according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the scriptures: and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once,' &c. From Ephes. iv. 8, we learn that Christ after his resurrection ascended up on high, from whence he sent down gifts; and from Col. iii. 1, that he sitteth on the right hand of God. If, then, it should appear that these particulars were all previously foretold, as marks whereby to recognise the promised deliverer, then we have additional proof that He whose name is now great amongst the Gentiles is the Messiah, and that the predictions announcing results so improbable and particulars so minute are from God. But that the history does in some points exactly agree with prophecy is admitted by our adversary, when he says, that the disciples in their distress searched the prophecies to see whether there was anything that could warrant their belief in a Messiah who had suffered a violent death, and when he assigns the particular passages which led to their belief in the resurrection. He says, however, that the interpretation which they seized upon was false, and merely forced upon them by the circumstances, and that the doctrine of a suffering Messiah is contrary to the representations of the Old Testament. This assertion might have some weight, if the apostles and their followers, the Christians, had been the only persons adopting this interpretation,

but how is it, as can be shown and has been shown, that the doctrine of a suffering Messiah has been in every age the doctrine of the synagogue—that it is the doctrine of their public liturgy-of their commentaries—of the Targum-yea, of the Septuagint version made before our Lord's appearance? and that this doctrine is based upon the same passages referred to by Christians? There was no such necessity resting upon the Jews as upon the apostles, and therefore that they have adopted a similar interpretation is a strong proof that it is not so opposed to the representations of the Old Testament, and that the supposition of the critic is devoid even of plausibility. A mere inspection and collation of a few passages is sufficient to show that this doctrine is not far-fetched or developed by ingenious deduction, but to be found lying on the very surface of Scripture. Daniel says, 'Messiah shall be cut off;' Zechariah, that the Shepherd of Israel shall be smitten- Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.' And again, 'They shall look upon me whom they have pierced.' Isaiah says, 'He was cut off out of the land of the living, for the iniquity of my people was he stricken.' David, 'They pierced my hands and my feet.' So far from doing force to the text by explaining them of a suffering Messiah, it appears to me that this doctrine cannot be excluded from these passages

C

except by violence the most palpable. The violent death, therefore, which our Lord died, serves as another mark, whereby to identify him as the subject of prophecy. The time of his appearance equally coincides with the prophetic announcement. Jacob declared that at the time of his coming the supreme power should depart from the Jews, saying, The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come.' Haggai and Malachi, that he should come during the continuance of the second temple. The one declaring that 'the desire of all nations should come, and thereby the glory of the second temple be greater than the first;' the other, 'That the Lord should suddenly come to his temple.' Daniel limited the time of his appearance and the following events to 490 years from the time of his prophecy. Jesus of Nazareth appeared, therefore, at the time predicted. His descent from David is also noted by the prophets. Isaiah says, 'In that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people: to it shall the Gentiles seek;' thus connecting his descent with that other mark, which is still fulfilling before our eyes. The prophets have, however, not only noted the circumstances of Messiah's life and his violent death, but his burial. David implies it when he says, 'My flesh also shall rest in hope.' Isaiah says expressly that his grave was appointed with the wicked, but that he was to rest with the rich in his death.

David and Isaiah predicted his resurrection from the dead, and even if they had not done so expressly, it is necessarily implied in their doctrine, that Messiah is to suffer a violent death, and yet to be the deliverer of Israel, and the universal and eternal King. To be so it is not possible that he should be holden of the bands of death. The annunciation of Messiah's exaltation to heaven is equally plain. David says, 'Thou hast ascended up on high; Thou hast led captivity captive.' And, again, 'Sit Thou on my right hand until I make thy foes thy footstool,' which is also implied in the prediction of Daniel that he should come as the Son of man in the clouds of heaven. If he is to come, as the Jews to this day expect, from heaven, and yet is to be born upon earth of the family of David, it plainly follows that some period after his birth he must ascend into heaven, there to abide until the time comes that he should receive the kingdom. Not only, therefore, has Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled the prediction that a descendant of Judah should be a light to lighten the Gentiles, as our eyes are privileged to see, but in his birth, the time and place of his appearance, his descent from David, his death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and continuance at the right hand of God, he has fulfilled a series of predictions beginning with the patriarch Jacob, and continued to Malachi, he must therefore be the true Messiah, and those prophets who announced all these particulars must have been inspired of God.

This evidence, then, without the gospels,―nay, one particular of it, the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, is sufficient warrant for our faith. He who overcame death must necessarily be the Messiah, even though many particulars marked out by the prophets should not be noted in the New Testament. The assemblage, therefore, of so many particulars as may be gathered from St. Paul's epistles, together with the exhibition before our eyes of the predicted effects of his appearance, place his Messiahship and our faith beyond the possibility of a doubt. There is, however, one note of Messiah's identity supplied by the gospels, which is not explicitly stated in the epistles, and that is, his miraculous conception and birth. It may be well, therefore, to conclude this subject to-day by briefly exhibiting St. Paul's faith on this subject. We observe, in the first place, that St. Paul believed in the pre-existence of Christ as very God, and in the appearance of Christ upon earth as an incarnation of Deity. Thus when he says, 'Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor,' he implies that his coming into this world was not like that of ordinary children, involuntary, but a voluntary act. This is expressed still more strongly when he says, that 'Being in the form of God, and thinking it no robbery to be equal with God, he made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant.' There he tells us that his pre-existence