and Sadducees.'*

these, that prejudices are often inflamed

by a direct and formal attack; and that offenfive truths can scarce be proposed with too much caution and reserve. Nevertheless, there are inftances in which they began with attacking the strongest prejudices of mankind, their favourite, but fatal idolatries and fuperftitions. Nor did they act with any referve with respect to demons, (as we have fhewn above) fo far as the subject fell within the limits of their commiffion. Such prudential confiderations therefore as fome have fuggefted, are not fufficient to account for the conduct of Chrift and his apostles, in always using the popular language concerning demoniacs, and never determining their case, by an explicit declaration. For if it were a matter of prudence, not immediately to alarm the prejudices of unbelievers; yet might not believers have

1 Luke v. 36, 37. John xvi. 12, 25.

been

end, why neither our Saviour Ing, nor the evangelifts aftercording, the cure of demoniacs, fsly interpofed their judgment them, is, that their inftrucot directly extend to this cafe, roperly extend to it; the cure s being a part of that evidence pel, which muft for ever be y natural reason alone. gard to the advocates of real when they plead, "that if -n be an error, Chrift and his ght to have corrected it; inaf was a very dangerous error, of much fuperftition and idoy not only overlook the proeceflity of that conduct which om obferved in the cafe before efume to dictate to that wifve neglect to use the reafon dhath given us, and will ions without difcerning any

farily reward our negligence and prefumption by working miracles for our conviction; and work new miracles, for the cure of every new error. It is much to be lamented, that a creature of fuch limited faculties as man, instead of modeftly inquiring what God hath done for his fpiritual inftruction, should prefumptuously prescribe to him what he ought to do. If the imagined expediency or neceffity of any particular plan would prove, that it was pursued by divine providence ; then the Pope is a divinely appointed and infallible judge of controverfy, and an everlasting bulwark to the Chriftian church against all error: which nevertheless doth not appear to be the cafe. In full folution of this objection, we may obferve,

VI. That the first publishers of the Gofpel, though they did not directly undertake to explain the natural caufes of difeafes, or any other point of philofophy,

have

t

dangerous errors mankind

with regard to demons, and iciently fecured the interests

-ected the false opinion which entertained of demons, both octrine, and their miracles: ot, for the reasons explained particularly to the cafe of but they restored demoniacs permanent fanity, and thereby reflect on the great improbaeir being liable to the incur nons. They proceeded farthousand idolatrous and fu practices being grounded on the power of demons, the God under the New Testavell as those under the Old, ht, what their miracles intiutter inability of these spirits ood or evil to mankind *. This

e, p. 187.

*P. 224.

Bb z

point