Previous Index Next
Page 54
(previous) (Page 000054) (next)

within, which needed no prodigy to commend it to the rev-
erence 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 re-
ligion 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 actually
makes use of this reSult to strengthen his plea for the mirac-
ulous. His logical warrant for this proceeding is not clear.
'It is the method of science, when a phenomenon presents
itself, to the production of which several elements may con-
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. Mag-
netism. is associated with a phenomenon; we exclude mag-
netism, but the phenomenon remains: hence, magnetism is
not its cause. Thus, also, when we seek the cause of the
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. y It has lived and spread
without miracles; and to assert, in the face of this, that
Christianity has spread because of miracles, is not more op-
posed to the Spirit of science than to the common-sense of

The incongruity of inferring moral goodness from mirac-
ulous power has been dwelt upon above; in another par-

Previous Index Next