earth since the first Adam fell, and that he was the incarnate Son of God.

Pilate was perplexed. An honest man would have settled the question at once.

The world has been perplexed. Can we now, after the lapse of eighteen hundred years, so determine what is to be “done” with him as to find evidence in his character and claims that he was sent from God, and that his religion is true?

The subject of this Lecture, therefore, will be, The evidence of the divine origin of Christianity from the personal character and the incarnation of Christ.

As preparing the way for this argument, it may be proper to refer a little more fully to the nature of the perplexities which have been felt on the subject, and to the various answers which have been given to the inquiry involved in the question of Pilate.

The Gnostics regarded him as an æon or“emanation" from God," the first and brightest emanation of the Deity, who appeared upon earth to rescue mankind from various errors, and to reveal a new system of truth and perfection."* He was, in their apprehension, neither truly God nor truly man. "Not truly God, because they held him, though begotten of God, to be yet much inferior to the Father; nor truly man, because every thing concrete and corporeal they believed to be intrinsically and essentially evil; so that most of them divested Christ of a material body, and denied him to have suffered for our sakes what he is recorded to have endured." He was a phantasm that appeared first on the banks of the Jordan, and lived, and suffered, and died in appearance only.t According to Arius, he is “totally and essentially

distinct from the Father; the first and noblest of those created beings whom God the Father formed out of nothing, and the instrument which the Father used in creating the universe, and, therefore, inferior to the Father both in nature and in dignity."* “Though the Son of God was united with human nature on the birth of Jesus, yet that Son of God was a ktioua [creation). He indeed existed long before that birth, but not from eternity.”+

To the Monarchians, or Patripassians, he was the true God inhabiting the body of Jesus, the divine nature occupying the place and performing the functions of the human soul—“the man Christ was the Son of God, and to this Son the Father of the universe so joined himself as to be crucified and endure pangs along with the Son."I They asserted "the true and proper Deity in Christ's person, but denied his humanity. The one single person of the Godhead, the true and absolute Deity, united himself with a human body, but not with a rational human soul."

Nestorius and his followers sought to answer the question by assuming the fact that there were in Christ two natures, a proper divinity and a proper humanity, but that they remained distinct and were not united in one person—"in a single self-conscious personality.”

“ “Instead of a blending of the two natures into only one self, the Nestorian scheme places two selves side by side, and allows only a moral and sympathetic union between them. The result is, that the acts of each nature derive no character from the qualities of the other."* The problem to be solved was whether all the statements in the New Testament, and all the acts of the Redeemer, could be explained on this supposition.

The Eutychian or the Monophysite Christology explained, or tried to explain, the statements in the New Testament, and the facts in the life of the Redeemer, on another and an opposite supposition, in answer to the question“ what shall be done with Jesus.” That system asserts the unity of self-consciousness in the

person of Christ, but loses the duality of the two natures. Eutyches taught that in the incarnation the human nature was transmuted into the divine, so that the resultant was one person and one nature. For this reason the Eutychians held that it was accurate and proper

to

say that "God suffered.”+

Sabellius sought to answer the question by supposing that there was but one “person” in the divine nature; that, according to the different manifestations, as Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier, that one person was designated by different names, implying a distinction not in nature, but in the manifestation that there was a certain energy put forth by the supreme parent, or a certain portion of the divine nature being separated from it, because united with the Son, or the man Christ; that there was but one divine person; that while there was a real difference between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that difference was neither an essential nor a personal one; the divine three were not three distinct persons, but three portions of the divine nature, all depending on God; and that that portion which united with the man Christ, in order to redeem men, is the

Son,” and that by this theory all that there was in the person and work of Christ can be explained.*

Paul of Samosata and his followers—the Paulianssupposed that they could explain the mysteries of the person of Christ on the theory that the Son and the Holy Ghost exist in God as reason and the operative power do in man; that Christ was born a mere man, but that the reason or wisdom of the Father descended into him, and enabled him to teach and to work miracles; and that, on this account, it was proper to say that Christ was God, though not in the

proper sense of the word.

Julian, the emperor, greatly perplexed and embarrassed in regard to Jesus, and the progress which his religion had made in the empire, attempted to solve all the mysteries in regard to him by saying that“Jesus, having persuaded a few among you [Galilæans, as he contemptuously called the Christians), and those of the worst of men, has now been celebrated about three hundred years, having done nothing in his lifetime worthy of fame-έρνον ουδεν ακοής άξιον-unless any one thinks it a very great work to heal lame and blind people, and exorcise demoniacs in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany."

Socinus sought an explanation by assuming that Christ was a mere man, but a good man; Dr. Priestley

in the idea that he was a mere man“naturally as fallible and peccable as any other man.”

Chubb supposed that he could explain all by the following statement: “In Christ we have an example of a quiet and peaceable spirit; of a becoming modesty and sobriety; just, honest, upright, sincere; and, above all, of a most gracious and benevolent temper and behavior. One who did no wrong, no injury to any man; in whose mouth was no guile; who went about doing good, not only by his ministry, but also in curing all manner of diseases among the people. His life was a beautiful picture of human nature in its native purity and simplicity, and showed at once what excellent creatures men would be when under the influence and power of the Gospel which he preached unto them."*

The solution by Rousseau is so well known that it is necessary only to refer to it. “Is it possible,” says he, " that the sacred personage whose history it [the Bible] contains should be himself a mere man? What sweetness, what purity in his manner! What an affecting gracefulness in his instructions! What sublimity in his maxims! What profound wisdom in his discourses ! What presence of mind, what subtlety, what fitness in his replies! How great the command over his passions! Where is the man, where the philosopher, who could so live and so die, without weakness and without ostentation ? The death of Socrates, peacefully philosophizing among his friends, appears the most agreeable that one could wish; that of Jesus, expiring in agonies, abused, insulted, and accused by a whole nation, is the most horrible that one could fear. Socrates, indeed, in receiving the cup of poison, blessed the weeping execu