-X. The doctrine of demoniacal pof-
1 of being fupported by the Jewish or ation, is utterly fubverted by both, p. = doctrine was not originally founded neither taught, nor feferred to, by ophets, ib. Saul's evil fpirit, explain- On what occafions the mention of ght have been expected in the Old ad this doctrine been revealed under on, p. 175. It was generally enter- the age of the gofpel, p. 179, but ne- the fanction of Chrift or his Apostles, t is inconfiftent with the fundamental
of the Jewish and Chriftian difpenfa-
with the evidence of miracles in gé-
ich they reft, p. 184, and with the
miracle in particular, which was per-
demoniacs, p. 185. III. The abfolute ons, to whom poffeffions were afcribed, the prophets of God, when profeffedly eir divine meffages to mankind, p. 189. foning on this fubject in his ft Epiftle nians, examined at large, and that deala- icular, We know that an idol is nothing in
19. p. 211. Rev. ix. 20, ch. xvi. 14, ch. xviii 2, p. 218, 219) from the occafion on which it is used in the place in queftion, p. 220, and from the Sep- tuagint, p. 223. 3. Thefe Heathen demons were nothing in the world, p. 224. 4. As mere nullities they were esteemed by St. Paul himself, as well as by other Chriftians, p. 229. 5. This opinion a juft inference from the fundamental articles of Chriftiani- -ty, p. 232. Demons being mere nullities, there never could be a real demoniac, p. 239.
e than human ftrength, p. 275. The lemoniac at Ephesus, p. 276.
e objection drawn from the deftruction f fwine, p. 280. The fwine were not the fea by the two madmen, ib. but the inftant the demoniacs were cured, eir madness was not owing to the in- emons, but to a divine agency, p. 291. lous deftruction of the fwine vindicated, It was a juft punishment of the owners, 2. To afcertain the reality, and to fpread the miracle performed upon the demo- 6. 3. To correct the falfe notions of ncerning the power of demons, p. 299: vent feveral great inconveniencies that wife have attended the perfonal miniftry 303. 5. To warn all, who, overlook- ce of God, are in danger of abusing the nfidered as a difpenfation of mercy,
The objection taken from the language rift and his apoftles, in performing and e cure of demoniacs, or in describing the unhappy men, p. 307. This language -ft introduced by Chrift or his apoftles, common popular language of the age in Gospel was first published, p. 314. The ers of Christianity could not, without fiftency, give their fanction to the opinion hat language was originally founded, ib.
writers in particular, and our Saviour himself, to speak on many subjects in the language of the vulgar, though known and admitted to have been originally grounded on a falfe philofophy, p. 315. II. They all do this, the facred writers, and our Saviour him- felf not excepted, when speaking on the very subject in question, p. 323. III. The common phrafeology was adopted by Chrift and his apoftles with good reafon; for, though originally built upon a falfe philo fophy, it was commonly employed to defcribe the real cafe of the demoniacs, both the fymptoms of their diforder and their cure, p. 339. The fymp- toms of their diforder better defcribed by this lan- guage, than by calling them madmen, p. 345. What was meaned by the difpoffeffion of demons, p. 350. Why demoniacs are distinguished from the diseased, and their cure from the healing of difeafes, p. 354. Why demons were commanded to come out, p. 355. IV. It doth not appear, that either Chrift or his apoftles were commifhoned by God to inftruct man kind in the fecret caufes of thofe difeafes which were imputed to poffeffion, any more than of other dif eafes; or to change the vulgar language in defcribing the cafe of the demoniacs, p. 358. V. As the first publishers of the Gospel were not, so they could not, with any propriety, be commiffioned by God to in- struct mankind in the phyfical caufes of thofe dif-
« AnteriorContinuar » |