CHAPTER XI. POSSESSION: IS THE THEORY THAT IT WAS MADNESS SUBVERSIVE OF

THE HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE GOSPELS OR INCONSISTENT WITH THE VERACITY OF CHRIST?

There can be no doubt that the subject of possession is attended with real difficulties, whichever view we may take of its actual character.

The symptoms which are alleged to have accompanied it present many of the usual phenomena of madness. No possession is believed to take place now, but such phenomena are attributed to causes purely natural. The supposed possessions therefore which are mentioned in the New Testament or in other ancient writings are said to be due only to ignorance of natural causes. Many very eminent defenders of Christianity have been so deeply impressed by these and other reasons that they have admitted that possession is only a form of madness, and that the language respecting it in the New Testament is based on the current ideas of the day.

It is desirable that the difficulty should be put in the strongest light. I will therefore state it in the words of the author of “Supernatural Religion.” “It would be an insult to the understanding of those who are considering this question, to pause here to prove that the historical books of the New Testament, speak in the clearest and most unmistakable terms of actual demoniacal possession.” Now what has become of this theory of disease? The Archbishop of Dublin is probably the only one who asserts the reality of demoniacal possession formerly, and in the present day; and in this way we must say that he is consistent. Dean Milman, on the other hand, who spoke with the enlightenment of the 19th century, “has no scruple in averring his opinion on the subject of demoniacal possession to be that of Joseph Mede, Lardner, Dr. Mead, Paley, and all the learned modern writers. It was a kind of insanity, and nothing is more probable than that lunacy would take the turn, and speak the language of the prevailing superstition of the times.” The Dean, as well as “all the learned modern writers” to whom he refers, felt the difficulty, but in seeking to evade it, they sacrifice the Gospels. They overlook the fact, that the writers of these narratives, not only themselves adopt “the prevailing superstition of the times,” but represent Jesus as doing so with equal completeness. There is no possibility, for instance, of evading such statements as those in the miracle of the country of the Gadarenes, where the objectivity of the demons is so fully recognised, that on being cast out of the man, they are represented as requesting to be allowed to go into the herd of swine, and being permitted by Jesus to do so, the entry of the demons into the swine is at once signalised by the herd running violently down the cliff into the lake and being drowned. (p. 131.) The author might have strengthened his case, as far as modern authorities are concerned, by drawing attention to the fact, that even Dr. Farrar, who seems to maintain the objective reality of demoniacal possessions in his recently published “Life of Christ,” admits that in the statement that the demons locally passed from the man into the swine, some inaccuracy has crept into the narrative of the Evangelists.

It will be at once seen that the all‐important point in this objection is the apparent acceptance by our Lord of demoniacal possession, as being a correct account of an objective fact. I fully agree with this writer, that those who affirm that it was madness and nothing else are bound, when they propose this solution of the difficulty, to point out distinctly how it affects the question of our Lord’s veracity, and the historical character of the Gospels.

In approaching this question, let me at once observe that while I entertain a definite opinion as to the nature of the inspiration of the New Testament derived not from _à priori_ assumptions, but from a careful study of its facts and phenomena, yet the question at issue is not what is the nature or the extent of the inspiration, but the reality of the supernatural events recorded in the Gospels. This issue is one which is purely historical, and therefore I have simply to examine it on historical grounds, and not to defend any particular theory of inspiration. Our business is first to ascertain what are the facts of the New Testament which are supported by historical evidence; when we have ascertained these, we shall be in a position to propound a theory of inspiration in accordance with the facts and assertions; still, however, it will be necessary to find out how a certain state of the facts will affect the character which the Gospels attribute to our Lord.

The following facts are plain on the surface of the Gospels. First, that the followers of our Lord believed that the demoniacal possessions there recorded were objective facts, and not mere forms of disease.

Secondly, that our Lord himself, if the words attributed to Him are correctly reported, used language which seems to imply that He shared in this belief.

Thirdly, that in a particular instance, not only do the Evangelists affirm that our Lord addressed a demoniac, but also the demons who possessed him, and that He permitted their departure into a herd of swine, thereby apparently confirming the objective reality of the possession.

The question is a far more serious one, as it affects our Lord, than those on whose reports the statements of the Gospels are founded. He is represented as being a divine person, and as possessed in His human nature, not of infinite but of superhuman knowledge. His apparent sanction of an erroneous view is therefore a very different thing from the apparent sanction of it by an author of a Gospel, or from the mistaken views which his followers might have entertained as to the causes of a bodily disease.

I should find no difficulty in adopting the theory of the eminent writers above named, that the demoniacal possessions mentioned in the New Testament, were nothing but forms of insanity, if it were not that our Lord has apparently recognised their reality. It has been urged that if possession was nothing but insanity, there is an end of the miracle. But this is not the case, for the cure of a madman is quite as much a supernatural act as the expulsion of a demon.

