I have no more reason to believe the former than the two latter; and I have no greater evidence of the truth of either, than of the Hegira of Mahomet.

Another marvellous disappearance is mentioned in the New Testament; but whether it was an actual ascension or not, we are uninformed. I have allusion to the case of Philip, when he had baptized the eunuch. "When they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord CAUGHT AWAY Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more."*

WAS MIRACULOUS POWER THE CROWNING GIFT

OF JESUS?

Was it the chief element of his superiority? So it is contended by preachers not a few. But if they are right in their conclusion, he was no greater than Elijah, of Old Testament memory. Compare the miracles of the two. Jesus is said to have fed "five thousand men, besides women and children," with five loaves and two fishes; and after "they did all eat and were filled, they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full." This was wonderful: but did Elijah fall much short of doing something equal to it, when he replenished the widow's oil-cruise and meal-barrel, and kept up the supply for about two years? We are told that Jesus raised the dead. This, however, (as we are assured on equally canonical authority) is no more than Elijah did : for he brought to life the widow's son when "there was *Acts, viii. 39. See Matt. xiv. 15-21. 1 Kings, xvii. 12-16.

no breath left in him.”*

And similar wonders are as

cribed to Elijah's successor, Elisha.†

If we may believe the Old Testament, Jesus did nothing greater, in the way of miracle-working, than what had been done before. It is true, he is said to have stilled the waves of a stormy sea. But, according to the writer of the Pentateuch, Moses did something as great as this: he stretched out his hand, and, obedient to the signal, the waves of the Red Sea were parted, so that "the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left." And both Elijah and Elisha-parted the waters of the river Jordan, by smiting them with a mantle, so that "they were divided hither and thither," and the prophets "went over on dry ground."§

In respect to the performance of miracles, who of his predecessors did Jesus surpass? Even in his own time, his curative works were successfully imitated by persons whom he had not commissioned nor endowed.||

WAS JESUS MORE THAN HUMAN?

What sort or degree of evidence have we that he was inherently above the grade or capacity of human

* 1 Kings, xvii. 17-24.

+ See 2 Kings, iv. 1-7, 32-35. Was not the first of these two miracles equal to the changing of water into wine, mentioned in John, ii. 1-10. The mode in each case seems to have been somewhat the same. If one of the miracles be superior to the other, it was Elisha's: for he created oil, instead of changing a liquid already provided.

+ Exodus, xiv. 22. §2 Kings, ii. 8, 14. See Mark, ix. 38.

nature? What reason have we to suppose that such was the fact, save his alleged superhuman conception? The miracles furnish no support to the idea; for they were equalled, before he entered this world, by personages confessedly human-born and humanly frail. Trinitarians might adduce his own declaration, "I and my father are one."* But in reply to the argument sought to be based on this brief sentence, it may be said with much force and propriety that Jesus prayed that his followers might be one with him in the same sense in which he and God were one: and yet no person-not even a Trinitarian, I presume-contends that he prayed for the chosen disciples and their followers to be made constitutionally superhuman. "I pray for them,...... that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that THEY ALSO may be ONE IN US."†

The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews asserts that Jesus "was in all points tempted like as we are." It is hardly supposable that this would be the case with a superhuman being. It is worthy of mention that Jesus is almost invariably said to have styled himself "the Son of Man." The title, "Son of God," was applied to him by others.

I consider Jesus as being, in a moral point of view, (especially in his love and forgiveness) a model of perfected humanity. There is nothing which, as I see, militates against the conclusion that such was his character. I regard his severe denunciations of the hypocritical and * John, x. 30. Ibid, xvii. 9, 21. Heb. iv. 15.

extremely wicked, as nothing more than boldly relieved metaphoric depicturings of their actual baseness, and the inevitable consequences of their iniquity; which consequences he had not the power to avert, and which therefore so moved his compassion that he exclaimed, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"* Considering Jesus as thus inseparably linked with humanity,-a veritable brother to us,-his exhortation for us to follow him appears reasonable, and is far more significant, to me, than it is when he is regarded as superhuman. If his virtue was not the result of self-discipline and voluntary obedience to the everlasting law of Right, it was, as it seems to me, rather negative. Who of us would be otherwise than holy, if we all were so constituted that it were absolutely impossible for us ever to be sinful?

The

It is impossible to ascertain at what period in the history of the Church, Jesus and God were first considered as being, in nature and person, one and the same. learned Dr. Priestly examined this matter more thoroughly, perhaps, than almost any other individual. In one of his works, which evinces great historical research, he says: "We find nothing like divinity ascribed to Christ before Justin Martyr (A. D. 141) who from be

*Matt. xxiii. 37.

ing a philosopher became a Christian, but always retained the peculiar habit of his former profession."*

At an early date, various opinions prevailed concerning the nature and origin of Jesus. The same writer from whom I have just quoted, in speaking of the Nazarenes, or Ebionites, as they were sometimes termed, who flourished in the second century, informs us that "some of them supposed that Christ was the son of Joseph as well as of Mary, while others of them held that he had no natural father, but had a miraculous birth."+

Of some other classes of early Christians, the same author says: "In order to exalt their idea of Jesus Christ, it being then a received opinion among the philosophers that all souls had pre-existed, they conceived his soul, not to have been like those of common men (which were generally supposed to have been the production of inferior beings) but a principal emanation from the divine mind itself, and that an intelligence of so high a rank either animated the body of Jesus from the beginning, or entered into him at his baptism. There was, however, a great diversity of opinion on this subject; and indeed there was room enough for it, in a system which was not founded on any observation, but was the mere crcature of fancy. But all these philosophizing christians had the same general object, which was to make the religion of Christ MORE REPUTABLE by adding to the dignity of our Lord's person."‡

"History of the Corruptions of Christianity," Part i. section 2. t Ibid, sec. 1. Ibid, sec. 2.