made like unto his brethren, sharing, as matter of course, their views on questions that were indifferent for the spiritual mission he came to fulfil.  If this was the case, his argument from the one hundred and tenth Psalm (Mark xii. 35-37) would simply give evidence that he accepted the views of his time concerning the Psalm, and proceeded to use it to correct other views of his time concerning what was of most importance in the doctrine of the Messiah.  The last of these was of vital importance for his teaching; the first was for this teaching quite as indifferent a matter as the relations of the earth and the sun in the solar system.

249.  A more perplexing difficulty arises from his handling of the cases of so-called demoniac possession.  He certainly treated these invalids as if they were actually under the control of demons:  he rebuked, banished, gave commands to the demons, and in this way wrought his cures upon the possessed.  It has already been remarked that the symptoms shown in the cases cured by Jesus can be duplicated from cases of hysteria, epilepsy, or insanity, which have come under modern medical examination.  Three questions then arise concerning his treatment of the possessed. 1.  Did he unquestioningly share the interpretation which his contemporaries put upon the symptoms, and simply bring relief by his miraculous power? 2.  Did he know that those whom he healed were not afflicted by evil spirits, and accommodate himself in his cures to their notions? 3.  Does he prove by his treatment that the unfortunates actually were being tormented by diabolical agencies, which he banished by his word?  The last of these possibilities should not be held to be impossible until much more is known than we now know about the mysterious phenomena of abnormal psychical states.  If this is the explanation of the maladies for Jesus’ day, however, it should be accepted also as the explanation of similar abnormal symptoms when they appear in our modern life, for the old hypothesis of a special activity of evil spirits at the time of the incarnation is inadequate to account for the fact that in some quarters similar maladies have been similarly explained from the earliest times until the present day.  If, however, he knew his people to be in error in ascribing these afflictions to diabolical influence, he need have felt no call to correct it.  If the disease had been the direct effect of such a delusion, Jesus would have encouraged the error by accommodating himself to the popular notion.  The idea of possession, however, was only an attempt to explain very real distress.  Jesus desired to cure, not to inform his patients.  The notion in no way interfered with his turning the thought of those he healed towards God, the centre of help and of health.  He is not open, therefore, to the charge of having failed to free men from the thraldom of superstition if he accommodated himself to their belief concerning demoniac possession.  His cure, and his infusion of true thoughts of God