to the Divine. But how to mark the point of passage--how,
out of a purely _quantitative_ difference in the visible manifestation
of power, we are to infer a total inversion of quality--it is
extremely difficult to see. Moses, we are informed, produced a large
reptile; Jannes and Jambres produced a small one. I do not possess
the intellectual faculty which would enable me to infer, from those
data, either the goodness of the one or the badness of the other; and
in the highest recorded manifestations of the miraculous I am equally
at a loss. Let us not play fast and loose with the miraculous; either
it is a demonstration of goodness in all cases or in none. If Mr.
Mozley accepts Christ's goodness as transcendent, because He did such
works as no other man did, he ought, logically speaking, to accept the
works of those who, in His name, had cast out devils, as demonstrating
a proportionate goodness on their part. But it is people of this
class who are consigned to ever-lasting fire prepared for the devil
and his angels. Such zeal as that of Mr. Mozley for miracles tends, I
fear, to eat his religion up. The logical threatens to stifles the
spiritual. The truly religious soul needs no miraculous proof of the
goodness of Christ. The words addressed to Matthew at the receipt of
custom required no miracle to produce obedience. It was by no stroke
of the supernatural that Jesus caused those sent to seize Him to go
backward and fall to the ground. It was the sublime and holy
effluence from within, which needed no prodigy to commend it to the
reverence even of his foes.

As regards the function of miracles in the founding of a religion, Mr.
Mozley institutes a comparison between the religion of Christ and that
of Mahomet; and he derides the latter as 'irrational' because it does
not profess to adduce miracles in proof of its supernatural origin.
But the religion of Mahomet, notwithstanding this drawback, has
thriven in the world, and at one time it held sway over larger
populations than Christianity itself. The spread and influence of
Christianity are, however, brought forward by Mr. Mozley as 'a
permanent, enormous, and incalculable practical result' of Christian
miracles; and he makes use of this result to strengthen his plea for
the miraculous. His logical warrant for this proceeding is not clear.
It is the method of science, when a phenomenon presents itself,
towards the production of which several elements may con