Let me now assume for argument’s sake, that possession was simple madness. How does such a supposition affect the veracity of the authors of the Gospels, and their judgment as credible historians of the events of our Lord’s life?

If we assume that possession was madness, it is evident from the language which the Evangelists have employed that they must have shared in the ignorance of the times in which they lived as to the true causes of the complaint. When however we speak of the ignorance of any particular period, it should be observed that the expression is an indefinite one. We have no right to impute to any body of authors opinions on particular subjects of which their writings contain no traces. It has been affirmed, as we have seen, that the Jews of the apostolic age held a number of opinions on the subject of possession of the most grotesque and monstrous description. I have already shown that to impute these opinions to them, when no trace of them can be found in their writings is a most unfair mode of reasoning.

When, therefore, I use the expression that they must have shared in the ignorance of the age respecting the causes of this disease, I must guard against the danger of ascribing to them a greater degree of ignorance than that which they have actually shown. The expression, “ignorance of the age,” denotes no uniform quantity of ignorance shared in by every individual alike. In an ignorant or superstitious age, one person may be far more so than another. It is quite conceivable that two thousand years hence human improvement may have become so great, that those who live in the present century may be designated as ignorant. It may be hereafter asserted that such writers as Huxley, Tyndall, Herbert Spencer, and Mill shared in the ignorance of the age in which they lived on some important physical facts. But from this it would be absurd to draw the conclusion that they were believers in the alleged facts of spiritualism because large numbers of their contemporaries were known to have believed in them, and spiritualistic publications enjoy a large circulation both in Europe and America in this nineteenth century.

As far as the Evangelists are concerned, the supposition that I am now considering involves nothing more than that they held a false theory as to the cause of a particular form of disease, and that they have used language respecting it that embodies this theory. In this point of view they would not differ from writers of every age who have entertained false theories as to the causes of physical phenomena. In such cases it is easy to separate the fact from the incorrect view as to what were the causes of that fact. Ancient philosophical writers held many false theories as to the place of the local habitation in our bodies of certain affections of our moral nature. These can be traced very distinctly in the language of the present day. Thus we say that a man is devoid of heart, and talk of making appeals to the heart. These, and multitudes of similar expressions which occur both in ancient and modern writings, involve false philosophical theories; but it is easy to separate the facts intended from the theories. Thus, if the authors of the Gospels inform us that our Lord cured a demoniac, and give an account of the demoniac’s outcries, as though they were the utterances of a demon, we have only to substitute madman for demoniac, and the correct state of the case is easily discovered.

The real difficulty which is felt on this subject, arises not from the narratives as ordinary histories, but on the supposition that the writers possessed an inspiration which ought to have guarded them from such errors. Popular theories of inspiration unquestionably render such an assumption necessary, but I can see no ground for it, either in the statements of the Gospels, or any other portion of the New Testament. Nowhere is it affirmed that its writers were to be guided into all truth, scientific, philosophical, or even historical. All that is affirmed is that they possessed a degree of supernatural enlightenment adequate to communicate the Christian revelation to mankind. Neither is there a hint given, nor can a fact be adduced, to show that their supernatural illumination extended beyond this. The spiritual gifts bestowed no enlightenment beyond the special function of those gifts. This the affirmation of St. Paul in the Epistles to the Corinthians makes clear. A person having the gift of tongues, if he had not also that of interpretation was unable to interpret his own utterances, and the possession of the high gift of prophecy by no means exempted the possessor from the danger of using it in a manner to create confusion in the Church. Even the highest apostolic gifts conferred no infallibility, but were strictly limited to their proper functions of communicating the great truths of the Christian revelation. The idea that they conferred a general infallibility is no statement of the New Testament, but a pure figment of the imagination.

It therefore by no means follows because the writers of the New Testament had an illumination sufficient for their functions that they had any other than their ordinary enlightenment beyond that limit. They might have been good teachers of religious truth, and yet utterly ignorant of physical science. The assertion may be correct that St. Luke possessed a supernatural guidance sufficient to enable him to compose the third Gospel, and yet it may be no less true, that as a physician he had no medical knowledge beyond that of his time, and that he shared in all its errors as to the causes and cure of physical disease. A man may be a good physician of the soul, and at the same time a very ignorant physician of the body. It is quite conceivable, therefore, even if the Evangelists or those followers of Christ from whom they derived their accounts possessed various degrees of supernatural enlightenment on matters directly affecting Christianity, that they possessed none whatever as to the causes of disease, and that they may have viewed madness as a result of demoniacal action, and described it accordingly. The facts would remain the same; the symptoms might have been exhibited, and the cure actually effected.

