r himself, to speak in the lanthe vulgar, though known to originally grounded on a falfe 7. Our Lord and his apostles, king on the very fubject before rtainly on fome occafions use language, as their cotemporao, when they did not defign to ce the vulgar opinion; and they may have done fo on other Confequently their fentiments go demoniacs can never be inin the bare expreffions they have efcribe them. There could be opriety in their adopting the phrafeology, because it was uniapplied to outward and fenfible o the fymptoms of the demoniacs

cure, and often to these only, originally borrowed from the aped cause of their disorders. They t commiffioned by God to inankind in the nature of those

concerning them: and therefore could not deliver any inftructions on this head without exceeding their commiffion. Nay, the question concerning poffeffions could not be directly and immediately determined by the authority of Christ and his apostles without great impropriety; the miracles performed upon the poffeffed being a part of that evidence of the Gospel, which muft for ever be judged of by natural reafon alone. The first publishers of the Gospel, however, though they did not enter into any philofophical difquifitions concerning the nature of diseases, yet did effectually fubvert the entire fyftem of fuperftition which then prevailed, by afferting the nullity of demons, and clearly fhewing, that to allow their power, was to contradict the first principles of the Gofpel. This they did on the most proper occafion, viz. when inftructing men in the doctrines of Christianity. Now,

as

From the account he profeffedly t, not from his describing cercial appearances or bodily difhe language of the vulgar; fo Tentiments of the apostles conemons are to be gathered from Eeffed doctrine concerning them, their description of demoniacs, they employed, as it was fit they the language which then pre

CHA P. II.

Il remains, that we point out the nveniencies attending the comxplication of the Gospel demond the advantages which refult he account given of them in the ceding chapters.

e may be ready to ask, "Whence al to fhew, that revelation doth

not

polletions at prejudice can the Golpel fuffer from this doctrine? And what advan

tage can it derive from the contrary one?

m

The adverfaries of real poffeffions

very

allow, that it was a matter of indifference with refpect to the evidence of Chriftianity, whether thofe efteemed demoniacs were really fuch, or only laboured under a natural disease; inasmuch as in either cafe a real miracle was performed, when their cure was effected. But what can be more evident, than that the ejection of devils from the bodies of men is a greater miracle than the cure of natural diforders? What a luftre doth it reflect on the character of Chrift, to fee him first compelling them to confefs his name, and then condemning them to filence? Was it not a wife difpenfation, to permit the devil, about this time, to give some unufual proofs of his existence, power, and malice, in attacking men's bodies, in or

was to their fouls? Above all, t fit, and even neceffary, that me into the world as the great of the prince of darkness, e a fenfible and public fpecimen of his power over him and his tes by difpoffeffing them"; and aife our hopes of his perfect over them at the end of the In a word, the more carefully ne the miracles of Jefus relating offeffed, the more clearly fhall eive their ftri& connection with end of the whole Chriftian dif, the redemption of mankind. herefore can we injure Chriftiore than by denying the reality lical poffeffions "." In anfwer to Foning, I obferve,

Dr. Warburton's Serm. vol. iii. p. 218. and ridge's Fam. Expof, vol, i, p. 211, 2d ed. e no notice here of what is sometimes favour of the common hypothefis, viz. 1. That