immediate disciples. The less reverential in those accounts of his life and ministry where the minds of eye-witnesses would be carried to the first impressions which they had received of Christ and of his character. These and such like chronological proprieties are sufficient to show that the gospel materials were either composed before the epistles were written, or had for their authors cotemporaries and companions of the Lord Jesus Christ, and satisfactorily demonstrate that they could not have been written when the cotemporaries of our Lord were all dead-when the first impressions of Christ's character and person were lost, and when Christians knew him only as represented in the doctrines of the apostles, that is, as their Lord and their God, their Saviour and their Judge. The external testimonies therefore admitted by the objector, and the internal evidence which, though otherwise forming the groundwork and substance of his whole book, he here prudently declines to examine, prove that the gospels were known to and received from the Apostolic Church-that the materials were composed before the writing of St. Paul's epistles-and that therefore the earliness of their origin makes it impossible that they can be anything else but faithful narrations of true and authentic history, and consequently, that when compared with the prophecies, they may be received as safe testimony to prove that the predictions, as having been accomplished, are true, and that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah.

LECTURE III.

LUKE XXIV. 46.

Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day.

THE object of the present course of lectures has been to prove, by the fulfilment of certain prophecies, that their authors must have been divinely inspired, and that Jesus of Nazareth is the true Messiah. For this purpose the prophetic announcements were compared first with the existing state of things, and from the undeniable coincidence between prophecy and event, our faith both in the Old Testament and the New, was proved to be well-founded. The next step ought to have been to show the perfect agreement between the predictions and the narrative of the evangelists. We stopped, however, to consider some modern objections recently urged against the authenticity of the gospels; and to these objections replied that, even if well founded, they do not in the least degree weaken the Christian faith, because the events recorded by St. Paul in his epistles, are themselves sufficient to establish the authenticity of the gospel history, and the truth of prophecy; and, secondly,

E

that a comparison of the gospels with the epistles would prove that the materials of which the gospels are composed, must have been written by eye-witnesses, and before the epistles, and consequently that they must be both genuine and authentic.

If, therefore, we had no other proof, this would be sufficient to warrant our faith in Jesus of Nazareth. He who wrought such miracles, and performed such mighty deeds, gave the best possible proof of the justice of his claims. The authenticity of the gospel history, however, opens to us another and confirmatory line of argument. We can compare the circumstances of the life of Christ with the prophecies, and if they agree, the predictions themselves must be real, and he who fulfilled them the Messiah. To develop this argument is our purpose this day, so far as can be done without entering into critical disquisitions, unsuited for this place. In order to prove the truth of a prophecy by its fulfilment, it is necessary, in the first place, to show that the coincidence between the events and the predictions is real. Some of the more modern Jews deny that the hope of a Messiah is to be found in the Hebrew Scriptures, and cite as an authority a Talmudic passage, which says, 'Israel

has no Messiah to expect, for they enjoyed him in the days of Hezekiah.' Modern gentile infidelity also asserts that the Old Testament contains only vague anticipations and general hopes of a redemption, but no definite predictions of a personal Mes

siah; and, consequently, that the alleged agreement of the gospel history with prophecy is imaginary. Now it is true that some of the prophecies, if taken by themselves, are of very general import, and indefinite in their announcements. Thus, from the promise that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head, or that in Abraham's seed all the families of the earth should be blessed, it would be difficult to determine whether one individual or the whole human race is intended. But there are other and numerous passages, where a personal Messiah is unequivocally announced, and which no sophistry can explain away. Thus it is foretold by prophets living at different periods of time, that the expected Redeemer was to be a son of David. The promise to the son of Jesse himself, was not merely the general declaration, (Ps. lxxxix. 36,) His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me,' but a particular announcement concerning one of his posterity, 'in whose days the righteous were to flourish, and peace so long as the moon endureth, whose dominion was to extend from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth;' 'one who was to be fairer than the children of men, and anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows.' The promise of the eternal duration of peace and universal empire, and the express distinction asserted between this and all other kings, show that the author of these prophecies was not indulging merely in a general hope of redemption,

but describing the glory of one individual of David's posterity. The solemn address to him, 'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre,' makes the description not only definite, but incommunicable. Three hundred years later, Isaiah, the son of Amos, describes a king with attributes so similar, that it is impossible not to perceive the identity. In the eleventh chapter he says, 'There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: and the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him.' Here the family is the same; and the whole chapter shows that one particular individual is intended. A comparison with the ninth chapter proves that Isaiah's idea of a Deliverer is in all respects identical with that which we have found in the Psalms. Here the prophet says, 'Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and justice from henceforth even for ever.' Here we have all the same features again. First, the family-he is a son of David; secondly, the extent of his kingdom -no end to its increase; thirdly, its duration for ever;' fourthly, his tranquillity-the Prince of