But the New Testament likewise affirms that our Lord imparted to His followers the power of expelling demons, as well as that of healing diseases. Now, on the supposition that these demoniacs were simple maniacs, how does this affect the credibility of the narrative?

I reply that during the mission of the Apostles and the Seventy (for these are the cases alluded to) there is no promise made them of supernatural enlightenment. They were simply sent out to announce a specific fact, the near approach and setting up of the kingdom of heaven, and to work miracles in confirmation of it. It is true that in His address to them, our Lord told them that a time was coming when they would have to testify to Him before princes and kings, and that He promises them, that they should receive supernatural assistance, suitable to the emergency. But this never arose during the mission in question. They were commanded to cure the reputed demoniac in confirmation of their mission. This would be an equally miraculous sign whether he was one possessed or a simple maniac. In this case, therefore, there was no reason why they should be supernaturally enlightened as to the causes of this disease, more than of any other. No doubt the theories then prevalent as to the causes of disease generally were very faulty. It could not be otherwise in the state of medical science at that period. So they must always have been while such a truth as the circulation of the blood was unknown. But the object of Christianity was not to communicate scientific knowledge, or to teach the true causes of disease, but to discover truths mightily operative in the moral and spiritual worlds. It follows, therefore, that the ignorance of the disciples as to the actual causes of mania no more affects the credibility of the narrative than their ignorance of the causes of paralysis or leprosy.

It is also evident from the statements of the Gospels, that there were a considerable number of persons who practised exorcisms of various kinds, and who fully believed that the persons on whom they operated were possessed by demons. It seems also probable from the allusions made to them, that these exorcisms were occasionally successful in effecting a cure; and it may be, more frequently, in mitigating the symptoms. This, however, was not always the case; for the Evangelists describe the disciples as entirely unsuccessful in the case of the child, out of whom they invoked the demon to depart in the name of Jesus. It is worthy of observation, that in this instance, the father of the demoniac describes his son’s case as a combination of lunacy and possession, “He is lunatic and sore vexed.” Their failure is directly attributed to want of faith, _i.e._ that there was something wanting in their mental state which prevented them from exerting the requisite influence over the lunatic youth. The want of success with which exorcists were not unfrequently attended is strikingly set before us in the account given in the Acts of the Apostles, of the attempt made by certain Jewish exorcists to cure the demoniac at Ephesus. In this case it not only ended in a complete failure, but in an aggravation of the malady.

Now when we consider the various forms which mania assumes, it is quite credible that exorcisms may have exerted a favourable influence on it, altogether apart from any supernatural power possessed by the operator. It is clear that the supposed maniacs imagined themselves under the influence of demoniacal possession. When we consider the powerful influence that one mind is capable of exerting over another under these circumstances we can see that the presence of superior mental power was an influence exactly suited to produce a favourable result. In our modern treatment of mania (whatever may be the opinions as to its physical origin) it is now universally admitted that moral means are the most efficacious. Some obvious physical causes can be dealt with and removed, while others cannot. But the most successful operator on these forms of lunacy is he who applies to them the most effective moral treatment, under which in many cases its symptoms have gradually disappeared. One of these modes of treatment is never to cross the patient on the subject of his delusions. Nothing is more remarkable than the influence which the efficient practitioner can exert over persons suffering from these forms of madness, by the mere energy of his will; a display of mental power analogous to that of strong faith. This will often produce a calm among maniacs which persons of inferior endowments utterly fail to excite. It is an unquestionable fact that high mental and moral power is capable of producing striking results on different forms of maniacal disease.

This being so, it follows that exorcists might be capable of exerting upon maniacs a powerful influence favourable to cure. In the ancient world the usual treatment was that of extreme harshness. The demoniac of Gadara had been bound with chains and fetters. This is now known to have a direct tendency to aggravate the disease, rather than to cure it. It is no wonder, therefore, if the exorcist, by adopting an opposite mode of treatment, and even by sympathizing with the sufferer’s delusions, was capable of alleviating the symptoms of the complaint, if not of effecting a cure. The whole result may have been due to moral influence and spiritual power, which may have been taken for the expulsion of a demon. In whatever way it was effected, the cure or the alleviation was no less real.

It follows, therefore, that the exorcists of the ancient world were far from necessarily being a set of impostors, even on the supposition that possession was simple mania. They may have been able to effect real alleviations or even cures of the complaint, although they were ignorant as to its cause, or how their exertions produced a successful result. There is nothing inconsistent with their general honesty, if they themselves were under the belief that they were expelling demons, while they were really curing ordinary mania. It should also be observed, that a real power of exerting an influence on madmen was one which in those times of ignorance, both of mental and physical science, admitted of fearful abuse, and if exercised for evil purposes, was capable of producing many of the worst results with which the practice of witchcraft and sorcery have been attended. A large portion of these latter operations no doubt resulted from the successful practice of ocular deception, but another portion of them unquestionably resulted from the mighty influences that a powerful mind can exert over a weak, imaginative, and superstitious one. There are many depths of human nature into which science has as yet failed to penetrate; and among these are the entire phenomena of mania and religious frenzy.

