tribute, to
exclude them one by one, so as to arrive at length at the truly
effective cause. Heat, for example, is associated with a phenomenon;
we exclude heat, but the phenomenon remains: hence, heat is not its
cause. Magnetism is associated with a phenomenon; we exclude
magnetism, but the phenomenon remains: hence, magnetism is not its
cause. Thus, also, when we seek the cause of a diffusion of a
religion--whether it be due to miracles, or to the spiritual force of
its founders--we exclude the miracles, and, finding the result
unchanged, we infer that miracles are not the effective cause. This
important experiment Mahometanism has made for us. It has lived and
spread without miracles; and to assert, in the face of this, that
Christianity has spread _because_ of miracles, is, I submit, opposed
both to the spirit of science and the common sense of mankind.

The incongruity of inferring moral goodness from miraculous power has
been dwelt upon above; in another particular also the strain put by
Mr. Mozley upon miracles is, I think, more than they can bear. In
consistency with his principles, it is difficult to see how he is to
draw from the miracles of Christ any certain conclusion as to His
Divine nature. He dwells very forcibly on what he calls 'the
argument from experience,' in the demolition of which he takes obvious
delight. He destroys the argument, and repeats it, for the mere
Pleasure of again and again knocking the breath out of it. Experience,
he urges, can only deal with the past; and the moment we attempt to
project experience a hair's-breadth beyond the point it has at any
moment reached, we are condemned by reason. It appears to me that
when he infers from Christ's miracles a Divine and altogether
superhuman energy, Mr. Mozley places himself precisely under this
condemnation. For what is his logical ground for concluding that the
miracles of the New Testament illustrate Divine power? May they not
be the result of expanded human power? A miracle he defines as
something impossible to man. But how does he know that the miracles
of the New Testament are impossible to man? Seek as he may, he has
absolutely no reason to adduce save this--that man has never hitherto
accomplished such things. But does the fact that man _has_ never raised
the dead prove that he _can_ never raise the dead? 'Assuredly not,'
must be Mr. Mozley's reply; 'for this would be pushing experience
beyond the limit it has now r