Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

And is not this a clear proof that the former was a constant attendant upon the latter?

Accordingly we find in fact, that those whom the antients conceived to be possessed, were insane in their understandings. This appears from a thousand instances. I shall only take notice, that their dramatic writings are our surest rule whereby to judge what opinions prevailed in common life; and that in the plays of Eschylus*, of Sophoclest, of Euripidest, and of Plautus §, those who are spoken of as possessed are all either madmen, or personate such.

But though the antients did not consider any persons as possessed, who were not disordered in their understandings; yet they did not consider all who were disordered in their understandings as possessed.

The Greeks did not impute to demons the delirium of a fever, and the phrensy caused by drinking to excess. We read in Herodotus, that it was said of Cleomenes, that his insanity did not proceed from any demon, but from hard drinking. Nevertheless, the

Concerning Orestes, see the Chaphora of

schylus, v. 1053, 4.

In the Agamemnon of the same poet, v. 1149, it is said of Cassandra, Opevoμavns ris & deopontos, Lymphatica es numine incita. In like manner Lycophron Cassandra, Ἡ δ' ενθεον σχασασα Βακχείον τόμα.

† Soph. Antigone, v. 1072-1080. See also his Ajax flagell. v. 51, 60, &c.

Vide Eurip. Orestes, v. 35, &c. Iphigen. in Tauris, v. 285. Herculens furens, v. 833. Troades, v. 307, 341, 366, 408, 500. Bacchæ, v. 663, 1091, 1092.

$ Menæch. act. v. sc. 4. Amphitr. act. ii. sc. 2. v. 71. Captiv., act. iii. sc. 4. Aulular..act. iv. sc. 4. Captiv. act. iii. sc. 4.

|| Lib. vi. c.84.

turn of expression here used, serves to shew, that for the most part madness was ascribed to possession. To this some have thought they imputed every species of madness for which they could not account by the sole operation of natural causes. The fact seeins to be, that they imputed to possession, only those cases of madness in which the symptoms appeared to them best to agree with the supposition of the patient's having his faculties controlled by evil demons, and with his speaking and acting under their malignant influence.

Besides madness, the antients ascribed the epilepsy to possession; esteeming this disorder sacred on account of the entrance* of demons into the bodies of those who suffered under it. These two, the epilepsy and madness, are kindred disorderst. The former is often the consequence of the latter; and the fits of it

* Δια της δόξης δαίμονος ες τον άνθρωπον εισοδο. Aretæus de Causis Morbi diuturn. lib. i. cap. 4. Hence it is that Hippocrates (p. 308.) De morbo sacro, when reasoning against those who attempted to cure this disorder by expiations, and the rites of purification, observes, that he could not think that the body of a man could be defiled by a god, that which is most polluted by what is most pure. I take notice of this passage, as it explains the distinction between discases barely inflicted by the gods, and those which were owing to their entrance into the body. As to the epilepsy's being esteemed sacred, see Hippocrat, de Aëre, Aquis et Locis, § 4. The Romans dissolved their assemblies whenever any one was seized with it. From hence it was called comitialis morbus.

+ Sæpe enim evenit, ut per longum tempus dementiæ superveniat epilepsia. Sunt enim affines hi morbi. Mead's Medica Sacra, p. 69. ed. 1749. Dr. Sykes, in his Inquiry, p. 41, 42, hath shewn that the antient physicians were of the same opinion.

[blocks in formation]

are always attended with a deprivation of the understanding, and with convulsive agitations, or a frantic and mad behaviour. Besides madness, and (what are so nearly allied to it) epileptic fits, I know of no distemper that the antients ascribed to possession; unless, perhaps, fits of apoplexy *, which also affect the brain, the supposed residence of those demons who entered the bodies of men. Whatever may

have occurred to others, who have a more enlarged view of the subject; yet, with respect to myself, I must own, that, after having taken some pains in making enquiry into the sense of the antients upon it, I have not been able to find any case of (what was called) 'demoniacal possession, that was not attended with some disorder of the understanding. Indeed, it seems to me very unlikely, that any instance from amongst the antients should ever be produced of a person said to be possessed, who was in his right mind; inasmuch as all the antients, in their several languages, employed the word which signified possession, to express madness. How far the language of scripture corresponds with these sentiments of Pagar and Jewish antiquity, will appear in the following. section.

[ocr errors]

* I have seen Galen appealed to, in proof of the antients ascribing apoplexies to the possession of demons. But a learned physician whom I consulted, though he made very diligent search, could not find any passage to this purpose in the works of that voluminous writer.

SECTION

SECTION VI.

Prop. vi. The demoniacs spoken of in the New Testament were all either madmen or epileptics.

DEMONIACS are often either expressly mentioned or referred to in the New Testament, by the unbelieving Jews, as well as by. Christ and his apostles. With respect to the Jews, it hath been already shewn, from their own writings, that they considered demoniacs as insane in their understanding. And agreeable hereto is the representation made of their sentiments on this point in the Gospel.

Some of the Jews, offended with Christ's discourses, said, He hath a demon, and is mad; why hear ye him? If we understand these words in the strictest sense, the Jews intended to reproach Christ both with possession and madness. For these two, when thus joined together, are not necessarily to be understood as synonymous terms; possession may be put for the apprehended cause, and madness for the supposed effect. It was from the latter that men in-ferred the former; or, in other words, madness wasthe evidence of possession. On the other hand, as

* John x. 20. Δαιμόνιον έχει και μαίνεται. In like manner Isocrates (Orat. Areopagit. vol. i. p. 348. ed. Battie,) makes mention of xaxodai-μονησάντων και μανέντων ανθρωπων.

+ Thus in Philostratus, (Vit. Apollon. Tyan. lib. iii. cap. 38. p. 128.} when the mother was asked, why she thought her son possessed. by a demon, she replied, The demon & vxopal AUTO VY EXEL: non sana illum mente patitur esse.

[blocks in formation]

possession sometimes denoted mere madness, from whatever cause it proceeded, it is possible they might design to reproach him with this alone. Nevertheless, on this supposition, their language is grounded on the connexion there was originally supposed to be between possession and insanity. Those who thought favourably of Christ replied to the calumny of his enemies, These are not the words of him who hath a demon* that is, "We cannot discover any thing, in his discourses, that looks like the ravings of a demoniac, or from whence it can be justly inferred that he is disordered in his understanding.”

[ocr errors]

At another time the Jews, being unable to bear the severe reproofs of this divine prophet, broke out again into rage and revilings: Say we not well, that thou art a Samaritan, (one that bearest us the most implacable hatred,) and hast a demon†, that is, art quite beside thyself?" Or they might mean, that he was a possessed madman. Jesus replied, I have not a demont," I speak the words of truth and soberness.” When he added, If a man keep my sayings, he shall Never see death§; his enemies, from the bitterest mafignity, wresting his words into an absurd sense, accuse him again, Now we know thou hast a demon |}, "nothing can be more evident, than that (under the influence of an evil spirit) you must have lost your senses." Abraham is dead, and the prophets, and thors sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste

John x. 21.

§ Ver. 51.

+ Ch. viii. 48.

Ver. 52.

+ Ver. 49.

of

« PoprzedniaDalej »