These facts and considerations are sufficient to vindicate the credibility of the writers of the New Testament in their statement, that a power of exorcism was known and exercised in their time, and that its exercise was at times attended with favourable results. The statement on this subject attributed to our Lord, “If I by Satan cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges,” is plainly an _ad hominem_ argument. It amounts to no more than this; You Pharisees accuse me of casting out demons through Beelzebub. You assert that your disciples exercise a power of exorcism; and that they do this in virtue of a divine power communicated to them. On what principle of common sense can you affirm that the power which I exercise is demoniacal, and that which your disciples exercise is divine?—There is no assertion made one way or the other as to the reality of the acts in question; nor is there any difficulty in supposing that our Lord recognised that some of the influences thus exerted were genuine.

I have hitherto, in treating this part of the subject, been dealing with the supposition that our Lord’s disciples mistook maniacs for demoniacs, and the consequences of such a mistake on the authenticity of the Gospel narratives. I must now address myself to the far more important question as to the consequences which follow from our Lord’s apparent recognition of the existence of demoniacal possession on the supposition that it was simple mania.

The facts as they appear in the Gospels are unmistakable. It was the distinct opinion of their authors that our Lord recognised the phenomena which they have reported as the results of demoniacal possession and not of simple mania. In proof of this it will be needless to refer to every instance they have recorded. The account of the demoniac at Gadara and that of the lunatic youth are among the most remarkable, and on them the case may be allowed to rest. In the former case the words of St. Mark, whose description of the scene abounds in those details which are rarely seen except in narratives derived from direct ocular testimony, are: “And all the demons besought him, saying, Send us into the swine that we may enter into them. And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out and entered into the swine, &c.” In the case of the demoniac child the Evangelist describes the Apostles as asking Jesus, “Why could not we cast him out?” The following words are ascribed to our Lord: “This kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.” It is undeniable, therefore, that the Evangelists have ascribed to Jesus a belief in the reality of demoniacal possession.

I am not concerned in the present argument with the words and actions which they have attributed to the demoniacs; but with the words and actions attributed to Jesus. We know that some madmen labour under the delusion, not only that they are emperors and kings, but even in a few instances that they are God himself. This being so, it is quite possible that a maniac may confuse his personality with one or more demons; and speak and act consistently with the delusion. The maniacs may have given utterance to exclamations resulting from mere delusions; but the Evangelists in recording these utterances gave simple statements of facts. It is quite possible, that the demoniac of Gadara may have imagined himself possessed by a legion of demons, and have spoken and acted accordingly, whilst he was at the same time labouring under simple mania.

Now, on the assumption that possession was simple mania and nothing more, the following suppositions are the only possible ones.

First, that our Lord really distinguished between mania and possession; but that the Evangelists have inaccurately reported his words and actions, through the media of their own subjective impressions, or, in short, have attributed to Him language that He did not really utter.

Second, that our Lord knew that possession was a form of mania, and adopted the current notions of the time in speaking of it, and that the words were really uttered by Him.

Third, that with similar knowledge, He adopted the language in question as part of the curative process.

Fourth, that He accepted the validity of the distinction, and that it was a real one during those times.

These alternatives demand our careful consideration, not for the purpose of determining which is the correct one, but of estimating the results which flow from either of them on the central character of the Gospels. The position which I take must be clearly stated. It is this: If possession be mania, there is nothing in the language which the Evangelists have attributed to our Lord which compromises the truthfulness of his character. If, on the other hand, we assume that possession was an objective fact, there is nothing in our existing scientific knowledge of the human mind which proves that the possessions of the New Testament were impossible.

Let us consider the first alternative.

A careful examination of the phenomena presented by the synoptic Gospels leads to the irresistible conclusion that they largely consist of accounts which had been handed down by oral tradition, for a considerable time prior to their being committed to writing, and that these have been in various degrees supplemented by information derived from other sources. Assuming this to have been the case it gives an adequate account of the differences of form which they present, their variations in minor circumstances, and that most remarkable of all their phenomena, the samenesses of expression interwoven with considerable diversities, which is presented alike by the parallel narratives and discourses. The threefold and more frequently twofold form in which several of the discourses have been handed down to us, prevent us from believing that these discourses were intended to be rigid reproductions of the verbal utterances of our Lord. All they can be is an accurate account of the sense and very frequently of his words. The important question for our present consideration is, Have the Evangelists, in reporting the discourses of Jesus, imparted to them a colouring derived from their own subjective impressions or do they accurately convey to us his meaning and his meaning only? Or with respect to the point before us, Have the Evangelists in reporting the utterances of Jesus to the demoniacs and his observations on possession to his disciples given us the substance of what He actually said, or their own impressions of what He might have said?

