time reported in outlying districts, where the ignorance and superstition which formerly produced so abundant a growth of them are not yet entirely dispelled” ("Sup.  Rel.,” vol. i., p. 148).  “Ignorance, and its invariable attendant, superstition, have done more than mere love of the marvellous to produce and perpetuate belief in miracles, and there cannot be any doubt that the removal of ignorance always leads to the cessation of miracles” (Ibid, p. 144).

Special objection has often been raised against one class of miracles—­common to the Gospels and to all miraculous narratives—­which has severely taxed the faith even of the Christians themselves—­that class, namely, which consists of the healing of those “possessed with devils.”  Exorcism has always been a favourite kind of miracle, but, in these days, very few believe in the possibility of possession, and the language of the Evangelists on the subject has consequently given rise to much trouble of mind.  Prebendary Row, in a work on “The Supernatural in the New Testament Possible, Credible, and Historical”—­one of the volumes issued by the Christian Evidence Society in answer to “Supernatural Religion”—­deals fully with this difficulty; it has been urged that possession was simply a form of mania, and on this Mr. Row say:  “Now, on the assumption that possession was simple mania, and nothing more, the following suppositions are the only possible ones.  First, that our Lord really distinguished between mania and possession; but that the Evangelists have inaccurately reported his words and actions, through the media of their own subjective impressions, or, in short, have attributed to him language that he did not really utter.  Second, that our Lord knew that possession was a form of mania, and adopted the current notions of the time in speaking of it, and that the words were really uttered by him.  Third, that with similar knowledge, he adopted the language as part of the curative process.  Fourth, that he accepted the validity of the distinction, and that it was a real one during those times” ("Supernatural in the New Testament,” pp. 251, 252).  Mr. Row argues that:  “If possession be mania, there is nothing in the language which the Evangelists have attributed to our Lord which compromises the truthfulness of his character.  If, on the other hand, we assume that possession was an objective fact, there is nothing in our existing scientific knowledge of the human mind which proves that the possessions of the New Testament were impossible” (Ibid).  Mr. Row rejects the first alternative, and accepts the accuracy of the Evangelic records.  But he considers that if possession were simply mania, Jesus, knowing the nature of the disease, might reasonably use language suited to the delusion, as most likely to effect a cure; he could not argue with a maniac that he was under a delusion, but would rightly use whatever method was best fitted to ensure recovery.  If this idea be rejected, and the reality of demoniacal possession maintained as most consonant with the behaviour of Jesus, then Mr. Row argues that there is no reason to consider it impossible that either good or evil spirits should be able to influence man, and that psychological science does not warrant us in a denial of the possibility of such influence.