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." My friend, I find, rejects Jesus as an authoritative teacher, distinctly denies that the acceptance of Jesus in this character is any condition of salvation and of the divine favour, and treats of my "demand of an oracular Christ," as inconsistent with my own principles. But this is mere misconception of what I have said. I find _Jesus himself_ to set up oracular claims. I find an assumption of pre-eminence and unapproachable moral wisdom to pervade every discourse from end to end of the gospels. If I may not believe that Jesus assumed an oracular manner, I do not know what moral peculiarity in him I am permitted to believe. I do not _demand_ (as my friend seems to think) that _he shall be_ oracular, but in common with all Christendom, I open my eyes and see that _he is_; and until I had read my friend's review of my book, I never understood (I suppose through my own prepossessions) that he holds Jesus _not_ to have assumed the oracular style.