them be his disciples, "and they left their nets and followed him." Discipleship of Christ is not like discipleship of any ancient or modern master. The distinction between them is deep. No true disciple of Christ can say, "Christ did not choose me: I chose Christ!

7. Standing apart, therefore, in nature and endowment, from all other men, he claimed the disposal of his own life." "I have power," he said, "to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again." No mere man has such power!

8. He claimed he was with the Father "before the foundation of the world"; that he would return again to the Father; that, in the presence of the disciples, he would "ascend to where he was before." If by the phrase, "foundation of the world," he referred to the Jewish age, then his pre-existence is established! He could not have referred to the Christian age, for that had not begun. Besides, in what sense was he "with the Father," "before the world began," if not in a personal sense

?

Not a son of God.

9. He claimed to be "the son of God." That title was conferred on his disciples by name." But it was not conferred on Christ. inheritance.

"belief on his It was his by

10. He claimed he would raise himself from the dead the third day following his crucifixion; which claim was actually verified by his resurrection, and his subsequent ascension into heaven in the presence of a multitude of his disciples! If this story is false, then the book that contains it ought not to be appealed to in proof of anything. If true, then the theory that Christ was merely a superior man is false !

11. Finally: Christ co-ordinated himself with the Father when he commissioned his disciples to go forth and baptize, "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." A shudder creeps over one at the mere thought that any man, however splendidly endowed, should venture on such a tremendous assumption. Such an assumption to-day, by any man, would be sure to excite derision and contempt, and would not receive a moment's eonsideration. But no one is

shocked that Christ should co-ordinate himself with the Father in the work of saving the world, for divine honors seem his by right. "The works that I do in my Father's name," he said, "they bear witness of me."

If

Such are a few of the claims that Jesus set up for himself, and we solemnly protest that they are utterly incompatible with the Humanitan theory; yea, inconceivable and unbelievable, if Jesus was only a splendidly endowed man. true, they take him utterly out of the order of our common humanity, and set him apart by himself as one belonging to no known order or class of created beings. If his claims were false, he was an impostor, and is unworthy of our notice. If he made no such claims as the Evangelists record, then they were impostors, and further discussion of their records is unnecessary. But if, on the other hand, they tell the truth about Jesus, and he told the truth about himself, he was "Son of the Highest," "Emanuel," indeed!

But there is another aspect of the claims of Christ that adds emphasis to the foregoing conclusion. He styled himself both "Son of man," and "Son of God." About eighty times he styles himself "Son of man"; and this fact is siezed upon as proof that he was only a man; but how sorry a proof it is, may be seen by the necessary sense of the phrase in the following passages: "Ye shall see the heavens open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of man" (John i. 51). "He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (John iii. 13). "The Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins" (Matt. ix. 6). Has any mere man such power? "The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day" (Matt. xii. 8). "Except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man, ye have no life in you" (John vi. 53). "The Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his holy angels with him" (Matt. xvi. 37). "The Father hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man" (John v. 27). This title evidently indicates that Jesus was not like other descendants of Adam,— not merely a son of man,- but the Son of man in

a superlative sense; in a word, "the ideal, the absolute, the universal man,- the second Adam descended from heaven,the supreme head of a new and superior order of the race." In this sense he is styled by his favorite disciple, "The only begotten Son," a title freely given him by his disciples, and without rebuke or remonstrance on his part, and by God Himself at his baptism and transfiguration. Moreover, it is a fact that ought not, in this connection, to be overlooked, that, while he directs us to address God as "our Father," he always himself addresses him as "my Father." But by his disciples he was called the "Son of God," and he calmly accepted that title. When appealed to by the Jewish high priest, in the name of the living God, and challenged with the question, "Art thou the Christ, the Son of God?" he deliberately answered, "I AM!" The question was an honest one, and we assume that the answer was equally honest. It is sheer nonsense, therefore, to talk about no more being meant by question and answer than what is meant by ordinary Christian discipleship! If there were any serious doubt upon this point, it will be at once closed out by another assertion of Jesus equally emphatic: "No man," he said, "knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him"! In other words, there is no true knowledge to be had of the Father, nor of the Son, save through Jesus Christ. All other sources of knowledge are simply delusive and vain, - a statement abundantly supported by the history of Jewish, Mohammedan, and Pagan nations. It has been well said, that the choice here is between a truly divine man, and a mad blasphemer. The Jewish high priest was not perplexed to understand the meaning of Christ, when he claimed to be the Son of God, for he exclaimed, in indignation and horror, "Thou hast spoken blasphemy!"

