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?