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.