But now let us suppose,- keeping carefully in mind these colossal claims of Christ,- that any one of the disciples of Jesus, or of the Christian fathers, or of the schoolmen, or philosophers, Pagan or Christian, or that some noble Chris

tian reformer had said, or were to say, "I came down from heaven," "I will ascend to where I was before," "I am the Light of the world," "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life," "Come unto me, and ye shall find rest to your souls," "No man can come unto me except the Father who sent me draw him," "I will draw all men unto me," "No mar. knoweth the Father but me, and he to whom I shall reveal Him," would such pretensions be accepted for a moment? "No human being on earth, or who ever was on earth, could set up the least of these pretensions, without being set down at once as a madman," or an impostor. But when made by Christ they seem the natural claims of one who has the undoubted right to make them. It is true that they have sometimes been denied ; but among civilized people denial has been the exception, and not the rule. They have been translated into nearly every language under heaven. They have borne the severest practical tests unimpaired. They have been accepted by the greatest scholars, the profoundest philosophers, the most accomplished scientists, by emperors, kings, princes, nobles,- by governments and the makers of laws, by the uneducated and humble poor,-in hymn, anthem, and oratorio,-in sermon, homily, and prayer,- by "the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth," throughout the world; and the volume of these acknowledgments increases in magnitude as the centuries go by. Yea, "down the dim future, through long generations," the claims of Christ will continue to be recognized as genuine, and accepted as legitimate, until, ascending into the heavens, a redeemed creation shall sing "the new song of Moses and the Lamb, and unite, with inconceivable joy, to "crown him Lord of all "!

Before dismissing this august subject, two difficulties that have been urged by Humanitarians against the views herein maintained, demand our attention. It has been urged that certain claims set up for Christ, by Matthew and Luke, have no mention by Mark nor John; from which it is inferred that said claims are unworthy our credence. To which we beg to reply:

1. Does the fact that neither Mark nor John mention the genealogies of Christ, nor the parents of Christ, prove that the genealogies of Matthew and Luke are unreliable? and that Joseph and Mary were not the reputed parents of Jesus? If the inference he just in the one case, it must be equally just in the other.

2. Does the fact that Jesus is not mentioned in cotemporary profane history,- save in one or two instances, and the genuineness of those questioned by sceptics, prove that no such person as Jesus ever existed, and that the stories told about him by the Evangelists are myths? Such reasoning is a two-edged sword that cuts both ways with deadly effect, and to admit its use, as legitimate, would be, in effect, to discredit all history, and upset its very foundations.

But it is further urged, that the miraculous conception and birth of Jesus is not mentioned in the epistles; which, to say the least, is unaccountable, if the facts, as alleged, actually transpired. It is true that there is no formal mention of the alleged facts in the epistles; but the equivalent of a formal mention is of frequent occurrence, and in language of no doubtful sense.

1. In three of the epistles Jesus is styled the "only begotten Son" of God; which would be simply nonsense if applied to a mere man,-yea, it would be a downright falsehood.

2. That this phrase was understood, by those to whom it was addressed, as referring to Christ's supernatural nature, we cannot doubt; inasmuch as the story of his miraculous conception was current when the epistles were written! Celsus, who wrote in "almost hailing distance of the apostles," takes notice of Christ's birth from a virgin, the adoration of the wise men, the slaughter of infants by the order of Herod, the flight into Egypt, his baptism, and the descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, the voice from heaven, his chief miracles, and his resurrection from the dead. These things, he shows, had always been, and were then believed by Christians! If Celsus simply tells the truth, and we can see no reason to believe otherwise, it can make no sort of