Obrazy na stronie
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Videndum est ut - sobriè sapiamus ex Dei verbo, ne pro
veritate aniles fabulas substituamus.



Printed by Richard and Arthim. Taylor, Shoe Lane :





The Introduction, page 1.

CHAPTER 1. Explaining and establishing the true meaning of demo

niacs in the New Testament, under the ten following propositions, p. 7.

SECT. I. Prop. I. The spirits that were thought to take possession of men's

bodies, are in the New Testament called demons, not devils, p. 8. An objection answered, ib. Beelzebub, the prince of the possessing demons, different from the devil, p. 9. The term satan applicable to the former, ib.

SECT. II. Prop II. By demons, whenever the word occurs in reference to

possessions, either in the Scriptures or other antient writings, we are to understand, not fallen angels, but the Pagan deities, such of them as had once been men, p. 13. Demons used in this sense, 1. By the Heathens, particularly the Greeks and Romans, p. 13. 2. By the Jews, p. 18. By the Pharisees in particular, when they objected to Christ, that he cast out demons by Beelzebub, (whose name is explained at large, and who is shown to be one of the Heathen demons,)p 19, and by Josephus, p. 24. 3. By Christ and his apostles, p. 25. 4. And by the primitive Christians, p. 28. By Justin Mariyr, ib. How it came to pass that the Fathers, after his time, and Chrysostom in particular, referred possessions to celestial demons, p. 29, note t. Of the spirit of Python or Apollo, with which the damsel at Philippi was thought to be possessed, p.334,

SECT. III. Prop. II. Those demons who were thought to take possession of men's bodies, were, it is probable, considered by the Jews as evil beings, p. 35. As such they were regarded by the Heathens and hy Josephus, ib. and yet not considered as fallen angels, p. 38, Whether the epithets of evil and unclean, deaf and dumb, given them by the Evangelists, express their personal qualities, or the effects they were supposed to produce, p. 36. A 2


SECT. IV. Prop. IV. The persons who are spoken of as having demons, sufe

fered real and violent disorders, front whatever cause these disorders proceeded, p 38.

SECT. V. Prop. V. The particular disorders which the antients, whether

Heathens or Jews, ascribed to the possession of deinons, were such only as disturbed the understanding, p. 41. A distinction to be made between diseases superailuriliyoficted and possessions, ib. Of being operessed by thi divil, Acts x. 38, p. 44. and bound by salun, Luke xvi 11, 16, p. 45. Possession included in it the idea of madness, amongst the Latins, p. 46; the Greeks, p. 47; the Jews, p. 50; and other Eastern people, p.51. That all the possessed were mad, proved from the dramatic writings of the ancients, p. 52. All disorders of the understanding were not ascribed to possession, ib. The epilepsy ascribed to this cause, p. 53.

SECT. VI. PROP. VI. The demoniacs spoken of in the New Testament were all

either madmen or epileptics, p 54. This proved from the Jews" reproaching Christ with having a demon, p. 55, and Beelzebub, p. 57; from the similar reproach they cast upon John the Baptista ib.; and from the description of the Gadarene demoniac, p. 59. Mary Magdalene's seven demons understood by Celsus as expres. sive of her phrensy, p. 62. The Pythoneos at Philippi was a raving prophetess, ib. Epilepsy ascribed to possession, and on what account, p. 64 The general idea which the antients had of demoniacs, p 65. The account here given of the New Testament demoniacs cleared from the objections of Dr. Lardner, p. 66. This account justifies the representation before made of demoniacs, as persons that laboured under real disorders, p. 70. Shows upon what grounds possessions are distinguished from diseases in general, and from lunacies in particular, ib.; and for what reason, madness and epileptic fits rather than other disorders are ascribed to possession, p 74. Lastly, it is confirmed by the view given us of the demoniacs in the Christian church, who were all either mad, melancholy, or epileptic persons, p. 74.

SECT. VII. Prop VII. Demoniacal possessions (whether 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 Christ; nor doth it appear that they abounded more in that country, or at that time, than any other, p. 76. The reasons invented to account for their abounding in the age of the Gospel, ib. The faci disproved by numerous testimonies, p. 79.


SECT. VIII. Prop. VIII. The demoniacs of the New Testament are not different

from those mentioned in other antient authors; and a like judgement is to be formed of both, p 84. The bishop of Gloucester's attempt to make a distinction between them, considered, p.85.

SECT. IX. PROP. IX. There is no sufficient evidence from reason for the re

ality of demoniacal possessions; nay, reason strongly remonstrates against-it, p. 89. No natural evidence of the spirits of dead men having power to enter the bodies of the living, ib. The disorders imputed to possession may proceed from natural causes, p. 95. Who first invented the doctrine of possessions, 92. By whom it hath been rejected, ib. Disorders deemed demoniacal do proceed from natural causes, p. 94, and are cured by natural remedies, p. 96. Are inconsistent with the order of the natural world, p. 98, and with the wisdom and goodness of God, p. 99. The absurdity and danger of allowing that men are in the power of superior and malevolent spirits, ib.

SECT. X. Prop. X. The doctrine of demoniacal possessions, instead of being

supported by the Jewish or Christian revelation, is utterly subverted by both, p. 102. I. This doctrine was not originally founded on revelation; neither taught nor referred to by the antient prophets, ib. Saul's evil spirit explained, p. 103. On what occasions the mention of possessions might have been expected in the Old Testament, had this doctrine been revealed under that dispensation, ib. It was generally entertained before the age of the Gospel, p. 105, but never received the sanction of Christ or his apostles, p. 107. 11. It is inconsistent with the fundamental principle both of the Jewish and Christian dispensations, ib. with the evidence of miracles in general, on which they rest, p. 108; and with the nature of that miracle in particular which was performed upon demoniacs, 109. III. The absolute nullity of demons to whom possessions were ascribed, asserted by all the prophets of God, when professedly delivering their divine messages to mankind, p. 111. St. Paul's reasoning on this subject in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, examined at large, and that declaration in particular, “We know that an idol is nothing in the world,” ch. viii. 4, p. 114. 1. By an idol, he bere means a Heathen demon or deity, ib. 2. The demons of the Heathens here spoken of were not devils, p. 117, but deified human spirits, as is shown from the ordinary acceptation of demons amongst the Greeks, p. 119; from the constant use of the word in the New Testament, p. 122, (particularly in Acts xvii. p. 123. 1 Tim. iv. I, 124. James ii. 19, ib. Rev. ix. 20, ch. xvi. 14, ch. xviii. 2, p. 129:) from the occasion on which it is used in the place in question, p. 130, and from the Septuagint, p. 132. 3. These Heathen demons were nothing in the world, p. 133. 4. As mere nullities they were esteemed by St. Paul himself, as well as by


« PoprzedniaDalej »