3. Those that hold that _Paul_ did allude unto natural, or diabolick fascination, do but mean magical illusions, whereby the senses are abused and deceived, to take things to be that which really they are not, and so are but cheating Incantations and delusory Juglings, for as _Galen_ (if that piece be truly his) saith: _Incantationes verba sunt decipientia rationales animas secundum spei inceptionem, aut secundum timoris incisionem_. So that though S. _Paul_ had taken the metaphor from that which was commonly accounted fascination, there is no necessity, that therefore the metaphor must in all points be true: it is sufficient that the common opinion was so, from whose usage of such terms the Apostle useth the word, to fascinate, or inchant. And of this opinion was S. _Hierome_ himself who saith thus much: _Dignè Paulum, qui etsi imperitus est sermone non tamen & scientia, debemus exponere non quod scierit esse fascinum, qui vulgò putatur nocere, sed usus sermone sit trivii, & ut in cætero, ita & in hoc quoq; loco verbum quotidianæ sermocinationis assumpserit_. So that from hence it is most evident, that the using of the word fascination by the Apostle, doth not inferr the being of the thing, but only the opinion of the vulgar, that believed things that were not. And of the same judgment is _Thomas Aquinas_ in these words: _Propriè dicit Apostolus, quis vos fascinavit? quasi dicat, vos estis sicut homo ludificatus qui res manifestas aliter accipit quàm sint in rei veritate_. Therefore we shall conclude this point with the sentiment of S. _Hierome_: _Nunc illud in causa est, quod ex opinione vulgi sumptum putamus exemplum, ut quomodo tenera ætas noceri dicitur fascino, sic etiam Galatæ in Christi fide nuper nati, & nutriti lacte, & solido cibo velut quodam fascinante sunt nociti_. [Sidenote: _Vid. Valles. de sacr. Philosoph._] [Sidenote: _Galen_ _l._ 8. _de compos. medic._]