I reply, the internal grounds for assuming their accuracy are strong. This is vouched for by the fact that while we have a three or twofold report of the same discourse, varying very considerably in words and arrangement, and while we have whole sentences in one Evangelist which materially aid in determining the meaning, either omitted in one or inserted in another, still with all these variations in expression, the variations in sense are of the smallest possible importance. This being the case the whole aspect of the discourses leads us to infer that they are altogether unaffected by the subjective impressions of those who reported them. They are indelibly stamped with the mind of Jesus himself and with his alone. There are many points on which his teaching ran strongly counter to the subjective impressions of those who reported it. Here then if such impressions had intruded themselves we should be certain to find indications of such intrusion, and that in no doubtful form. But there are none. The theory therefore of the introduction of the subjective impressions of the followers of our Lord into the discourses has no foundation in their contents, and therefore it is wholly illegitimate to assume it for the solution of a difficulty.

The phenomena which distinguish St. Mark’s Gospel strongly display the marks of autoptic testimony. This greatly increases the difficulty of the supposition in question, for these expressions are found in that Gospel, and in it we also find the remarkable saying, “This kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.” It seems therefore impossible to doubt the Evangelist’s assertion that such words were uttered by our Lord.

But I must now inquire whether Dr. Farrar’s supposition is tenable, that some misapprehension has crept into the narrative when it affirms that the demons in objective reality left the body of the man and entered into the swine.

I answer that there is nothing in the Evangelists which requires us to consider their words as an accurately scientific statement of the mode in which the demon acted on the mind of the possessed.

It is true that they repeatedly say that they entered in and out of the man, but this may well be in conformity with popular ideas on the subject, without intending to assert as a scientific fact, that the demons made either the body or the spirit of the man their local habitation. The New Testament attempts to determine nothing respecting the _modus operandi_ of spirits. God is said to dwell in a holy man, but it is ridiculous to affirm that the omnipresent Spirit makes the man his local habitation. There is a case in point as to the use of such language in the narrative of the woman who was healed of the issue of blood. The effect produced on her is described by our Lord and the Evangelists by the words “Power (δύναμις) has gone out of me.” Yet no one who considers the mode in which the Gospels are composed, will affirm that our Lord by using these words intended to convey a scientific truth as to his _modus operandi_ in performing the miracle, or that it was actually performed by some subtle emanation called “Power,” which issued from his person. With those who assume that neither our Lord nor his Apostles could use popular expressions of this kind, but were bound to use terms of strict scientific accuracy all reasoning is thrown away. If the strictest verbal accuracy must be observed on every occasion it would be incorrect to say that a physician has cured a lunatic, for the idea on which the term lunacy is founded is scientifically inaccurate. It follows therefore that the terms which are so constantly applied to demons in the New Testament, that they entered into, departed out of, or possessed a man may well be popular expressions, denoting that they exerted a mighty, nay, an overwhelming influence upon him, which in the shattered state of his physical or moral condition he was unable to shake off, without determining anything as to the mode in which that influence was exerted. Thus, in St. John’s Gospel, the devil is described as having put it (βεβληκότος) _into the heart_ of Judas Iscariot to betray our Lord. After the giving of the sop, Satan is said to have entered into him. Surely the only fact which these words are intended to convey is that Judas allowed his whole moral and spiritual being to be overpowered by the influence of the evil one. It is quite possible that the Evangelists might have thought that the influence was exerted by actually going in or coming out of a man. But this is a mere physical theory as to the mode of action, and certainly is not a point on which the writings of the New Testament anywhere affirm that a supernatural knowledge was imparted to their authors.

It follows therefore that the expressions “going out from the man,” and “entering into the swine,” may only denote the cessation of the influence of the demons over the man, and its exertion on the swine, without determining the mode in which that influence was exerted. Surely when our Lord promised that He would come to the man who loved him and make his abode with him, that did not imply a local indwelling of his person but an indwelling of influence.

With such expressions in abundance before us, in which it is obvious that they were never intended to denote anything local, it is absurd to fix it on the sacred writers in this particular case. They nowhere assert that the demons were seen to pass from the man and enter the swine. It was simply a matter of inference from the facts which they witnessed that they had done so. The man ceased to rave and became a rational creature. The swine rushed down into the lake and perished. They also affirm that the result took place by the permission of Jesus. Yet it is somewhat remarkable that it is only Matthew who attributes to him the word “Go.” Mark and Luke only mention the request of the demons, and the result which followed. There is nothing therefore derogatory to the character of the Evangelists as historians in supposing that the facts received a colouring from their own subjective impressions, though it would be so if under such circumstances they had allowed those impressions to assign a different meaning to our Lord’s words from that which he actually conveyed.

