« PoprzedniaDalej »
in them, they spoke and acted under his influence, without having (as we
Gadarene demoniacs,' conceiving of themselves as the mere organs of indwelling demons, say: to Christ, If thou cast us. out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine : (il éx6á ens mãs, émites Vov muiy areADETV EIS TAN yea nu twv Xoiowe.) Mat. viii. 31. On other occafions, the demons are represented as speaking in the possessed.
The learned and ingenious. Semlerus, afferts, ex verbis illis, Enadove it nexéto d'arquóvsk, non conficitur, dæmonia esse in homine upis ajáévax And he' afligns as the ground of his assertion, that a similar phrase occurs with respect to the leprosy, ở Akiệc của sv, Mark. i. 42. Luke v. 13. p. 36, 37, 38. In p. 45, note 30, he says, Cypriani inveni primam illam truculentam phrasin, de obfeforum corporibus ejiciuntur ; de obfeflis corporibus exire coguntur. Illud éxed Masiv, ejicere, induxit interpretes, non vero refertur ad corpus ipfum hominis. Indeed, through the whole of his tract, he seems more inclined to dispute the perfonal presence of demons in the human body, than their power of afflicting it with uncommon diféales. And in the passage here cited, he seems willing to assign the notion of proper poffeffions, so late a date as the age of Cyprian.
It appears however from the earliest writers, that demoniacs were supposed to have demons within them in person. Semlerus himself fays, F4
Thall new in the sequel) the use of their own-understandings. Now this cannot
p. 8. note • In corpus intrat dæmon fatidicus; and in proof of this assertion, very properly appeals to to Eurip. Bacch. V 300. : "OTQv gap ó JEOS 'EIE TO EM''EAOH worus; and also to Virgil, Æn. VI. 77, &c. At Phoebi nondum patiens, immanis in antro bacchatur vates, magnum fi pectore' poffit excufale deum. Aristotle. (de. Mirab. Auscult. Extrem.) speaking of a stone in the river Nile, - expresses himself in the following manner : συντελεί δε και τους δαίμονι τινι γινομένοις κατόχους [Thrafyllus & Ρlutarchus σοιεί δε άρισα προς τις δαιμονιζομένες] άμα γαρ το προσεθήναι ταϊς ρισιν 'ANEPXETAI[Thrafyllus’EEEPXETAI]to darbusova Vide Thrafyll. apud Stobæum XCVIII. & Plutarch. de Fluviis, p. 1159. Jofephus, in the passage cited from him above p. 42, represents the demons as entering those called demoniacs; and immediately, after adds, that the root baaras drives away (ECENQúver) demons. Elsewhere he affirms, that Solomon instructed men in the art of curing these unhappy persons, which was, by extracting the demon through the noftrils : εξείλκεν οσφραινομένω δια των μυκτήρων το δαιμόviou. This is said of Eleazar, who at the same time commanded the demon as he went out of the patient, Ev 6070 og áv@putr, to overturn a cup of wa. ter ; and adjured him not to return into him again, penxét' £is autov &T xverdeñv. Antiq. Jud. lib. viji. c. 2. § 5. Once more, Lucian in his Philop
be affirmed concerning all those whom the gods, by a transient act of, power, sendes, ¢p.- 337, tom. ii. 'ed: " Amstelodami) where he is describing the commonly received opinion on this fubject, fays, 'Επειδαν γαρ επισή κειμένοις, και έρηται όθεν ΕΙΣΕΛΗΛΥΘΑΣΙΝ ΕΙΣ TO ENMA, — ; daípewn á mořgivetao; -- wstes xj IEV ENHAOEN ESTON ANOPS2010N, Etenim quum jacentibus supervenit, rogavitque unde in corpus ingress fint,- dæmon respondet, -quomodo & unde in hominem intravit. Immediately after, he represents the exorcist, as driving away or expelling the demon, flerauver son daiqovx,
These passages, and a thousand others, that might be produced from 'writers who lived several ages before Cyprian, serve to shew, that the general idea which the ancients entertained of demoniacs, was that of persons whose symptoms were ascribed to the real presence and residence of demons in the human body. The objection of Semlerus, taken notice of the above, however ingenious," doth not appear to have any force : for though a disease as well as a demon is said to depart from a man; yet this language will 'not prove, that the demon was nor in him before, but råther implies the contrary, just as the disease was in the man, from whom it was said to depart. It is for want of attending to the proper idea the ancients had of poffeffions, that even the best
were supposed to chastise with mere bodily disorders. Apollo, according to Homer" sent the plague upon the Grecian army ; but those who were visited by the plague, do not answer to the description of demoniacs, nor were they ever represented as such. .
In like manner, with respect to the Jews, St. Peter, speaking in the language of his country, says, Christ healed all that were oppressed of the devil*. The apostle writers on the subject confound it with every grievous distemper that was ascribed to the anger of the gods...'
u Il. i. The ancients were generally of opinion, that peftilence proceeded from the anger of the gods. Diogen. Laert, lib. viii, segm. 70.
* A&. x. 38. Though Dr. Sykes (Farther Inquiry, p. 59.) refers this passage to Christ's recovering men from the power of the devil, to obedience to God; it is nevertheless evident, that St. Peter is here thewing, that Christ's divine commission was demonstrated by his miracles. The expression is equivalent to Mat. iv. 23. He healed all manner of sickness, and all manner of disease among the people. All the diseased were spoken
feems here to refer to Christ's cure of the diseased in general, without taking into consideration the particular case of the demoniacs; who, in the Gospels, are diftinguished' from the blind, the lame, the paralytie; - and those afflicted with other maladies ; concerning whom we never read, that demons entered them, or were expelled from them. The leprosy was considered by the Jews as a divind infliction". And indeed, as a very emi. nent writer observes, all over the East, where the leprosy is almost incurable, it was regarded in the same light. The fame celebrated author farther takes no" tice, That, according to Herodotus *, “it was the belief of the Persians, of by the Jews, as oppressed by an evil spitit, but not as polesed by demons, of whom there is here no mention. '
9. See below, ch. ii, fect. 3. at the beginning. * See Hammond on Mat. viii, 4.
· Michaelis, in his Dissertation on the Influence of Opinions on Languages, p. 6. .. * Clio, c. 138.