or degraded, stands in such sacred relations to so exalted a personage! Enslave a man! Buy and sell a man as if he were no better than a sheep; beat him with a cruelty which you would not inflict upon an ox or an ass; hunt him down with bloodhounds and shoot him with as much indifference as you would a wild beast! Despise a man because he is poor, or of low caste, or has a skin not colored like your own! Neglect a man when he is in sorrow and suffering, and let him die neglected and uncared for when he is sick! It is neglect and contempt of the Son of Man; a denial of the fundamental truth of his religion; an indignity to his sacred person. Every blow thus struck at the meanest member of the human family falls, as it were, upon his own blessed body. And when you stand before him in judgment, he will remember and recompense every wrong done to his brethren as a wrong done to himself, saying: "I was hungry and ye gave me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; I was a stranger and ye took me not in; naked and ye clothed me not; sick and in prison, and ye visited me not."

In Christ as the Son of Man we see what man was made to be, and what, by reconciliation and union with God, he is capable of becoming- the true nobility of man's unfallen nature, and the exalted dignity and glory of humanity, as it will be when it is redeemed and regenerated. Christ represents the unity of the race-its solidarity, as philosopers are fond of saying in their speculations; its universal brotherhood, as it is revealed in the scriptures and as the Christian believes it will actually exist in the latter days, when every man will see in every other man a brother, and do to others, in some measure, at least, as he would that they should do to him, and the golden rule shall be the law of individuals, families, and nations; in one word, its regenerated and perfected manhood, when the ideal of humanity, as it is exhibited in the person and the life of Jesus, shall be realized so far, at least, on earth that it shall be a pledge and earnest of a perfect realization in heaven. And as in the

divine beauty of Christ's humiliation we see an image of man's proper rank and intended character on earth- of man like God and earth like heaven, so in the divine glory of his exaltation we see at once the means and the security for the ultimate accomplishment of that high destiny. The Son of Man-humanity personified-sits at the right hand of the Almighty Father, and all power in heaven and on earth is given into his hands. And he is crowned with glory and honor as a sign and pledge of the future glory and honor of his race not indeed of every individual in it, for some, alas! persist in rejecting the Son as well as the Fatherbut, we must believe, a sign and seal, a pledge and earnest, of the future elevation and final salvation of the great majority of the entire human family. Let, then, all who love their species, rejoice in the Son of Man as their sympathiz ing and almighty Redeemer, and await with undoubting confidence the day of redemption; but let all the incorrigible · enemies of God and man tremble; for he comes, the Son of Man and the Son of God, to avenge the wrongs done to both. And if there is anything more dreadful than the wrath of a holy God, it will be the righteous indignation of the neglected and despised Son of Man-neglected in his own person and despised in the person of his poorer brethren -when he comes in his own glory and in the glory of his Father to judge the assembled nations.

ARTICLE III.

MARKS OF THE SUPERNATURAL IN GOD'S PROMISE

TO ABRAHAM.

BY SAMUEL HARRIS, D.D., PROFESSOR IN BANGOR THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

THE controversy of Rationalism is not with Christianity, but with Theism. The denial of the possibility of the miraculous is its essential doctrine and the source of its vitality and strength. But miracles are possible if there is a personal God. Positivism or Pantheism are the only positions in which the denier of the possibility of miracles can make a stand.

Christianity is essentially miraculous. It implies primarily a supernatural, divine action in the redemption of fallen man; and, secondarily, a supernatural revelation by that. action. The whole conception involves the miraculousthe creation, the fall, the primitive promise, the call of Abraham, the covenant with the chosen people, the preparatory and prophetic dealings of God with that people, the coming of the Messiah, "the Word made flesh," his resurrection and ascension, the outpouring of the Spirit, the second coming of Christ, the final judgment. Whether true or false, this is Christianity. The denial of the supernatural is the denial of Christianity.

Christianity is willing to appear and submit her claims to decision in the court of reason. The question to be submitted is: Is this scheme of redemption an adequate solution of the great problem of human nature, history, and destiny? Is there in man a need of redemption and a demand for it? Is the scheme theoretically consistent and reasonable, and does it commend itself to the reason as adequate, if historically true, to solve the world-problem? Was it from the beginning so incorporated into human history, has it in its late influences so wrought itself into

human history, as to commend itself to reason as a historical verity?

But if this question is to be decided in the court of reason, it must be Christianity itself that appears before the tribunal, and not a makeshift bearing its name, but divested of all that constitutes its distinctive character, grandeur, vitality, and power. The denial of the possibility of miracles is the denial of the possibility of Christianity. It is giving judgment before the question is opened for argument. It is not arguing the question with Christianity in the court of reason; it is shutting Christianity out of court. Deny the miraculous and nothing is left in the Bible but the debris of myths and legends, and the fragments and crumbling ruins of a history which, even so far as it may be true, is no longer significant or important. Then the question is triumphantly propounded: Does this insignificant residuum solve the great problem of human history and destiny? What if it does not? It is not Christianity. The plea of Christianity has not even been heard.

The question of the truth of Christianity is debatable, then, only with a theist who admits the possibility of miracles. Then the conception of Christianity appears in all its grandeur, as a supernatural, redemptive action of God, traversing the history of man from his creation to the judg ment; and the question is fairly before us: Does this conception adequately solve the problem of human history and destiny? Has it inwrought itself into history so as to prove its historical verity?

It is, therefore, fruitless to debate the evidences of Christianity with a rationalist who denies the possibility of miracles. Let him be shut up to his controversy with the theist; driven back to his legitimate position either in positivism or pantheism.

For similar reasons rationalism has no right to criticise or interpret the Bible. The denial of the possibility of miracles necessitates beforehand that criticism be destruc tive and interpretation false. The Bible is a record, whether

true or false, of a grand series of supernatural, divine actions in the redemption of fallen man. Though the work of many authors, in many centuries, this grand conception dominates in all, is steadily and consistently unfolded more and more clearly, and advanced by accompanying historical events to completeness, and gives to the series of books a unity which indicates the control of one superintending mind. The denial of the supernatural necessitates in criticism the assumption that the books are false in their substance. That denial makes a right interpretation impossible; for the Bible is a story of the supernatural; and its actual meaning, whether true or false, can be ascertained only by recognizing the supernatural. Deny it, and the meaning of every part of the book changes-the essential and vital significance is gone. The grand panorama of redemption vanishes. Nothing is left but a blinding drizzle of myth and legend over a dreary waste of uncertain and valueless stories in which float-"rari nantes in gurgite vasto "--a few fine moral sentiments, like those found in the literature of every nation. It is absurd to criticise or interpret the Bible from this point of a view. If a man enters St. Peter's church with the assumption that it is a private dwellinghouse, his criticism must pronounce the plan and construction faulty, and his interpretation must miss the significance of every part. Not less absurd the attempt of Strauss to criticise and interpret the Bible on the assumption that the supernatural is impossible.

These principles are important in the interpretation of God's promise to Abraham. If a miracle is impossible, then God never made the promise, the account of it is peremp torily set aside as a myth, and the whole story at once takes its place among the obscure beginnings of history as a tradition respecting the origin of a nomadic tribe which afterwards established itself as an agricultural people in the small province of Palestine. When this position is frankly acknowledged and held with logical consistency, the scepti cism is comparatively harmless. But rationalism extends