The Leper in England: with some account of English lazar-housesHope, Robert Charles
History
The Leper in England: with some account of English lazar-houses
Hope, Robert Charles
Leprosy -- Great Britain -- History
In chapter xiii., we are told that "if a man has a bright spot deeper
than the skin of the flesh, the hair on which has turned white, or the
white spot has a raw in it, and the scab be spread in the skin--then
shall the priest pronounce him _unclean_." But, if he have all the
above symptoms, and "the scabs do not spread, or, if he be covered
from head to foot--as white as snow--with the disease, then shall the
priest pronounce him _clean_." It should be observed, that whereas
the "_unclean_" Leper "shall dwell alone," no such restriction was
placed upon the "clean or White Leper," who was free to go about as he
desired, and also to mingle with his fellow-men. This is clear from
the accounts given us of Gehazi conversing with the King; of Naaman
performing his ordinary duties as captain of the host of the King of
Syria; we are told he was "a great man with his master, and
honourable, because by him the Lord had given victory unto Syria; he
was also a mighty man of valour," and also, from the instance of our
Blessed Lord being entertained in the house of Simon the "Leper." On
no other ground than this assumption, can these instances be
reconciled with the Levitical Law.
In the Levitical, and in every other account of the disease, it is
significant that there is no mention, or hint, of any loss of
sensation in connection with the disorder, of any affection of the
nerves, nor of any deformity of the body; no provision is made for
those who were unable to take care of themselves, nor is there a
tittle of evidence, or the barest hint given, that the disease was
either contagious or dangerous. Only two persons in the whole of the
Bible are stated to have died from the disease, and in each of these
cases, it was specially so ordained by the Almighty, as a specific
punishment for a particular sin. Cures were not only possible, and
common, but they were the rule. Josephus speaks of Leprosy in a man as
but "a misfortune in the colour of his skin." S. Augustine said that
when Lepers were restored to health, "they were _mundati_, not
_sanati_, because Leprosy is an ailment affecting merely the colour,
not the health, or the soundness of the senses, and the limbs."
It is a most curious, and interesting problem which has yet to be
solved, why a man should be "unclean" when he was but partially
covered by the disease, and yet, when he was wholly covered with it,
he should be "clean."
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account