DAMONIACAL, 
common language with refpc& to atau raed baa 
inion on which it was firft grounded.” 
€ 
poffefiio 
reference to this fabjed, that it is guftomary with all per- 
fons, and with the facre| writers in particular, and with our 
thou ere r on an erroneous Siyosthe s, we are not 
warranted in concluding, merely from i circumft S 
they _ themfelves re{ponfible for a tath or falfe ee 3 
any more than the naturalift does, when opts eee 
execs and fays, ‘¢ the dew falls,” « “ vais rifes, fets, 
runs his race, or is eclipfed.’? Why then, it is faid, might 
they not adopt the common language, with re pet to pof. 
{flion, confidered as the caufe of a bodily diforder? 
you infer their belicf of poflcflions aes their faying, that 
fome ** had demo or ‘a fpirit of Apollo,’? any more 
nthony’s fire,”’ 
his affirming that the fun « rifes”” aad ** fets” e every day? 
Moreover, Jews and Heathens, and even the ancient pro- 
phets, when {peaking of poffeflions, or on fimilar fubjeGs, 
adopt the common phrafeology, when they did not intend 
to countenance the opinion on which it was originally ground- 
ed; why, it is faid, might not a be the cafe with regard 
to Chritt and his apoltles ? It is allowed, that, in fome 
cafes, our Saviour acd his apoftles do ufe fac expreffions, 
even on the fubje& under confideration, as they could not 
sna to have uae in a literal fenfe, or in their bay 
ort. hus, wh 
felled by “ oe oe (Luke, viii. 
he New Tettament, (fee Matt. xi xi. 2 
ev. Xviil, 2.) all we reprefent him, wl Tefled 
all the treafures of wifdom and knowledge, as entertaining 
and fan@tioning this vulgar notion, becaufe he alludes to it, 
for the purpofe of ufeful inftru€tion, in his addrefs to the 
Jews? When he rele on one occafion, Come o 
unclean ae (Mark, 
dumb and deaf f{pirit, ei ‘charge of him’? 
(Mark, ix.25.); fhall we hence afer, that he believed [pirits 
to be ape deaf, and unclean? In another place Saye 
r Lord cannot be underftood literally, when 
‘declares, “e 1 beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven ; 
by which expreffion he informs us, that he had a pro- 
phetic view of the fudden overthrow of {uperftition and 
idolatry, (ufually defcribed as the kingdom of Satan, or an 
adverfary,) or of the [peedy prevalence of true religion over 
every ‘ oppofing power. ence, and from fimilar in- 
ftances, it is inferred, that merely from their defcribing dex- 
moniacs in the common popular language, we are not wars 
ranted in concluding Aen that either Chrift or his 
apottles a ae aia t 
owed its rife, pre is 
gelilts, at the dae ‘of eine 
pofleffions ; but Mr. Farmer cbferve that thi 
be inferred concerning them fa their m 
than it can be infe = concerning Chrift, from his manner 
of performing, the cure of demoniacs. It is further added, 
that Chrift and his ee had fafficient reafon for adopting 
the common phrafeclogy with refpe& to demoniacs, irag: 
feltly fuppofe, that the beings to whom the 
are capable of obeying them, and that Chriit expected them 
to obey him 
° 
thing with ou t 
objects equally peas as agents endowed with, sae a 
libe ad Jefus faid, ** Arife.” ae eee 
to rectify any phyfical eee concernin 
deed, could they be commiffioned for this purpofe : 
miracles wrought on the demoniacs were defigned for the 
conviction of unbelievers; and therefore their nature was to 
be determined by the tet of reafon alone, before men be- 
leved, i.e. before they could admit the authority e ee 
performers, or pay any deference to their judgment. 
e oF of the common h othefis concerning pof- 
rft a of the go 
And i iefly be confidered, 
that their inftru€tions did se "direly cae end ca 
nor could properly extend to it; the cure of demo 
ing a part of rae see saaan of the gofpel, which muft for ever 
be judged of by 
e advocates or rel pflffions > further urged a cons 
ideration of great t, even he eftimation cf fome 
per who have adopted -  comray hypothefis ; and this 
or, Chrift and his apoftles 
ed it Te one it was a very dangerous 
error, and the ort of much fuperftition and idolatry. 
This mode of er it is argued on the other hand, in- 
dicates great prefumption, and feems to prefcribe to the 
wifdom of God what he ought to do, and what kind and 
degree of inftru@tion and evidence he ought to afford for 
correcting error, and promoting-the belief of the truth. It 
is faid, however, that the firft perbeigtin of the gofpel have, . 
in the moft proper manner, rectified the dangerous errors 
that prevailed with regard to demons, ‘and i in fo doing fufB. 
is, ee if thei 
ciently fecured the interefts of true piety. ‘This they cae 
ORE ° 
niacs bee- 
