Imágenes de páginas

in them, they fpoke and acted under his influence, without having (as we

Gadarene demoniacs, conceiving of themselves as the mere organs of indwelling demons, fay to Chrift, If thou caft us out, fuffer us to go away into the herd of fwine: (εἰ ἐκβάλλεις ἡμᾶς, ἐπίτρεψον ἡμῖν ἀπελθεῖν εἰς τὴν ἀγέλην τῶν χοίρων.) Mat. viii. 31. On other occafions, the demons are reprefented as fpeaking in the poffeffed.


The learned and ingenious: Semlerus, afferts, ex verbis illis, ἐξήλθον, ἐξήρχετο δαιμόνια, non conficitur, dæmonia effe in homine sapeva. And he affigns as the ground of his affertion, that a fimilar phrafe occurs with respect to the leprofy, i xéπga áπñλlev, Mark. i. 42. Luke v. 13. p. 36, 37, 38. In p. 45, note 30, he says, Cypriani inveni primam illam truculentam phrafin, de obfefforum corporibus ejiciuntur; de obfeffis corporibus Exire coguntur.Illud inbáλnew, ejicere, induxit interpretes, non vero refertur ad corpus ipfum hominis. Indeed, through the whole of his tract, he feems more inclined to difpute the perfonal prefence of demons in the human body, than their power of afflicting it with uncommon difeases. And in the paffage here cited, he feems willing to affign the notion of proper poffeffions, fo 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 perfon. Semlerus himself fays,

F 4


fhall fhew in the fequel) the ufe of their own understandings. Now this cannot



p. 8. note In corpus intrat dæmon fatidicus; and in proof of this affertion, very properly appeals to to Eurip. Bacch. v 300. "Orav yap ó Deò's 'EIZ ΤΟ ΣΩΜ ̓ ΕΛΘΗ πολὺς; and alfo to Virgil, Æn. VL. 77, &c. At Phoebi nondum patiens, immanis in antro bacchatur vates, magnum fi pectore poffit excuffiffe deum. Ariftotle (de. Mirab. Aufcult. Extrem.) speaking of a stone in the river Nile, expreffes himfelf in the following manner: συντελεῖ δὲ καὶ τοῖς δαίμονι τινὶ γινομένοις· κατόχοις [Thrafyllus & Plutarchus woie de aρisα wed's TY'S δαιμονιζομένες] ἅμα γὰρ τῷ προσεθῆναι ταῖς ῥισὶν ̓ΑΠΕΡΧΕΤΑΙ[ThrafyllusἘΞΈΡΧΕΤΑΙ] τὸ δαιμόνιον. Vide Thrafyll, apud Stobæum XCVIII. & Plutarch. de Fluviis, p. 1159. Jofephus, in the paffage cited from him above p. 42. reprefents the demons as entering thofe called demoniacs; and immediately after adds, that the root baaras drives away (have) demons, Elfewhere he affirms, that Solomon inftru&ted men in the art of curing thefe unhappy perfons, which was, by extracting the demon through the noftrils: ἐξεῖλκεν ὀσφραινομένω διὰ τῶν μυκτήρων τὸ δαιμόVLOV. This is faid of Eleazar, who at the fame time commanded the demon as he went out of the patient, algúns, to overturn a cup of water; and adjured him not to return into him again, μnxér' eis autòv imaveλbe. Antiq. Jud. lib. viii. c. 2. § 5. Once more, Lucian in his Philop



[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

be affirmed concerning all those whom the gods, by a tranfient act of, power, fendes, (p. 337, tom. ii. ed. Amftelodami) where he is defcribing the commonly received opinion on this fubject, fays, Επειδὰν γὰρ ἐπις ῆ κειμένοις, καὶ ἔρηται ὅθεν ΕΙΣΕΛΗΛΥΘΑΣΙΝ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΣΩΜΑ, -- ὁ δαίμων ἀποκρίνεται, — ὅπως τε καὶ ὅθεν ΕΠΗΛΘΕΝ ΕΣ ΤΟΝ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΝ. Εtenim quum jacentibus fupervenit, rogavitque unde in corpus ingreffi fint,dæmon refpondet,quomodo & unde in hominem intravit. Immediately after, he reprefents the exorcift, as driving away or expelling the demon, λαúve Toy daimova.

These paffages, and a thousand others, that might be produced from writers who lived several ages before Cyprian, ferve to fhew, that the general idea which the ancients entertained of démoniacs, was that of perfons whofe fymptoms were afcribed to the real prefence and refidence 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 difeafe as well as a demon is faid to depart from a man; yet this language will not prove, that the demon was not in him before, but rather implies the contrary, juft as the disease was in the man, from whom it was faid to depart. It is for want of attending to the proper idea the ancients had of poffeffions, that even the best


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

were fuppofed to chastise with mere bodily diforders. Apollo, according to Homer sent the plague upon the Grecian army; but those who were vifited by the plague, do not answer to the defcription of demoniacs, nor were they ever reprefented as fuch.

In like manner, with refpect to the Jews, St. Peter, fpeaking in the language of his country, fays, Chrift healed all that were oppreffed of the devil. The apostle

writers on the fubject confound it with every grievous diftemper that was afcribed to the anger of the gods.

Il. i. The ancients were generally of opinion, that peftilence proceeded from the anger of the gods. Diogen. Laert. lib. viii. fegm, 70.

* Act. x. 38. Though Dr. Sykes (Farther Inquiry, p. 59.) refers this paffage to Chrift's recovering men from the power of the devil, to obedience to God; it is nevertheless evident, that St. Peter is here fhewing, that Chrift's divine commiffion was demonftrated by his miracles. The expreffion is equivalent to Mat. iv. 23. He healed all manner of fickness, and all manner of difeafe Amongst the people. All the difeafed were spoken


feems here to refer to Chrift's cure of the difeafed in general, without taking into confideration the particular cafe of the demoniacs; who, in the Gofpels, are diftinguished from the blind, the lame, the paralytic, and thofe afflicted with other maladies; concerning whom we never read, that demons entered them, or were expelled from them. The leprofy was confidered by the Jews as a divine infliction ". And indeed, as a very eminent writer obferves, all over the East, where the leprofy is almoft incurable, it was regarded in the fame light. The fame celebrated author farther takes no"tice, That, according to Herodotus *; "it was the belief of the Perfians, of by the Jews, as oppreffed by an evil fpitit, but not as possessed by demons, of whom there is here

no mention.


See below, ch. ii, fect. 3. at the beginning. * See Hammond on Mat. viii. 4.

• Michaelis, in his Differtation on the Influ


ence of Opinions on Languages, p. 6.

* Clio, c. 138.


« AnteriorContinuar »