which either betrays the surreptitious insertion of the word Joseph, or proves that under the two names, the son of Joseph and the son of David, the more ancient rabbies understood one and the same person. But however explained, the confusion makes the tradition utterly uncertain, and the word of God proves that it is false. If there are two

Messiahs, they must be contemporary, or one must come after the other. Their co-existence is however disproved by the prophet Ezekiel (xxxiv. 22, 23), who says, that when God saves his people, they shall have only one shepherd. The possibility of succession is taken away by Hosea, who says that until they seek Messiah, the son of David, they shall abide without a king and a prince.* In no case, therefore, can there be two Messiahs; and consequently the original difficulty presented by the predicted humiliation and glory of Messiah still remains, and can only be solved by the adoption of two advents. Thus, the difference of place, the difference of time, and the difference of circumstance existing in the prophetic accounts of Messiah, all combine to prove that he must come twice: and this doctrine enables us to answer the Jewish objections to the Messiahship of our Lord. The Jew says, Before the coming of the Messiah, Elijah thẹ prophet was to come, as Malachi says, 'Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.'

* Kimchi on Zech., p. 160.

But

Elijah has not come, therefore Jesus of Nazareth cannot be the Messiah. We reply, in all sincerity, and without any of that allegorizing evasion which has given such offence to the Jewish nation-we reply as Justin Martyr answered Trypho, and as Justin's Lord answered his disciples-'Elias truly shall come and restore all things,' but you are mistaken as to the time. The prophet Malachi does not say that Elijah was to come before the advent of humiliation, but before the great and terrible day of the Lord.' His non-appearance, therefore, at the first coming of Christ is so far from being an objection, that it is a confirmation of his claims.

In like manner, when the Jew objects that Messiah was to possess the throne of David, as Isaiah says, and an universal empire as announced by Daniel, both which characteristics are wanting in Jesus of Nazareth, the answer is similar. Isaiah makes the glory consequent upon his humiliation, and Daniel declares that until his ascent to the Ancient of days, Messiah is not to receive that dominion, glory, and kingdom in which all people, nations, and languages shall serve him, and which shall never pass away.

II. This answer fully meets all the difficulties of

the case, and preserves one uniform and consistent principle of interpretation for all the prophecies-it agrees with the primitive expectations of the Catholic Church, and maintains the purity of God's promises, and their freedom from everything like equivocation

or double-dealing. Its agreement with the principles of the gospel has, however, been denied, and grave objections urged against its correctness. It will be necessary, therefore, to show that the doctrine of the two advents is in strict accordance with the analogy of the Christian faith. It is said that this doctrine will lead to inconvenient consequences, that it is inconsistent with the spirituality of Christ's kingdom, that it savours of the spirit of the Judaizing corrupters of the gospel. To all this I would reply, in the first place, generally, that the words of the text necessarily imply the very system which has been advocated, as supplying the true answer to Jewish objections. When Christ says, 'O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken, ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?' he implies, that the disciples did believe some things that the prophets had spoken, and by abstaining from all reproof, that their faith in what they did believe was correct; and it follows further, as they did not believe what the prophets spake concerning Messiah's sufferings, that the part of the prophetic sayings which they did believe was that which related to Messiah's glory, and that their faith concerning this glory was correct. Their faith was, however, that of their nation. It was not a mere spiritual glory in heaven, but a national glory upon earth which they expected; the request of Zebedee's sons to sit, the one on his right hand and the other on his left: the declara

tion of the two disciples, 'We trust that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel,' and the question of the Apostles, 'Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?' prove beyond doubt that they participated in the faith and the hopes of their nation. Our Lord's remonstrance with them implies that this hope was correct, and that the glory which was the object of it shall yet be manifested.

The words of the text, however, imply more than this. They teach that all things that the prophets have spoken are to be believed, and that faith which receives one portion of the prophecies and rejects another, is inconsistent with that wisdom which cometh down from above. 'O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken.' The disciples of our Lord, and the Jews of ancient and modern times believed the prophecies concerning Messiah's glory-they neglected or explained away all that related to his humiliation, and therefore the Lord condemned them both of folly and of sin. Is the Christian of the present day more wise or more pious who receives all that the prophets have said concerning his humiliation, and rejects that which even the foolish and unbelieving disciples believed? Our Lord's principle is faith in the glory as well as in the humiliation-an universal reception of all that the prophets have spoken, and with this the proposed doctrine of the two advents agrees; it

cannot therefore be inconsistent with the spirit of the gospel.

We do not, however, shun a more particular examination of the gospel, convinced that an accurate consideration of all that Christ and his apostles have spoken will silence every objection arising from a hasty view of particular passages. Thus, one of the main objections to the doctrine of Christ's kingdom upon earth is founded upon the words'My kingdom is not of this world.' An examination of the particular expressions will show that it affords no fair foundation for the doctrine forced from it. The statement that Christ's kingdom is not of this world, is by no means opposed to the other statement, that the Messiah shall yet have a kingdom upon earth. In the world and of the world are two very different things. Christ's disciples, yea Christ himself was in the world, but not of the world. As is said in St. John, 'The world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.'* As it was possible, therefore, for Christ himself and his disciples, so it is also possible for his kingdom to be in the world, though not of it. The concurrent testimonies of Christ and his apostles, the epistles, and the gospels, demonstrate that it is not only possible,

* John, xvii. 14, 15.