2. The second theory is, that our Lord and the nmgelists, in referring to demoniacal possession, poke only in accommodation to the general belief of le Jews, without any assertion as to its truth or its iUity. It is concluded that, since the symptoms of ie affliction were frequently those of bodily disease u dumbness. Matt, iz, 82 ; blindness, Matt, xii, 22 ; pilepsy, Mark ix, 17-27), or those seen in cases of rdinary insanity (as in Matt, viii, 28 ; liark v, 1-5) ; ince, also, the phrase ^* to have a devil** is constantly sed in connection with, and as apparently equivalent 9, '* to be mad*' (see John vii, 20 ; viii, 48 ; x, 20, and erbaps Matt, xi, 18 ; Luke vii, 83) ; and since, lastly, Bses of demoniacal possession are not known to occur a our own days, therefore we must suppose that our iOrd spoke, and the evangelists wrote, in accordance rith the belief of the time, and with a view to be learly understood, especially by the sufi^erers them- elves, but that the damoniacs were merely persons nffering under unusual diseases of body and nund.
With regard to this theory also, it must be remarked hat it does not accord either with the general princi- iles or with the particular language of Scripture. Accommodation is possible when, in things indifferent, anguage is used which, although scientifically or ety- nologically inaccurate, yet conveys a true impres- lion, or when, in things not indifferent, a declaration »f truth (1 Cor. iii, 1, 2), or a moral law (Matt, xix, 8), s given, true or right as flu as it goes, but imperfe<^ >ecause of the imperfect progress of its recipients. ^Qt certainly here ttie matter was not indifferent. The ^ was one of little ftith and great superstition ; its ^haracterisdo the acknowledgment of God as a distant awgiver, not an inspirer of men*s hearts. This su- Mrstition in things of far less moment was denounced )y our Lord ; can it be supposed that he would sane- ion, and the evangelists be permitted to record for i^er, an idea in itscdf fEdse, which has constantly been ;he very stronghold of superstition ? Nor was the language used such as can be paralleled with mere x»nventional expression. There is no harm in our ' speakmg of certam forms of madness as lunacy, not thereby implying that we believe the moon to have or to have had any influence upon them ; . . . but if we I^^S&n to describe the cure of such as the moon*8 ceas- ing to afflict them, or if a physician were solemnly to ^dress ,the moon, bidding it abstain from injuring his Patient, there would be here a passing over to quite a different regk>n, . / . there would be that gulf be- tween our thoughts and words in which the essence of a II.— S 8
lie consists. Now Christ does everywhere speak such' language as this'* (Trench, On Mirades^ p. 158, where ' the whole question is most ably treated). Nor is there, in the whole of the N. T., the least indication that any " economy** of teaching was employed on account of the ** hardness*' of the Jews* ** hearts.*' Possession and its cure are recorded plainly and simply ; dssmo- niacs are fk«quently distinguished from those afflicted with bodily sickness (see Mark i, 82; xvi, 17, 18; Luke vi, 17, 18) ; even, it would seem, fix»m the epilep- tic (<» Xi7V(a2[o/i<vo(, Matt, iv, 24) ; the same outward < signs are sometimes referred to possession, sometimes merely to disease (comp. Matt. Iv, 24, with xvii, 15 ; Matt. Xii, 22, with Mark vii, 82, etc.) ; the daemons are represented as speaking in their own persons with superhuman knowl^ge, and acknowledging our Lord to be, not, as the Jews generally called him, son of David, but Son of God (Matt viii, 29 ; Mark i, 24 ; y, 7 ; Luke iv, 41, etc.). All these things speak of a per- sonal power of evil, and, if in any case they refer to what we might call mere disease, they at any rate tell us of something in it more than a morbid state of bod- ily organs or self-caused derangement of mind. Nor does our Lord speak of daemons as personal spirits of evil to the multitude alone, but in his secret conversa- tions with his disciples, declaring the means and con- ditions by which power over them could be exercised (Matt xvii, 21). Twice also he distinctly connects demoniacal possession with the power of the evil one; once in Luke x, 18, to the seventy disciples, where he speaks of his power and theirs over demoniacs as a **fall of Satan,** and again in Matt xii, 25-80, when he was accused of casting out daemons through Beelze- bub, and, instead of giving any hint that the possessed were not really under any direct and personal power of evil, he uses an argument, as to the division of Sa- tan against himself, which, if possession be unreal, becomes inconclusive and almost insincere. Lastly, the single &ct recorded of the entrance of the daemons at Gadara (Mark v, 10-14) into the herd of swine, and the effect which that entrance caused, is sufficient to overthrow the notion that our Lord and the evangel- ists do not assert or imply any otjective reality of pos- session. In the face of tiiis mass of evidence, it seems difficult to conceive how the theory can be reconciled with anythhig like truth of Scripture.