has real meaning in it, that He did indeed become man.

Such

a man, possessed of an infinite nature with infinite capabilities, we have no difficulty in conceiving of, as appointed to be the "Judge of quick and dead," as having committed to Him all power in heaven and in earth, and as being exalted even to the throne of the universe.

But the chief advantage of this theory is that it is in accordance with the teachings of the Scriptures. They nowhere directly affirm that Christ had a created human soul. That He had, is only an inference drawn from the fact that He is described as having the experiences of such a soul, and is often spoken of as a man. Now notice how the words of Scripture, taken in their literal and obvious meaning, confirm this view of our Lord's person. "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins: wherefore, when He cometh into the world, He saith-Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldst not, but a body hast Thou prepared me." There is no reference here to a human soul, but only to a human body.

Awake, O sword! against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of Hosts." The man Christ Jesus is here called the "fellow," the equal of the Lord of Hosts. "The first man is of the earth, earthy" (has a created soul); "the second man is" (it does not say, personally united to, but is) "the Lord from Heaven." "I am the root and the offspring of David" (not united to the offspring). “Father, glorify Thou me with Thine own self, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was." Who offered this prayer? Evidently the eternal, pre-existent spirit in Christ; and prayer implies dependence. And when in Gethsemane He prayed, saying, "O, my Father! if it be possible, let this cup pass from me," and an angel was sent to strengthen Him-is it not evident that it was the very same pre-existent spirit that here also offered the prayer and endured the sorrow? Will it be said that He suffered in His human soul? Such language is not only unscriptural but unmeaning. There is no escape from the force of the simple and direct teaching of the Scriptures that He suffered, and He was God. The one and only and indivisible personality in Christ Jesus, the pre-existent and eternal Word, prayed unto the Father, was strengthened by the angel,

and endured the sorrow. The conclusion follows, direct and irresistible, that the Divine Word could not have been in the conscious exercise of His divine attributes, and that He must of necessity have been subjected, in His person, to human limitations and conditions.

But we have no space to pursue further the Scripture argument. The more thoroughly the teachings of Inspiration upon this most important subject are studied, free from all preconceived theories, the more thorough, we believe, will be the conviction that they sustain the view of Christ's person here advanced. Why should it be thought a thing incredible or impossible that Divinity should, in one of Its persons, manifest Itself humanly in Christ, without the intervention of a created human soul as Its instrument? It ill becomes us to assert, dogmatically, that this would be impossible for an infinite, incomprehensible, triune God!

ARTICLE IV.-THE TROUBLE WITH THE CAUCUS.

THAT there is some trouble with the caucus is plain enough. The nominations of both parties are in many cases not fit to be` made. The men nominated are either unknown or known unfavorably, and yet the nomination of a regular caucus is, in the case of the party in power, almost a guarantee of election. And so the corruption of our government, State and municipal, is continually growing with the increasing knavery and imbecility of the representatives of our caucuses.

Now we often hear it said that if the "good men" would go to the caucuses the result would be different. Their abilities and character would command respect, and secure the nomination of respectable candidates. Before an election most of the better class of newspapers preach editorial sermons on this text, discourses that have a curious likeness to those computations one sometimes hears of the number of heathen that might be converted with the money spent for tobacco, or the number of miles of railroad that we might have instead of our whiskey. Somehow the good seed does not seem to fall on the right sort of ground, and the use of tobacco and whiskey and the corruption of the caucus go on increasing. The "if" in either case is too large; the conclusion might follow if the premises were established; but the "good men" won't go to the caucuses.

Some advisers say, in despair of other means of reform, "Disregard the caucus nomination, vote against all bad men that are nominated, and thus compel the nomination of good men." But then the difficulty arises, that the candidates of both parties are equally objectionable or equally unknown, and there being no mode of union adopted among the "good men," it may follow that a disgusted Republican will vote for the Democratic nominee and a discontented Democrat for the Republican; or both may decline to vote altogether. This result, those evil spirits, the politicians, who preside as tutelary divinities over caucuses, contemplate with grim complacency. Indeed, it has been observed that some of these astute managers join in the

newspaper cry, doubtless from unholy motives, and pleasantly invite good citizens to come to the caucus and nominate better men, if they are not satisfied with those who are actually nominated. The good man thus sees himself reproached on all sides; some accuse him of indifference, others of stupidity, but the most exasperating charge is that of the caucus managers. They try to do as well as they can, they say, and nominate worthy men, as they suppose; while the good men stand coldly aloof, decline to give their assistance, and then try to undo at the polls the work that owes its unsatisfactory nature to their refusal to participate in it. Under these circumstances it is not surprising if the good man is puzzled to know just what he ought to do.

It is undoubtedly true that as a rule our best citizens are not regular attendants of the caucus. So far the popular complaint is correct. But when the newspapers proceed to say that if such men would attend, the character of the nominations would be settled by them, we are led along from facts to inferences, and the validity of these inferences must be examined if we are to get any further than reproaches and lamentations over our plight.

Suppose we venture the statement that it would make little difference if the better class of citizens, that now stays away, should attend the caucuses? We should be careful how we throw blame on an estimable class of men unless we are certain that they deserve it. Indeed, if the deplorable state of our government is really caused by the indifference of good citizens, they hardly deserve the name of good. If they can remedy matters, and neglect to do so from mere supineness, they are guilty of real treachery to the State.

There are several things to be noticed about the class of citizens in question. One is, that men who are alive to the demands of duty in their family, social, and business relations are likely to answer its calls in other directions. The disposition to do our duty is a general trait, and is not particularly under the control of our desires. If we have a real sense of obligation, we cannot confine it to those things that we want to do. It compels us to do those things that we don't want to do. That is its peculiarity, and the reason why we attach so

great importance to it. Of course, we often see individuals that are generally prompt at the call of duty, singularly forgetful of its claims in particular cases. But when we observe the class of men that is distinguished as possessing this moral sense in an unusual degree-when we see these men declining with some unanimity to discharge what we suppose to be their duty, we have a good opportunity to consider whether our opinion or theirs as to their duty is more to be trusted. In short, we have some reason to suppose that many good men do not feel it to be, on the whole, their duty to attend caucuses.

Another thing to be noticed is that the better class of our people are not indifferent to their duties as citizens. On the contrary, they take a very keen interest in them. It is not so very long since the war that the patriotism of this class can be forgotten. There was, before the attack on Sumter, some talk of this indifference, but the outburst of devotion to the Union that followed that attack silenced all such language. It cannot be that that class which gave so freely of its substance, and left its dead on so many battle-fields, has forgotten its sacrifices, and lost all interest in the welfare of that country whose danger so recently roused it to enthusiasm. Do we find that politics is avoided among our acquaintance as a topic of conversation? Do we not find that even those who pretend indifference and disgust, yet secretly follow the movements of politics with a keen eye? And when the state of affairs is such that they can make their influence felt, they are not slow to improve the opportunity.

One other point remains to be noticed, and it is one that has often been observed as a marked American peculiarity. Most of us doubtless have at one time or another come into conflict with a hotel-clerk or railroad-officer, when the right in the matter was plainly on our side. What did we do? We pocketed the impertinence and made the best we could of the situation. We did not break forth into fury as an Englishman might, because we knew that our fellow-citizens would laugh at us, knowing, as we ourselves knew, that we were helpless. He who has seen his own trunk fall from the top of a pile of baggage with the calmness of a disinterested spectator, has proved himself an American citizen. Strong language is of