This conclusion at which we have arrived, that our Lord’s meaning is accurately reported by the Evangelists, disposes of the first alternative. We will now proceed to examine the second, viz., that our Lord knew that possession was mania, and that He adopted the current notions of the times in speaking of it. The all important question is, how far does this affect his veracity?

On this point Archbishop Trench has laid down the following position broadly: “If Jesus knew that the Jewish belief in demoniacal possession was baseless and that Satan did not exercise such power over the bodies or spirits of men there would be in such language that absence of agreement between thoughts and words in which the essence of a lie consists.”

If this position is correct it involves a principle far more extensive than the case immediately before us. It is nothing less than that our Lord neither in his formal teaching nor in his conversation should have used language which was other than scientifically correct. It might be argued, that if He had done so He would have lent his sanction to the error which it involved. Even if the principle thus laid down could be confined to religious truth (which it cannot), it would then have been necessary that whenever the current ideas, or the mode of conception of the day contained an assumption involving an incorrect theory or endangering a religious error, our Lord ought to have corrected it in the course of his teaching. If we admit that demoniacal possession was a real agency there can be no doubt that the Jews would confound many cases of ordinary mania with it. This being so, if the principle is correct, our Lord ought to have pointed out the distinction. Again, even if it is assumed that demoniacal agency was sometimes manifested in the phenomena of witchcraft, there can be no doubt that much of it was due to human imposture. On the principle laid down by the Archbishop our Lord ought to have corrected every error that was prevalent on that subject. On the same principle it would have been impossible for him to have used an _ad hominem_ argument or in fact any form of expression founded on an erroneous conception. It is therefore evident that the principle, if accepted at all, can only be accepted under very considerable qualifications, or we shall convert our Lord from the revealer of truth and teacher of Christianity into one whose duty it was to combat every erroneous opinion of the day. On such a theory it is difficult to see how our Lord was not bound to correct every erroneous opinion then current respecting the first and second chapters of Genesis, and to point out their true relation to the modern discoveries of geology, for He expressly referred to the second chapter in his teaching. He also referred to the flood, respecting which many erroneous opinions were undoubtedly current. If the principle is good it might be urged that He sanctioned those errors by his silence.

The same principle must also have been applicable to many other erroneous opinions which the Jews entertained respecting the interpretation of the Old Testament. In fact it would be difficult to assign any limits to our Lord’s duty of correcting popular errors which had any kind of bearing on religious truth.

But to return to the demoniacs. Is there any thing inconsistent with our Lord’s truthfulness, if we suppose that they were lunatics and nothing more, in his using the current language of the day respecting them? Let it be observed that two considerations are really involved; first, our Lord is represented as conversing directly with the demoniac. Secondly, He also occasionally speaks of demoniacal possession in his ordinary teaching in the current language of the day. Now if it be admitted to be consistent with his truthfulness to address such language to the maniac, is it equally so to employ such language in his discourses to others?

I observe first, that if possession was mania, the real ground of the popular error was an erroneous opinion as to the cause of a natural disorder. The popular belief in fact ascribed it to supernatural instead of natural causes. So far, but no farther, it touched religious questions. To correct the error involved not merely the teaching of religious truth, but in this particular case the enunciation of sounder principles of mental philosophy. I think that I may fearlessly affirm that the teaching of scientific truth, either mental or material, did not come within the scope of our Lord’s divine mission. Political truth is a part of moral truth, and moral truth is closely allied to religious truth. Now although Christianity is a power which will ultimately reform the political world, our Lord expressly affirmed that it was no part of his mission to enunciate political truth.

In the same manner it may have formed no direct portion of his mission to teach correct views respecting the origin of mania, or to counteract the opinions which ascribed it to supernatural causes.

If this principle is correct, there is nothing inconsistent with his truthfulness if when our Lord conversed with a supposed demoniac, He addressed him in language which took for granted the truth of his delusions. Even if it is supposed that truthfulness required that He should have exposed a popular delusion, surely it was no occasion for doing so, when He was addressing a madman. Who would affirm that a physician is wanting in truthfulness if he addresses his patient in terms of his own delusions, or imagines that it is his duty to enter into a discussion with a madman as to the causes of his malady?

