ought therefore rather to have rectified that error, than knowingly confirmed the people in it."

In order to answer this objection, it is not neceffary to endeavour (as fome have done) to explain away the language of the New Testament concerning demoniacs, or to force an unnatural conftruction upon it. However poffible it may be, by great learning and ingenuity, to ftrain some of the paffages cited above, into a different meaning; yet, whoever candidly confifiders them all, muft allow; at least, I do freely allow, that both our Saviour and his apostles made ufe of the common popular language of the age and country in which they lived on the fubject before, us; and that this language was originally founded on the fuppofition of the reality of demoniacal poffeffions. But the queftion still to be decided, is, whether merely by using this language, they gave their fanction to the opinion, to which it owes its rife.

We

We have already feen, that neither Chrift nor his apostles first introduced into the world, the doctrine of poffeffions, or the language that expreffed it. If they are liable to cenfure, therefore, it is only for not departing from the accustomed modes of fpeaking on this fubject, for not forming a new language concerning it. We have likewife feen, that they never affert the doctrine of poffeffions, but on the contrary, entirely fubvert it, when they are profeffedly ftating thofe doctrines which they were immediately commiffioned and inftructed to teach the world. They contradict themselves, therefore, if by using the common language with refpect to demoniacs, they meaned to countenance the opinion on which it was at first grounded. This alone might fatisfy us, that they did not, and could not, defign to give their fanction to that opinion. Nevertheless, great ftrefs being laid by many upon the argument, in favour of poffeffions, drawn from the language of the New Testament concerning

concerning them, I will offer fome farther obfervations upon this fubject; by which, I hope, it will appear to impartial perfons, that merely from the manner in which they speak of reputed demoniacs, it cannot be inferred, that they intended to affert the reality of demoniacal poffeffion.

I. It is customary with all forts of perfons, with the facred 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 false philofophy. This observation hath been often made, and well illuftrated by others; but is too important to be here omitted.

Wecall a certain diftemper lunacy,without enquiring what influence the moon hath in caufing or increasing it; nay, though we should believe, as many do, that the moon hath no influence upon it. In like manner we still speak of St. An

с

By none better than by Dr. Sykes, in his Inguiry and Farther Inquiry.

thony's

thony's fire, and of St. Vitus's dance; without acknowledging the power or existence of these faints. When we complain of the hag or night-mare, which is the name of a real diforder, refembling the preffure of fome weight on the breaft, imputed to a hag or incubus; do we not follow custom, without approving the hypothefis? Philofophers fpeak of the motion and path of the fun, though they know it never changes it's place they fay, that it is in the fpring in the conftellation of the Ram, (where it was in the time of Hipparchus, upwards of two thousand years ago,) notwithstanding their allowing, that the conftellations have all changed the places affigned them by the ancient astronomers; and that now, the fun is in the spring in that part of the heavens where the conftellation of the Bull is fituated. So difficult is it to recede from thofe ways of fpeaking which were introduced by the ancients, even after the reason of them ceases. They are retained, notwithstand

ing their acknowledged impropriety. Our best philofophers still use the common language concerning the rifing and fetting of the fun; though they know that it is founded in error and prejudice. They call that an eclipse of the fun, which they are very sensible, is properly an eclipfe of the earth.

The prophets of God alfo, as well as the profeffors of science, when they speak upon points of philofophy, adopt the common language, though grounded upon opinions univerfally allowed to be erroneous. Our Saviour fays, "God maketh his fun to rife; and the Pfalmift represents this luminary, which is fixed in the centre of our system, as running a race. When we read in Scripture, that the fun knoweth his going down', and that God

d Matt. v. 45.

* Pr. xix. 5, 6.

f Pf. civ. 19.

See Pf. 1. 1. The language of Joshua alfo, Sun ftand thou ftill upon Gibeon, (Josh.

x. 13.) alludes to a popular notion, now allowed to be false.