CONTENTS.

THE Introduction, page 1.

CHAPTER I.

Explaining and establishing the true meaning of de-

moniacs in the New Testament, under the ten fol-

lowing 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, ib. An objection answered, p. 8. Beelzebub, the prince

of the possessing demons, different from the devil, p. ŋ. 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 Beel-

zebub, (whose name is explained at large, and who is shewn 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 Martyr, 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. 33—4.

SECT. III.

PROP. III. 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 Hea-

thens and by Josephus, ib. and yet not considered as fallen an-

gels, p. 38. Whether the epithets of evil and unclean, doaf

and dumb, given them by the Evangelists, express their personal

qualities, or the effects they were supposed to produce, p. 36.

SECT. IV.

PROP. IV. The persons who are spoken of as having demons,

suffered real and violent, disorders, from whatever cause those

disorders proceeded, p. 38.

SECT. V.

PROP. V. The particular disorders which the antients, whether

Heathens or Jews, ascribed to the possession of demons, were

such only as disturbed the understanding, p. 41. A distinction

to be made between diseases supernaturally inflicted and posses-

sions, ib. Of being oppressed by the devil, Acts x. 38, p. 44.

and bound by satan, Luke xiii. 11, 16, p. 45. Possession in-

cluded 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 dra-

matic writings of the antients, p. 52. All disorders of the un-

derstanding 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. 55. This proved from the Jews,

reproaching Christ with having a demon, ib. and Beelzebub,

P: 57;

p. 57; from the similar reproach they cast upon John the Bap-

tist, ib.; and from the description of the Gadarene demoniac,

p. 59. Mary Magdalene's seven demons understood by Celsus

as expressive of her phrensy, p. 6. The Pythoness at Philippi

was a raving prophetess, ib. Epilepsy ascribed to possession,

and on what account, p. 64. The general idea which the an-

tients 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 be-

fore made of demoniacs, as persons that laboured under real dis-

orders, p. 70. Shews upon what grounds possessions are di-

stinguished from diseases in general, and from lunacies in parti-

cular, 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 epi-

leptic persons, p. 75•

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 in-

vented to account for their abounding in the age of the Gospel,

ib. The fact disproved by numerous testimonies, p. 79.

SECT. VIII.

PROP. VIII. The demoniacs of the New Testament are not dif-

ferent from those mentioned in other antient authors; and a like

judgment is to be formed of botli, p. 84. The bishop of Glou-

cester's attempt to make a distinction between them, considered,

p. 86.

SECT. IX.

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

ality of demoniacal possessions; nay, reason strongly remon-

strates

strates against it, p. 90. 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. 93. Who first invented the doctrine of possessions,
ib. By whom it hath been rejected, ib. Disorders deemed de-
moniacal do proceed from natural causes, p. 95, and are cured
by natural remedies, p. 97. Are inconsistent with the order of
the natural world, p. 99, and with the wisdom and goodness of
God, p. 100. The absurdity and danger of allowing that men
are in the power of superior malevolent spirits, ib.

SECT. X.

PROP. X. The doctrine of demoniacal possessions, instead of be-

ing supported by the Jewish or Christian revelation, is utterly

subverted by both, p. 103. 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. 104.
On

what occasions the mention of possessions might have been ex-

pected in the Old Testament, had this doctrine been revealed

under that dispensation, ib. It was generally entertained before

the age of the gospel, p. 107, but never received the sanction of

Christ or his apostles, p. 108. II. It is inconsistent with the

fundamental principle both of the Jewish and Christian dispen-

sations, ib. with the evidence of miracles in general, on which

they rest, p. 110; and with the nature of that miracle in parti-

cular which was performed upon demoniacs, ib. III. The ab-

solute nullity of demons to whom possessions were ascribed,

asserted by all the prophets of God, when professedly delivering

their divine messages to mankind, p. 113. 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. 115.
I. By an idol, he

here means a Heathen demon or deity, ib. 2. The demons of

the Heathens here spoken of were not devils, p. 118, but deified

human spirits, as is shewn from the ordinary acceptation of de-

mons amongst the Greeks, p. 120; from the constant use of the

word