On these principles it is quite consistent with our Lord’s truthfulness to suppose that the dialogue with the demoniac of Gadara actually occurred, while He himself knew that possession was nothing but mania. Let us suppose that the man was a raving madman. He had been treated cruelly. He rushed towards Jesus and was awed by the greatness of his character. The dialogue takes place, as it is described by the Evangelist. I see no want of truthfulness on our Lord’s part, nor can I conceive any necessity for explaining to the man that he was not possessed by a multitude of demons; or if the madman requested that the demons by whom he imagined himself possessed might be allowed to go into the swine, that our Lord should explain to him that it was impossible that they should do so because the idea of the demoniac was a delusion. The case would be one of confused or double personality, and accordingly the narrator has described the demons and the man as alternately speaking, and our Lord as addressing them. In such a case the form of the narrative would be modified by the subjective impressions of the narrator.

But the words which our Lord is described as addressing to the demoniac lad also require consideration. St. Mark describes them as follows. Jesus rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, “Thou deaf and dumb spirit, I charge thee come out of him, and enter no more into him; and the spirit cried, and rent him sore and came out of him.” Let us suppose that the disease was mania, and that our Lord knew it to be so, but that the father, as well as the maniac and the others who were present believed that it was caused by the action of an evil spirit. What was there inconsistent with veracity in addressing the maniac in terms of his own delusions? If it is urged that the belief in possession was a superstition, and that to use such language tended to confirm the belief, I reply that if we assume that our Lord was bound not to use the language which was common among his hearers in speaking of such diseases, or that He ought to have given explanations of their true causes, then we assume that his character as a revealer of Christianity rendered it necessary that in the course of his public ministry He should correct all the errors which He encountered, and never use language which had originated in them.

The words which are ascribed to our Lord by the Evangelist when He stilled the tempest will throw light on this subject. St. Mark gives them as follows: “He rebuked the winds and said to the sea, Peace, be still.” The word here rendered “Be still” is in the Greek far more emphatic, _Be gagged_ (πεφίμωσο). In the case of the demoniac our Lord is represented as rebuking the evil spirit. Here He rebukes the waves. Now it is only possible to rebuke rational agents. Such an expression would therefore be only accurate if addressed to a being who was capable of hearing it, and who was uttering load cries. It may be objected that the expression favours the notion that the speaker supposed the roaring of the waves to be the voice of an evil spirit, who was exciting the tempest, or, in other words, that He gave countenance to the heathen belief, that it was the voice of Æolus, the spirit of the storm. Whatever amount of superstition may be attributed to the Jews at the time of the Advent, it will scarcely be urged that the followers of Jesus attributed the roaring of the gale to the voice of a demon. Still it may be urged on the principles above referred to that the words uttered by our Lord tended to confirm superstitions notions as to the nature and origin of storms. I argue, on the other hand, that these expressions prove indisputably that the language used by Him was not always intended to be a literal description of fact, any more than the numerous similar addresses to the inanimate creation which we find in the Psalms.

But in the case of the demoniac, the real difficulty consists in the results which are alleged to have happened to the swine. I have already obviated some portion of this as far as the form of the narrative is concerned. But there remains the fact that the swine are stated to have rushed into the lake and perished. As to the reality of such an occurrence there can have been no mistake. The mere mode of expression offers no explanation, nor can a mistake respecting such an occurrence have originated in any possible deception of the imagination. _If it was not a fact it must have been a fictitious invention._ Can any explanation of it be given? It has been suggested that the swine were driven down the cliff by the madman. Against this supposition, it has been urged that no animals are less easily driven than swine. How then could it have been possible to drive two thousand of them into the water? But there is no necessity to assume that they were driven at all. The scene as it is described by the Evangelists was well calculated to inspire animals with fright. It would however have been impossible to frighten two thousand of them. Granted: but large herds of animals follow their leaders implicitly. When under excitement one makes a leap, the others will follow. All that would have been necessary, if we suppose that the herd was near the edge of the cliff, was that the leaders should have received the requisite impulse from the madman, and under its influence rushed wildly down the cliff, and been followed by their companions.

