trust in the promises of God, accompanied by a controlling determination to live hereafter in obedience to the law of God, this is radically different. Such an experience may be sufficiently intense to produce tears of sorrow or joy, trances, or even lunacy. But neither the lunacy, the trances, nor the tears are essential parts of the conversion. They are results of emotional excitement, differing in individuals according to temperament and education. If these results are believed to have a divine origin—especially when the susceptible are exposed to the contagion of immense crowds swayed by a common impulse and acted upon by oratory—hundreds may succumb to the epidemic who do not experience any moral change, while others who are thus excited may at the same time be genuinely reformed.
The inquiry has been made why these principles do not apply to the miracles of Christ; why I do not sift the evidence in the same way, and explain the facts on the same grounds. What, then, does the New Testament say, and is it rational to believe it?
The first question relates to the issue with the faith-healers. If they performed such works as are recorded of Jesus Christ, a writer professing to believe in his divinity would be compelled to admit their claims to supernatural assistance. But the point made against them is that they do not perform works similar to his.
The credibility of the record concerning Christ's works is a question which cannot be raised by Christians, whether they hold the superstitions of the faith-healers or not.
It is conceded that probably no such sifting of the evidence was attempted as can be made of what takes place in this scientific age, that there was a predisposition to accept miracles, and that the ascendancy of
