session included in it the idea of madness, amongst the Latins, p. 78, the Greeks, p. 79, the Jews, p. 83, and other Eastern people, p. 86. That all the possessed were mad, proved from the dramatic writ- understanding were not ascribed to poffesfion, p. 88. The epilepsy ascribed to this cause, p. 83. Sect. VI. Prop. VI. The demoniacs spoken of in the New Testamenty were all either madmen or epi- Testament demoniacs cleared from the objections of · Dr. Lardner, p. 112. This account juftifies the re- présentation before made of demoniacs, as persons that laboured under real disorders, p. 118. Shews upon what grounds poffeffions are distinguished from diseases in general, and from lunacies in particular, ib. and for what reason madness and epileptic fits, were all either mad, melancholy, or epileptie per- Sect. VII. Prop. VÍI. Demoniácal' poffefsións (whé. ther they are supposed to be real or’imaginary,) and " the disorders imputed to them, were not peculiar to . 'the country of Judea, and the time of Chrift; nor doth it appear that they abounded more in that coun- try, or at that time, than any other, p. 128." The reasons invented to account for their abounding in the age of the Gospel, p. 129. The fact difproved by numerous testimonies, p. 134. Sect. VIII Prop. VIII. The demoniacs of the New Testament are not different from those mentioned in 1. other ancient authors; and a like judgment is to be formed of both, p. 142. The bishop of Gloucester's attempt to make a distinction between them, con- Sect. IX. Prop. IX. There is no sufficient evidence i from reason for the reality of demoniacal possessions ; :: nay reason ftrongly remonftrates against it, p. 150. No natural evidence of the spirits of dead men having power to enter the bodies of the living, ib. The dis- orders imputed to possession, may proceed from na- tural causes, p. 152. Who first invented the doc. trine of possessions, p. 153. By whom it hath been rejected, p. 155. Disorders, deemed (demoniacal de proceed from natural causes, p. 159, and are cured by natural remedies, p. 163. Are inconsistent with dity and danger of allowings that men are in iho power of superior malevolent fpirits, p. 168, s.' feffions, instead of being fupported by the Jewith or : Christian revelation, is utterly' fubverted by both, p. : . 173. I. This doctrine was not originally founded on revelation ; neither taught, nor feferred to, by s the ancient prophets, ib. - Saul's evil spirit, explain- ed, p. 124. On what occasions the mention of that difpenfation, p. 175. It was generally enter- ver received the fanction of Christ or his Apostles, p. 181. II. It is inconsistent with the fundamental * principle both of the Jewish and Christian difpenfae *** tions, p. 182, with the evidence of miracles ini gé. peral, on which they reft, p. 184, and with the .: nature of that miracle in particular, which was pero · formed upon demoniacs, p. 185. III. The absolute - aullity of demons, to whom poffeffions were ascribed, : afected by all the prophets of God, when professedly in delivering their divine messages to mankind, p. 189. Sa Paul's reasoning on this subject in his-mt Epiftle .osto che Corinthians, examined at large, and that deala- . . p. 199, but deified human spirits, as is sewn from Greeks, p. 202, from the constant use of the word they were esteemed by St. Paul, 'himself, as well as inference from the fundamental articles of Christiani- never could be a real demoniac, p. 239. ';. ise CHAP. II. Attempting to solve the several objections against the foregoing explication of the Gospel demoniacs, p. 241. - www.de Sect. I. The objections drawn from what was faid - and done by the demoniacs themselves, considered, p. 242. 1. From their knowing and proclaiming Jesus to be the Messiah, ib. 2. From their being forbidden by Christ to discover him, p. 249.: 3. From their arguing rationally, with Chrift, and speak- ing to better purpose, than the bulk of those who were in their senses, p. 259. How ill this obferva- tion applies to the Gadarene demoniac, ib. His conduct accounted for on the supposition of his not . . .i being being really pofseffed, p. 266. 4. From their dif- covering more than human ftrength, p. 275. The case of the demoniac at Ephesus, p. 276. *** Sect. II. The objection drawn from the destruction of the herd of swine, p. 280. The swine were not driven into the sea by the two madmen, ib. but grew mad at the instant the demoniacs were cured, p. 281. Their madness was not owing to the in- fluence of demons, but to a divine agency, p. 291. The miraculous destruction of the swine vindicated, p. 294. 1. It was a just punishment of the owners, ib. It served, 2. To ascertain the reality, and to spread the fame, of the miracle performed upon the demo- niacs, p. 296. 3. To correct the false notions of the world concerning the power of demons, p. 299: -- 4. To prevent several great inconveniencies that would otherwise have attended the personal miniftry Gospel, considered as a dispensation of mercy, Sect. III. The objection taken from the language .. used by Christ and his apostles, in performing and recording the cure of demoniacs, or in describing the ; case of these unhappy men, p. 307. This language but was the common popular language of the age in first teachers of Christianity could not, without great inconsistency, give their sanction to the opinion |