But the case is different when our Lord speaks to others, and not to the demoniacs themselves. His observations to the Pharisees on this subject I have already considered. There remains the striking one addressed to the disciples: “This kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.” The circumstances of the case are these. The disciples had failed to cure the youth, whether a demoniac or a simple lunatic. They ask our Lord why it was that they had failed. He tells them that it was because of their unbelief. Now it is impossible for us to say what was the nature of the influence of faith in affecting miraculous cures, and why the want of it prevented success. It is sufficient to draw attention to the fact that it is uniformly laid down in the New Testament, that in the case of subordinate agents working miracles faith was necessary for their accomplishment. Our Lord also usually required faith in the recipients of his cures, but not always. But to his disciples when they attempted to perform a miracle faith was indispensable to their success. The question was not what was the nature of the disease, but why in this particular case they had failed to cure it. Our Lord replied that in this instance not only was faith necessary to effect the cure, but a very unusual degree of it. If the question had been what was the cause of the child’s disease, and if our Lord know that it was not possession, but mania, it is quite possible that He would have refused to answer it, as He did on other occasions when curious questions were put to him, and would have deduced some moral lesson from the fact. This it will be remembered was the course which He pursued when He was asked whether only a few would be saved. But the inquiry was not what caused the disease, but why the attempt to cure it had proved a failure. Such being the question, there is nothing inconsistent with truthfulness in our Lord’s answer. He avoided entering into an explanation as to what was a physical cause of the disease, which was quite foreign to his divine mission. He therefore simply told them that their failure was owing to their unbelief, and then added, in language couched in their own forms of thought, and which would not therefore open a discussion on subjects foreign to the purposes of his mission, “This kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.”

Those who lay stress on difficulties of this kind are in the habit of overlooking the plain fact, that our Lord’s teaching was specifically addressed to the living characters of the day, and to their existing lines of thought, and cannot without reference to them be directly translated into our own. This remark is no less true of the moral teaching contained in the Gospels, than of their historical statements. It is even more so, for a great number of the moral precepts of Christ cannot be applied as practical guides until they have been adapted to the altered conditions of thought and of society.(4) They are in fact principles given in the form of precepts. If our Lord’s words had been reported so as to make them square with the lines of thought of every age, they would have given us, not his actual teaching but a modification of it. It is our duty by a careful study of the great principles on which it is based to apply it to our present wants. It may appear to some far more desirable that it should have been capable of a direct instead of an indirect application, yet the fact is as I have stated it. Want of attention to this has occasioned no inconsiderable number of the difficulties of the New Testament.

One or two remarks will be all that is necessary for illustrating the position which some have adopted that our Lord’s mode of dealing with demoniacs was intended by Him as part of the process of cure. I should not have alluded to this subject at all unless the view in question had been propounded by a very eminent writer. I have already considered its main principles under the previous head.

It ought to be observed that the care of demoniacs, whatever view we may take of possession, belongs to a class of our Lord’s miracles which are distinct from all others. All the others are described as wrought on the human body, or on external nature. The Evangelists do not record a single miracle beside these that was wrought on the human mind. This is a remarkable fact. In the course of his ministry He encountered every form of moral and spiritual disease, from the weaknesses of his disciples and attached friends to the opposition of his most avowed enemies. Now, although He emphatically asserted that He was the physician of the soul, and although for the spiritual diseases of men He felt the most profound sympathy, never once is Jesus represented as exerting his supernatural power for their care. On the contrary, He is uniformly represented as having recourse to moral and spiritual means and not to miracles to effect it. Physical diseases He cures instantaneously, moral ones slowly and with effort. This fact is worthy of deep attention as showing that our Lord uniformly acted in conformity with the laws of the moral universe. If the Gospels are fictions, why is the Great Physician of Souls never represented as performing a sudden or miraculous cure in the moral and spiritual worlds, in the same manner as He does in the material? The need of miraculous intervention to secure Simon Peter from the moral and spiritual danger which surrounded him was as great as to prevent him from sinking in the water. Yet no other than moral and spiritual influences were called into action.

The following is the bearing of this fact on the question before us. If the cure of a demoniac was the expulsion of a demon, it involved the liberation of a moral nature from its thraldom, and at the same time the cure of the bodily organisation as far as its disordered condition enabled the demon to exert his power. If, on the other hand, it was the cure of simple mania, still the act had a direct bearing on the moral nature of the sufferer. In either case the use of moral means as well as supernatural agency would be especially appropriate. If demoniacs were madmen, our Lord was fully justified in displaying towards them the highest degree of sympathy, and in bringing to bear on them the mighty moral and spiritual forces which abode in his lofty personality. The same remark would be equally true if the sufferer was held in thrall by demoniacal power. Each class of miracles in the mode of their performance is exactly suited to the condition of those on whom our Lord was operating. On either supposition He was dealing not merely with physical forces, but with moral agency, and He dealt with it accordingly.

I conclude, therefore, that if it may be taken as established that possession involved nothing but simple mania, there is nothing in the facts as they are recorded in the New Testament inconsistent with that supposition, or which affects the credit of the Gospels as historical narratives. Nor are they inconsistent with the idea that their writers were favoured with such supernatural assistance in composing them as was adequate for the purpose of giving us such an account of the actions and teachings of Jesus as was necessary for communicating all the great truths of the Christian revelation. Nor is the supposition inconsistent, as it has been alleged to be, with His divine character and truthfulness.

I will examine in the next chapter the supposition that possession was not mania, but an actual objective fact.