An inquiry into the existence of a personal devil / [By John Epps.

Date:
1848
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: An inquiry into the existence of a personal devil / [By John Epps. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    66/104 (page 60)
    60 things in the present day, should we infer F Should we refer the same to demonism F No, every one would call the unfortunate, insane, and lie would be confined in an asylum, and now, thanks to science, which is God, in nature discovered, would be tamed without any chains at all. These persons pos- sessed, were mad, and, being so, madness being deemed by the ancients the result of possession, were said to be possessed; but this did not make them to be possessed : so calling them, declared no more than this, that such was the opinion of those that so called them. But, say the advocates of demoniacal possession, the demon spoke : How do they know F The scriptures state so. In Matthew and in Mark are the only places in which the daipoves are recorded to have spoken. But this does not prove that there were any demons in the possessed to speak: but proves the opinion that prevailed at the time, that, when the paroxysm of madness was on the individual, whatsoever he said or did then was sup- posed to be said and done by the demon. That this opinion was the opinion prevalent, full authority can be presented. 181 Lucian expressly states, the patient is silent: the demon returns the answers to the questions that are asked. Apollonius, addressing a youth who had insulted him, but who was supposed to be possessed, remarks, “ Not 182 you but the demon has loaded me with insult/5 Plato expressly asserts, “it was not the inspired or possessed person himself, but the demon in him, who spake by his voice.55183 This explains the fact, already referred to, that the daipcov, daimon, which occurs only five times in the Scriptures, occurs, three times out of the five, in connection with these dispossessions, now under consideration: and the phrase expresses most minutely the opinion, that when a conversation took place, then the Mipwv spoke: for the use of the word in connexion with the beseeching permission to go into the herd of swine, occurs twice. The possessed spoke before, namely, “ What with us and thee, Jesus, Son of God F art thou come to torment us before the time F55 records Matthew: and the man himself, in Mark and Luke, is said to have addressed Jesus in a similar way : but when the conversation comes, then the word Sdqx<x>v or ddifioves is brought in: so correctly exact were the writers in recording the opinion prevalent, at the time, on the subject. But it has been argued in behalf of the existence of the demons in these parties, and against the doctrine, that it was merely madness that possessed these persons, that the parties acknowledged Christ to be the Son of God. This, it is maintained, and rightly too, is no sign of insanity to acknowledge Christ. True, but it would be a sign of egregious folly, yea, of insanity, in a devil to acknowledge and spread abroad the knowledge that Jesus was the Son of God. To this it is replied, but lie was constrained to acknowledge the Son of God. To this there is an immediate answer. It is to be found in the fol- lowing : “ And 184 in the synagogue there was a man with a spirit of an un- clean devil, and cried out with a loud voice, saying, let us alone ; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth F Art thou come to destroy us F I know thee who thou art—the holy one of God. And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him.55 Jesus commanded him • “ Hold thy peace.55 And in passing, it is worthy of remark, that here the O' pev vcktmv dvros aicona 6 ddipoov dnoKpiverai eXXrjvi^cov rj [3apl3a pi((dV.”—Lucian. 482 Philostratus. Vit. Apollon, p. 157, ed. Olear. 183 On the authority of Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom, i. 405, Oxon ed.