contribute to the peace of society? Or was it likely that the Esseans should adopt this kind of domestic fellowship, after their conversion to Christianity."

Before these questions can be seriously

answered, the writer should shew that the regulation with the effects which he ascribes to it, had really existed any where but in his own depraved imagination; and if the regulation itself were carried in some respects to an unwarrantable excess, he should remember that men, when acting under the influence of new and powerful principles are ever apt to go into extremes. Such extremes, if found to exist, furnish no fair proof against the truth and propriety of the principles themselves when limited within due bounds. The critic thus concludes.

"If in perusing this book of Mr. Jones, we have not received any addition to our faith, and have indeed been compelled by the force of evidence to differ with him almost in every part of his hypothesis, we still feel great respect for his learning and talents, and earnestly request him to devote them to some purpose of more general usefulness and less uncertain speculation." Notwithstanding the presumption and self-importance which could dictate this passage, I should feel obliged for the advice, were I not convinced that it is given with the artful design of proclaiming that a work, which is not worthy the labour of the author, is not worthy the attention of the public.

It is much to be regretted that a work, on whatever subject, which deviates from the beaten track of opinion, while it receives the fair judg

ment of candid and competent critics, is destined to encounter some of those hirelings, who by a self-delegated authority, have appointed themselves the arbiters of taste and knowledge. The influence of such men in forming the public opinion, must be very considerable. But it is not permanent. Their triumph over truth is not even of long continuance. Time reverses their decision, and offers to them as the just reward of their services in the cause of error and prejudice, the mortifying alternative of sinking into oblivion, or of being remembered with detestation.

BELIEF IN THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST, THE NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE OF HIS MIRACLES, WHEN MADE KNOWN AMONG THE PAGANS.

THE heathens, it is well known, believed in the existence and agency of many gods. These, as they supposed, often appeared in the shape, or entered the bodies, of men. The Greek and Roman writers abound with instances of their interposition in both these respects; and the notion was as familiar as that of ghosts or evil spirits, entertained by the vulgar in modern days. When Jesus Christ appeared and exhibited, in the miracles which he performed, the proofs of his divine mission, the conclusion was natural that

he was himself one of the gods, acting by virtue of his own power, and not with the authority of Jehovah. A Jew who disbelieved the Pagan gods, would more rationally infer that he was the servant of the One True God, delegated to mankind on some important message, and thus endued with power to prove the truth of his delegation. But the spirit of Paganism dictated to its votaries a very different inference, and this dictate will appear the origin of the Divine nature, which has ever since been imputed to Jesus of Nazareth.

come

The genius of the heathen religion unequivocally displays itself in the following authentic example." And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are down to us in the likeness of men." If Christ had been the author of this miracle, the people of Lystra would doubtless have said the same thing of him. The inhabitants of other places would certainly have drawn a similar inference,differing only as to what god he might be, each supposing him to be that divinity to which they were more particularly devoted. And if they would suppose him to be a god from this miracle, they would a fortiore have recourse to the same supposition from all his miracles, and especially the miracle of his re-appearance after death.

The conclusion upon which I here insist, is directly asserted by Eusebius, who thus writes in his Ecclesiastical History. "The divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was celebrated among all nations by means of his wonderful power; an immense number even of foreigners

་

being thereby attracted to him, in the hope of being healed by him of the various diseases which afflicted them *." Here it is asserted that

all nations celebrated the divinity of Christ, and that the grounds of this celebration were the wonderful works performed by him. It is clear, therefore, that, according to the surrounding nations who heard the fame of Jesus, he was a supernatural being, because he did things above the course of nature.

A well known passage of Tertullian in his Apology, enforces the same conclusion. "Tiberius,' says he," in whose reign the Christian name appeared in the world, having received from Palestine in Syria, an account of the works which revealed and verified the divinity of Jesus, proposed him to the senate, with the privilege of his own vote in favour of his deification. The senate, because he had himself refused that honour, rejected the proposal. Cæsar remained of the same opinion, and threatened to punish the accusers of the Christians t." Here again it is asserted that the works of Jesus revealed and verified his divinity. If Tiberius had heard of, and credited those works, he would as a heathen, unquestionably draw that inference. But it is remarkable that Tertullian, who was a Christian, and had opportunity to know better, should assert that the miracles of our Lord proved, not indeed his divine mission, but his divine nature. This shews that Tertullian and Eusebius reasoned exactly as the Heathens did, respecting the nature

*Eus. H. E. lib. i. C. 13.

+ Tert. Apolog. C. 6. Lard. Vol. VII. p. 243.

E