The antecedent improbability against a miracle being wrought by a man without a moral object is apt to be confused with that of its being done by God with an adequate moral object.  The former is immeasurably great; the latter is only equal to that of the theory of Theism—­i.e. nil.

Christian Demonology[77].

It will be said, ’However you may seek to explain away a priori objections to miracles on a priori grounds, there remains the fact that Christ accepted the current superstition in regard to diabolic possession.  Now the devils damn the doctrine.  For you must choose the horn of your dilemma, either the current theory was true or it was not.  If you say true, you must allow that the same theory is true for all similar stages of culture, [but not for the later stages,] and therefore that the most successful exorcist is Science, albeit Science works not by faith in the theory, but by rejection of it.  Observe, the diseases are so well described by the record, that there is no possibility of mistaking them.  Hence you must suppose that they were due to devils in A.D. 30, and to nervous disorders in A.D. 1894.  On the other hand, if you choose the other horn, you must accept either the hypothesis of the ignorance or that of the mendacity of Christ.’

The answer is, that either hypothesis may be accepted by Christianity.  For the sake of argument we may exclude the question whether the acceptance of the devil theory by Christ was really historical, or merely attributed to Him by His biographers after His death.  If Christ knew that the facts were not due to devils, He may also have known it was best to fall in with current theory, rather than to puzzle the people with a lecture on pathology.  If He did not know, why should He, if He had previously ‘emptied Himself’ of omniscience?  In either case, if He had denied the current theory, He would have been giving evidence of scientific knowledge or of scientific intuition beyond the culture of His time, and this, as in countless other cases, was not in accordance with His method, which, whether we suppose it divine or human, has nowhere proved His divine mission by foreknowledge of natural science.

The particular question of Christ and demonology is but part of a much larger one.

Darwin’s Difficulty[78].

The answer to Darwin’s objection about so small a proportion of mankind having ever heard of Christ, is manifold:—­

1.  Supposing Christianity true, it is the highest and final revelation; i.e. the scheme of revelation has been developmental.  Therefore, it follows from the very method that the larger proportion of mankind should never hear of Christ, i.e. all who live before His advent.

2.  But these were not left ‘without witness.’  They all had their religion and their moral sense, each at its appropriate stage of development.  Therefore ‘the times of ignorance God winked at’ (Acts xvii. 30).