some imputation of moral weakness, he would reply, that we are agreed in setting these aside, as untrustworthy.  Yet he perseveres in asserting that it is beyond all reasonable question what Jesus was; as though proven inaccuracies in all the narratives did not make the results uncertain.  He says that even the poor and uneducated are fully impressed with “the majesty and sanctity” of Christ’s mind; as if this were what I am fundamentally denying; and not, only so far as would transcend the known limits of human nature:  surely “majesty and sanctity” are not inconsistent with many weaknesses.  But our judgment concerning a man’s motives, his temper, and his full conquest over self, vanity and impulsive passion, depends on the accurate knowledge of a vast variety of minor points; even the curl of the lip, or the discord of eye and mouth, may change our moral judgment of a man; while, alike to my friend and me it is certain that much of what is stated is untrue.  Much moreover of what he holds to be untrue does not seem so to any but to the highly educated.  In spite therefore of his able reply, I abide in my opinion that he is unreasonably endeavouring to erect what is essentially a piece of doubtful biography and difficult literary criticism into first-rate religious importance.

I shall however try to pick up a few details which seem, as much as any, to deserve credit, concerning the pretensions, doctrine and conduct of Jesus.

First, I believe that he habitually spoke of himself by the title “Son of Man”—­a fact which pervades all the accounts, and was likely to rivet itself on his hearers.  Nobody but he himself ever calls him Son of Man.

Secondly I believe that in assuming this title he tacitly alluded to the viith chapter of Daniel, and claimed for himself the throne of judgment over all mankind.—­I know no reason to doubt that he actually delivered (in substance) the discourse in Matth. xxv.  “When the Son of Man shall come in his glory,... before him shall be gathered all nations,... and he shall separate them, &c. &c.”:  and I believe that by the Son of Man and the King he meant himself.  Compare Luke xii. 40, ix. 56.

Thirdly, I believe that he habitually assumed the authoritative dogmatic tone of one who was a universal Teacher in moral and spiritual matters, and enunciated as a primary duty of men to learn submissively of his wisdom and acknowledge his supremacy.  This element in his character, the preaching of himself is enormously expanded in the fourth gospel, but it distinctly exists in Matthew.  Thus in Matth. xxiii 8:  “Be not ye called Rabbi [teacher], for one is your Teacher, even Christ; and all ye are brethren"...  Matth. x. 32:  “Whosoever shall confess ME before men, him will I confess before my Father which is in heaven...  He that loveth father or mother more than ME is not worthy of ME, &c."...  Matth. xi. 27:  “All things are delivered unto ME of my Father; and no man knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son; and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. Come unto ME, all ye that labour,... and I will give you rest.  Take MY yoke upon you, &c.”