ness,' only denotes more emphatically, according to a Hebrew idiom, the preeminent moral resemblance of man to God. Everything else discloses only a part or property of the Creator, here at length is his image." Here, then, if we really believe in the scriptural account of man's origin, (and difficult as the belief of this may be, can you suggest any theory less difficult or more probable; has any such theory of man's origin ever been propounded, anything more rational than the biblical statement?) here we have another and an invaluable clue to the nature of true manliness-man was made in the image, after the likeness, of God. To retain this image, or, if haply it be lost, to attempt its recovery, this is the true glory of human nature. If we know what God is, then we know what man ought to be. The manliest man is he in whom there is most of the Divine image. In some of the properties of God resemblance on man's part is of course impossible, and even to wish for such resemblance were equally presumptuous as vain; but there are other properties in which the resemblance may be manifested, ought to be manifested, and in every truly manly person is manifested. God is just, God is true, God is faithful, God is holy, God is patient, God is kind, God is compassionate, God forgives his enemies-when they hunger he feeds them, when they thirst he gives them drink. "He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust." In these properties resemblance to God is possible for man, resemblance to God is man's first duty, best interest, greatest honour;

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect;" thus you will attain the climax of your being. Hence, then, godliness, i. e. godlikeness, is manliness. We have identified virtue and manliness, we now identify godliness and manliness. We refer to man's origin, to the fact that the Divine image was impressed

upon him at his creation, and from this we gather for a certainty-that man is manliest when he is most like God.

For further insight into the nature of true manliness, let us try to seek out some fair and safe example, the fairest and the safest if it be possible. For if we can find a man in all respects manly, a living embodiment of true manliness, we shall probably derive more instruction from him than from any theoretical speculations. Who then is to be our standard? If among the countless myriads who have lived and moved, and had their being in this world, there be some one man who concentrates in himself all the properties of true manliness, let us study that man's character; let us transcribe it, transcribe it carefully, faithfully; transcribe it in its entirety, and not merely take this or that characteristic that happens to suit our taste.

Whom then shall we select as our model? Not a man like Samson, I presume, a man endowed with tremendous physical strength; for every one knows that Samson was a miserably weak creature after all; a grand specimen of humanity, I grant you, if you contemplate him from a merely physical point of view (when you see him rending the lion as he would have rent a kid; carrying away the gates of Gaza, and putting forth his strength in that last effort when he pulled down the palace of the Philistine lords, and took his terrible revenge), but a very poor specimen of a man when you consider him in either an intellectual or moral light. You cannot, therefore, for a moment think of taking as your standard the mere physical man in the perfection of his symmetry and strength;-not the Samson of sacred history, not the Hercules of profane mythology; they did not in all respects quit themselves like men. But probably you will choose as your standard the intellectual man, the philosopher, the scholar, the poet, the artist, the senator, the clever and successful man of business. Very exem

plary persons certainly-every one of them admirable in his way; and we do admire such men, we ought to admire such men, we cannot help admiring such men. They are the Creator's choicest gifts, the burning and shining lights of the secular world; they are the aristocracy of nature, they are the civilizers of humanity. The small men, of whom the race chiefly consists, could do little or nothing without the great men. The race would make no progress were it not that, here and there, age after age, the inspiration of the Almighty which giveth understanding, concentrates in some one man the intellectual force of millions of men. If the western ocean is to be explored you must have a Columbus-if the true system of the universe is to be demonstrated, you must have a Newton-if tyranny is to be successfully resisted, you must have a Cromwell-if manufacturing industry is to be developed, you must have a James Watt. My friends, think not only of the harvest, of food and raiment, of health and comfort when you sing the doxology; remember with a most grateful remembrance the world's great men, the servants who received five talents, and trading with them for the welfare of the world, made them five talents more, remember them when you sing"Praise God from whom all blessings flow."

Still the merely intellectual man is no safe standard. We are far too prone to the idolatry of intellect; we honour men more for the compass of their understanding, the extent of their learning, the brilliancy of their wit, and the splendour of their genius, than for the goodness of their hearts and the excellence of their lives. Here, too, as in the case of the powerful physical man, the example may be set before many of us in vain. If to be manly it is absolutely necessary to be very wise, very learned, very witty, very clever; then who is sufficient for these things? who can attain to true manliness of character? No-if we wish to

see the true standard, we must, I think, study the character of the Man Christ Jesus, perfect in righteousness, in purity, in benevolence, in patience, in fortitude, in every virtue that can dignify, beautify, and glorify human nature. For Christ's obedience to the Divine law was the obedience of his humanity; the virtues he displayed. were human virtues; and he has thus redeemed human nature from the disgrace which had been brought upon it. Poor human nature! we are accustomed to say: aye, poor enough, if we regard ourselves, the best of us, as the standards of humanity; but, contemplate humanity as you see it in Jesus Christ, and learn your own greatness; learn to respect yourselves; learn what sublime possibilities are wrapt up in your nature, and latent in the constitution of your being.

Here, however, I ought, perhaps, to advert to the fact, that the moral perfection of Jesus and his claim to be the Model Man, and "realized ideal of humanity," have been questioned and denied. Dr. Priestley and Mr. Belsham, if they do not accuse Christ of immoral conduct, consider his moral perfection as at least extremely doubtful. But the author of the "Phases of Faith," unlike Priestley and Belsham, disdains to use the language of insinuation; and, with a boldness I should hope almost unexampled, takes up the Saviour's challenge-" Which of you convinceth me of sin ?" Of the evangelical narrative he says, "So far from being a picture of perfection, it sometimes seems to me the picture of a conscious and wilful impostor.

I almost doubt, if one wished to draw the character of a vain and vacillating pretender, it would be possible to draw anything more to the purpose than this." The author of the "Phases of Faith" finds error, arrogance, dishonesty in the discourses of Christ; and he thus speaks of the men who insisted that Jesus should be put to death :-"Though

popular indignation (even when free from the element of selfishness) ill fixes the due measure of punishment, I have a strong belief that it is righteous when it pronounces the verdict, guilty." In other words, according to this author, the "vox populi” was the "vox Dei" when it exclaimed, "Away with him! away with him! Crucify him! crucify him!" Now I have seldom read anything with greater satisfaction than that chapter on the moral character of Jesus in the "Phases of Faith." Its effect was to confirm my conviction of Christ's moral perfection. I felt that I could say to this writer, "Thou, at all events, hast not convicted. him of sin; thou hast not discovered a flaw in this Pearl of great price." This writer has overshot the mark. The man who tries to persuade us that the Jewish populace was justified in clamouring for Christ's death, is a man who only discovers the weakness of his cause. I am sorry that any person should entertain such views; but since they were entertained (for possibly they are not entertained now) by a man of such ability, learning, and honesty as the author of the "Phases of Faith," I, for one, thank him for his frankness in giving these views publicity. I only wish that all the sermons, the pamphlets, and the books of the orthodox contained anything like such a noble testimony to the perfection of Christ as-to my mind at least-is the result of a candid perusal of this chapter of the "Phases of Faith." Once on a time (as the story goes) a philosopher, with the aid of a powerful telescope, discovered a monster in the sun. He calculated its dimensions; he speculated upon its habitudes; he satisfied himself that it must ere long dever the solar orb; he considered it probable that it would then come at an ascertained speed to attack the earth, and eat it in less than a week. Appalling prospect: He gathered his scientific friends about him, informed them of the frightful fact, begged them to ascertain it for them