3. Christian supernaturalism is made to centre around the greatest and most exalted character that has ever appeared in history. Ancient supernaturalism, instead of being connected with the most eminent characters of the times, directly connects itself with the most questionable. 4. Christian supernaturalism is stamped throughout with a high moral character and aspect. This is wholly wanting in the supernaturalism of the ancient world. 5. Christian supernaturalism belongs to an elevated order and type; the objects realized by it were for the most part benevolent. The mode of its action was dignified and the effects produced by it were instantaneous, following directly on the word of the agent. The mode in which its miracles were performed is characterized by the utmost simplicity, destitute alike of anything scenic or fantastic, entirely in harmony with the great character who performed them. The supernaturalism of the ancient world is marked by the opposite characteristics. 6. Christian supernaturalism, or to speak more correctly, the greatest supernatural occurrence which Christianity records, namely the Resurrection of Christ, has not only left a mighty impression on history, but has created a civilization of its own which embraces all the progressive nations of the world, and exerts a powerful influence even on those who deny its truth. The only result wrought by the supernaturalism of the ancient world was the moral degradation of those among whom it prevailed. 7. The supernaturalism of Christianity rests on an attestation which even unbelievers would allow to be quite sufficient to establish the truth of any ordinary facts. The other rests either on no testimony at all, or on one which is open to the gravest suspicion. Such are some of the striking contrasts which distinguish the supernaturalism of the New Testament from that of the ancient world. When two series of events present such opposite features, it is the duty of a sound philosophy to trace these distinctions to their causes, and to show what is the nature of the forces which have impressed on each series its own peculiar characteristics. Instead of this, however, we are invited to pronounce both alike incredible; that is to say, because one series of events is deeply impressed with characteristics which render them incredible, we are invited to pronounce a similar condemnation on another series, which is distinguished by the most opposite features, and which has only this point in common with the former, that both belong to an order of events which we designate as supernatural. Nothing can be more unphilosophical than such a mode of reasoning. We reject the one series in a mass, not because the events which it contains are supernatural, but because they are absolutely incredible. A similar rule we apply to ordinary, no less than supernatural occurrences.