opportunity for reflection upon all they had seen and heard, that they, too, might rise to higher and juster conceptions of their Master. He had arrived at a period in His ministry at which it was desirable to ascertain what was the result of His labours, and how far both the people and His immediate followers were prepared for the announcement of His approaching sufferings and death. Obviously, a premature declaration with regard to the great crisis of His history would have hindered, rather than promoted, a conclusion in those around Him that He was "the Christ." But whatever might be the sentiments of the people, it was imperative for the furtherance of His designs that His disciples should advance to this point. He required their confession as the indication of their ability to bear the distinct statement of His tragic end, and as the assurance of a basis for His future kingdom.

It would be a very partial exegesis that failed to recognize in the inquiry of Jesus respecting the judgment entertained of Himself by the generality of men, the means of introducing the more important one as to the judgment formed by His Apostles. He must know from their own lips how far they have been the subjects of spiritual illumination; and whether their conception of Him is properly Messianic,—that He is "the Christ," as being in His own person "the Son of Man" and "the Son of God."

"Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am?" Clearly to understand the terms by which Jesus chose to designate Himself, we must possess a competent knowledge of the sentiments entertained by the Jewish nation concerning the coming One, at the time of His appearance. Notwithstanding their heroic and persistent effort to realize the Divine ideal of themselves as they read it in their ancient Scriptures, their depression, loss of nationality, and conscious helplessness, awoke in them an intense desire for the appearance of a great liberator and restorer of Israel. They had no doubt their Messiah was to be their deliverer; and they invested Him, in anticipation, not only with the endowments and functions of a great national leader, but with powers that were superhuman. He was to effect for them things as great as their historical Scriptures declared God had done for their fathers. Their notions of Him were vividly political and chiliastic. Jesus was perfectly aware of all this. He had to regulate His actions and teachings with reference to these extravagant and erroneous expectations. To have declared Himself the Messiah when at the height of His popularity in Galilee, would certainly have produced the most disastrous political disturbance. He had gradually to show, to such among them as were capable of being taught, that the nation was labouring under a fatal delusion; that He was indeed the Messiah, but that His kingdom was not to be of this world. He

therefore made choice of a form of expression by which to designate Himself that was not in common use, but which was fitted to lead the more thoughtful and spiritually susceptible of those around Him to right conceptions concerning Him. He availed Himself of the representation (Dan. vii. 18, 14) of "the Son of Man" who should come "with the clouds of heaven," and to whom should be given "dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve Him." By the use of this title, He was able clearly to indicate His perfect consciousness of the true nature of His own person.

A sound exposition finds in the vision of Daniel a prophetic intimation of the progress of the kingdom of God in the earth. The powers of the world had been allowed to oppress God's chosen people; but a period of change would certainly come, when universal authority would be manifestly exercised by the Head of the Divine kingdom, whom Daniel represents as being "like the Son of Man." On Him all power should be conferred, not only in fact, but also in historical development. The world-forces of heathenism should be broken and subdued in the evolutions of the future under the providential rule of Him to whom was given by the "Ancient of days" "dominion, and glory, and a kingdom." In the exercise of His sovereign rule all nations should come and serve Him. The "kingdom of God" would ultimately supplant the kingdom of this world. Its grace and purity, its heavenly character, would prevail; and in its progress the Divine ideal would at length obtain its realization. The final triumph of God over all forms of evil, and the fulfilment of His designs of grace with reference to mankind, were assured. The complete conception of the Messiah and His kingdom was thus presented.

We shall presume, therefore, that the application to Himself by Jesus of the title "Son of Man" was based on the passage in Daniel. In the prophetic announcement of the great events that should attend the advancement of His dominion, (Matt. xxiv.,) and which points onward to the final issues in His coming to judgment, He clearly has reference to this vision. The same may be said of His reply to the adjuration of the High-priest, in which He distinctly looks forward to the manifestation of His Messianic power in the establishment of His kingdom, by which He would demonstrate to men the fact of His Messiahship. Thus while He declares, in this title, His human relationship, He at the same time asserts His Divine power in the sovereignty He will exercise. "He thereby lays claim at once to a Divine original, or a Divine pre-existence, as well as affirms the true humanity of His person, and seeks to represent Himself, according to John's expression, as the Logos become flesh." In the consciousness of His pre-existence

He designates Himself "the Son of Man" as the antithesis of His Divine Sonship. All attempts to minify the theological import of this chosen designation are unevangelical, and destructive in their tendency. No doubt Jesus was aware that the perfection of humanity was realized in Himself; but it is a negative exposition merely to say that "when He promises pardon of sins to those who trust in Him and follow Him, He implicitly presents Himself as the normal or model Man, the ideal of humanity." He declares Himself to be more than "the Son of Man in the highest sense of the word," or, "the Man whom the whole history of mankind since Adam has in view." We cannot suppose that in speaking of Himself Jesus ever lost sight of His perfect personality; and we must, therefore, entertain the conviction that He would not employ any designation of Himself which did not by necessary implication embrace all the elements of that personality.

"Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am?" "I am the Son of Man. Do men judge me to be such?" or, as others read, "Do men say that I am the Son of Man?" It may be doubted whether Jesus designed directly to announce the truth concerning Himself in this inquiry, and thus dictate the answer, as to their own belief, which the Apostles afterwards gave. But however we read the passage, *it points to the right answer; and was intended to draw it forth by the assistance which it afforded. The object of Christ was the manifestation of Himself by His words and actions; to awaken in men a right apprehension of His person; and to lead them forward to an intelligent faith in Him as the Anointed of God. In St. Luke, the inquiry is, "Whom do the multitude (oi oxλo) say that I am?" Rightly given, no doubt; but less exactly than in the form in which it is put by St.Matthew. It was not the unintelligent general opinion of Himself, as it might be gathered from the confused and contradictory utterances of the ignorant crowd, that Jesus desired to know. It was rather the definitely-expressed judgment of "men" (oi äveрaño), who in ἄνθρωποι), some sense were the leaders of thought among the many, which He desires them to make known to Him. Possibly this turn of expression implies a reference to the importance of His appearance to all men; and may also be intentionally antithetic to the succeeding "ye." There were certainly some that recognized His Messianic character. It is true these were found principally among His disciples; but they had become disciples by the force of their convictions. There were doubtless others in a condition of mind approximate to this; while there were some that denounced Him as a seducer. The influence of these last with the people was

* See Alford's note on Matt. xvi. 13.

observed by Him; and the time had come for this positive inquiry, lest the minds of His apostles also should be affected by the diminished estimation in which He saw that the determined efforts of His enemies would cause Him to be held.

In the various opinions respecting Jesus which had been entertained, the idea of the transmigration of souls had no part. These opinions indicate the results of the influence of His avowed opponents. At a previous period there was a strong disposition on the part of the body of the people to regard Him as their MessiahKing. A change in their judgment was obviously taking place. In the expression of the views they now held, they sought to assign a reason for their lessening estimate of Him. Though they had been shaken in their rising confidence with respect to His Messiahship, they refused to consider Him an impostor. He was still at any rate "a prophet." The notion that is first named was the one furthest from the truth. The superstitious fears of Herod, which his courtiers had been pleased to consider a reasonable judgment, were readily employed by the men of influence to divert attention from the thought of the Messianic claims of Jesus. The people might suppose Him to be any one rather than "the hope of Israel." They might take Him to be "Elias:" the mission of John would thus be ignored; and thus those who had been the occasion of the Baptist's imprisonment, and indirectly at least of his death, would escape the repute of being the murderers of the true Elias. A lower judgment declared Him to be "Jeremiah." And, not entirely to abandon their convictions as to the true character of Jesus, some avowed the vague and meaningless notion that He was "one of the prophets : " evidently to them He was a reformer, a denouncer of the general corruption of the times.

"But whom say ye that I am?" This was the great question for which the other was intended to prepare the way: "Whatever may be the opinions of others, what is your judgment? You have witnessed My actions, which have furnished manifestations of Divine power; you have listened to My teachings; you have had the fullest opportunity of acquainting yourselves with My person; whom, therefore, do ye say that I am?" He places His Apostles in opposition to the "men" of the former inquiry; and asks for a distinct and positive declaration of their belief. Peter had previously (John vi. 69) made a confession, which in all probability was based on the striking words Jesus had just then uttered, (verse 57,) "As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father; so he that cateth Me, even he shall live by Me." The deep import of these words could not then be apprehended by the most enlightened of the followers of Christ. Peter's confession, on that occasion, did not spring from a true insight into the Divine

nature of Jesus, as that which He now made certainly did. The advance has been made from a general belief that He is "the Holy One of God" to a clear, profound personal conviction of His proper deity. “The understanding of history from without finds in the Son of Man, Jesus, first of all the Christ promised to Israel; the philosophy of faith, when it rightly reads, hears, perceives, and understands the words, soon finds in this Christ the Son of the living God. The Gospels declare Him, by His own testimony and the confession of His disciples, to be both together." Jesus is now to Peter and his fellow-Apostles "the Christ," not in the sense of carnal Jewish traditionalism, but in its highest spiritual import. He is "the Son of the living God," whose manifestations of Himself obtain their completion in the appearance and person of His Son, who is such not only in an official sense, but in its deep. ontological signification. In His Divine nature, He is the Son of "the living Father," by whom, in the eternal fellowship of His filial relation, He lives.

"What think ye of Christ?" is the great question for "the men" of all times. Many would gladly evade it, and relegate its subject into the things of the past. But the Christ of history ever confronts them with His grand presence; and the ever-widening diffusion of the influence of His character and His teaching cannot be disputed. From Jesus of Nazareth has flowed a current of vital energy that has not only pervaded all true modern civilization, but has given it those elements which alone are the pledge of its healthy development and perpetuity. A new epoch in the world's history commenced in the person of Him who spake as "never man spake." It is vain to say "there is no answer given to this inquiry;" and that, for that reason, men may entertain any variety of opinion with reference to it without evil consequences resulting to themselves. The judgment which men entertain on the claims of Jesus shapes their character, and regulates their destiny. We refuse, too, to endorse the pseudoworship which some would offer to Him on the ground of His transcendent purity, and wisdom, and power, in which they find the ideal of human excellence, and after which they allow they are ever to aspire, encouraged in their effort by the fact that as it was realized in Him it is also possible in their own case. His demand for a further judgment concerning Himself from His Apostles after their statement of the confused notions entertained by many around Him, clearly intimates that He would have rejected the false deference of which some in our times make an ostentatious display. Like their prototypes, they are willing to allow that He is any one, anything, save what He really is, "the Christ, the Son of the living God."