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.