175 
have a firm conviction of his honesty ; we must also have 
ground for supposing* that he has had the means of knowing 
the subject respecting which he testifies. 
12. So far there is no difficulty. But our critic does not 
stop here. There can be no ground, we are told, tor sup- 
posing that a man knows that which we, without ceasing to 
be men, could not be supposed to verify. This is, perhaps, 
a somewhat extreme and inconvenient mode of expression ; 
but it seems i*easonable to admit that the testimony of 
a man with no other than human powers cannot be ac- 
cepted in evidence of a fact beyond all natural capacity 
of human experience. It is clear, for instance, to take 
one cardinal point of our faith, that no mere human 
testimony can be adequate evidence, or any evidence at 
all, in support of the assurance that the Lord Jesus 
Christ will hereafter judge all men. But it may here be 
pointed out that this observation does but illustrate the co- 
herence of Christian evidence. It is not upon mere human 
testimony that the assurance just mentioned is based. At this 
point the argument from miracles comes in, and by approach- 
ing it in this way its legitimate force may perhaps be more 
easily stated with accuracy. It seems overstating the case to 
say, as has been sometimes done, that the miracle is the proof 
of the doctrine. But this must at least be said, that it proves 
the person who propounds the doctrine to possess powers and 
to enjoy privileges which are beyond the ordinary range of 
humanity, and which transcend our measurement. In other 
words, we cease to be competent judges of such a witness’s 
ability. He may, for aught we can judge, know things which 
ai*e beyond human experience, just as he can do things which 
are beyond human powers. We are, therefore, thrown back 
upon the solo test of his integrity. Shall we, or shall we not, 
believe his testimony on his own unverified and unverifiable 
assurance ? 
13. To this question I will return shoi’tly; but I would 
interpose one observation on a further principle laid down by 
Mr. Clifford, which might at first be supposed to render any 
belief in a miracle inadmissible. To believe a miracle is to 
believe something entirely beyond our experience ; and on 
what ground, it is asked, may we go beyond our experience 
in forming our beliefs ? The answer given is that we may 
do so when that which we believe is like that which we know, 
or, in other words, when it assumes a uniformity in Nature. 
I am not concerned to inquire whether this rule be adequate 
or admissible without qualification. It is sufficient to observe 
that whatever may be its validity, Christianity complies with 
