tained the opinion to which that language owed its rife.

I do not remember, that any perfons contend for the apoftles believing the power of the moon over the diforder called lunacy, merely because they, in common with others, defcribe it by this name. Nay, fome of the most zealous advocates for poffeffions, exprefsly declare, that those called lunatics were not really fuch, but are fo denominated in conformity to the opinion of the vulgar'. Nevertheless,

force of genius and penetration, (which would have ferved only to obfcure the evidences of their divine miffion;) and confidered as an error of philofophy, it might not be corrected by immediate revelation : nevertheless, they have effectually confuted it by their doctrine concerning demons; as was fhewn above.

y Hieron. in Mat. iv. 24. fays, Non vere lunaticos, fed qui putabantur lunatici ob dæmonum fallaciam. And Cæfarius, quæft. 112, ei undèu ex τῶν ἄκρων εὐεργετώνται ἢ ἀδικῶνται οἱ ἄνθρωποι, πῶς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον σεληνιαζομένες λέγει τὲς ἐπιληπτικές αφροντας καὶ ῥησσομένες, αποκρ. Σεληνιαζομένες φησὶ κατὰ τὴν πρόχειρον τῶν πολλῶν ὑπόνοιαν, μὴ χωρέντων ἀκρ σαι τὸ ὑψηλότερον.

the

the evangelifts affirm in exprefs terms, that the people brought to Jefus thofe which were lunatic, as well as thofe which were poffeffed with demons". From this language, it may with as much reafon be inferred, that they believed in the power of the moon, as in that of demons. And a lunar influence over difeafes might with as much propriety, be made an article of faith, upon the authority of the apostles, as a demoniacal one. It is equally evident, that with refpect to both, they only adopt the common language of the age and country in which they lived.

III. Chrift and his apoftles had sufficient reason for adopting the common phrafeology with refpect to demoniacs, (even fuppofing them not to approve the hypothefis on which it was grounded ;) because is was employed to defcribe the real case of these perfons, both the fymptoms of their diforder, and their cure.

Mat. iv. 24.

At first view, it may appear ftrange, that certain modes of fpeech which owed their rife to a false philosophy, should remain in ufe long after that philosophy is exploded, and be adopted without fcruple by all forts of perfons. The reason, however, is not difficult to be difcovered. These modes of fpeech, even when first introduced, exprefs certain outward and fenfible effects, as well as the cause to which they are referred. Nay, though both were originally included under the fame terms, yet the terms often continue to be employed in defcribing the effects, after a general alteration of fentiment concerning their reputed caufe. This appears in the clearest manner from thofe examples fpecified above. Lunacy imported at firft a kind of phrenzy, as well as the influence of the moon over it; and it is now ufed by all forts of perfons for phrenzy or madness in general, from whatever cause it is fuppofed to proceed. St. Anthony's fire, and St. Vitus's dance

always

always denoted certain bodily distempers, which were originally referred to the faints from whom they borrowed their refpective denominations; but at prefent, at least when used by Proteftants, fignify merely those diftempers, without any reference to the faints. The Nightmare, which was the name given to a fpirit that was faid to opprefs and suffocate perfons in their fleep, is ftill ufed to expreís the fenfations we feel in the night, refembling the preffure of fome weight upon the breaft, notwithstanding our afcribing thofe fenfations now merely to a stoppageof the animal fpirits, or fome natural caufe. To bewitch, denoted at first, to do mifchief to the fons or property of mankind by the affiftance of the devil; but now, excluding this idea, it often fignifies, to please irrefiftibly, or to produce effects fcarce to be accounted for without fafcination". "The charms of poetry our fouls bewitch", fays Dryden. Who hath bewitched you? is the language

a

of St. Paul.

per

- By the terms Ceres and Bacchus, the Heathens often meaned merely corn and wine, though they were the names of the deities that prefided over them. The reason why philofophers speak of the sun's rifing, fetting, and being eclipfed, is, that this language, which was once thought conformable to truth, ftill agrees with, and ferves to exprefs outward appearances. The foregoing obfervations are applicable to the cafe before us.

we have fhewn at large,

b

Poffeffion, as

did, in the

Fruges Cererem appellamus; vinum autem Liberum: ex quo illud Terentii, fine Cerere & Libero friget Venus. Cicero de Nat. Deor. lib. II. ch. xxiii. Notwithstanding this way of fpeaking, no man was so abfurd as to imagine, that which he ate was a god; according to the obfervation of the Roman orator, Sed ecquem tam amentem effe putas, qui illud quo vefcatur deum credat effe? In Euripides (Bacchæ, v. 275.) we read, Anunτng Gea, y♪isiv. See Euripid. Helen. v. 1318, and the notes of Barnes.

Ch. I. fect. 5, 6. In confirmation of this point, I would obferve, that the most judicious of those writers who affirm the reality of poffeffions, allow

earliest