his Son, even the Messiah, possess it in all the literal fulness pronounced in the original covenant.

We are now arrived, my dear brethren, at the end of the Old Testament witness to this great truth; and it remains for me, therefore, now as briefly as I may be able, to lead you

IV. To the testimony of the New Testament on this important subject, and the interesting question naturally arises here, Does Christianity at once throw a cloud over all this? Does the New Testament tell us, that it might be very well for the Jew to expect this, but that now all that is done with, and that as for any covenant with David, we have nothing more to do with it; we are now to begin to spiritualize, and as for any thing literal, it is to be discarded? Does it, in short, crush the hope of the literal fulfilment of the covenant with David, which must, to a Jew, at all events, appear to pervade his Scripturės; and, instead of dying away, to become more substantial as the volume draws to its close? Oh no! It enlarges, and enforces, and confirms, the very covenant we have been considering; and oh! what an unworthy stigma have Christians cast upon the New Testament, when they have gone to the Jew and said, All this is spiritual. The New Testament has no communion whatever with any such statements. It is just as uncom

promising as the Old in its positive declaration, that the Son of David shall for ever possess the throne of David. Let us look at its statements. First, observe, it tells us the accomplishment of the fact of the Messiah being the Son of David with the greatest possible particularity. It gives us no less than two genealogies, for the very purpose of proving that this is the case; and at the same time it informs us, in what may be called an incidental manner, that it was because this was the case that Joseph went up to Bethlehem to be taxed, namely, because he was of the house and lineage of David, and thus was fulfilled the prophecy that our Lord should be born in Bethlehem Ephratah.

But further than this, it tells us plainly that the object of his being so born was not merely to fulfil the prophecy, that he should be the Son of David; and yet this is all that many persons suppose to be meant. But what saith the Scripture on this head? An angel is sent to Mary before the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ; and what is his announcement at that moment to the Virgin mother? Why, he takes up literally the testimony of the whole of the Old Testament, and says, "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign

H

over the house of Jacob for ever: and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”*

Now this is a New Testament announcement. It is not an Old Testament prophecy, which may be thought typical, and mystical, and figurative, but it is a New Testament prophecy, which an angel was sent on purpose to deliver; and its object was to show, that his being the Son of David was the stepping-stone to his taking the throne of David; that he was of the seed of David as a provision, for the very end that he might be the rightful successor of David, and have a lawful and unquestionable claim to David's kingdom. This is evidently the meaning of this verse, and this idea is no where lost. Look the New Testament carefully through, and you will find how the case stands.

Zacharias in his hymn says, "He hath raised up an horn of salvation in the house of his servant David; as he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began : that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant, the oath which he sware to our father Abraham, that he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies *Luke i. 32, 33.

might serve him without fear." He connects Christ being of the house of David with that deliverance by which he redeems them from all fear, and with the most perfect justness of expectation anticipates from this circumstance not the spiritual only, but also the temporal salvation of Israel. Then, again, how during our Lord's ministry was he addressed by those who came to him for relief and healing? "O Lord, thou Son of David, have mercy on us." This was continually on their lips. When he was welcomed on his entrance into Jerusalem as a king, what was the acclamation with which they greeted him?" Hosanna to the Son of David!" And just before his ascension we find that the apostles looked to him to restore the kingdom to Israel, because they saw in Him the Son of David.

But here it may perhaps be said, that they were still at this time in a carnal condition, ignorant and dark, and not knowing what they were saying: that they had not yet attained to spiritual views, because the Holy Ghost was not yet given. Let us turn then to the Acts of the Apostles, and hear Peter speaking with power after that, by the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, he was guided into all truth. I quote the whole passage. "Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the

patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.”* Here, then, by the mouth of Peter, on the very first manifestation of his miraculous gifts on the very day of Pentecost, the day of all others when, according to modern views, we might have expected that the spiritualizing system of interpretation would have been not merely sanctioned but established—the Holy Ghost sets his solemn seal to these remarkable points:

Firstly, That God always intended that Christ should be literally of the fruit of David's loins according to the flesh.

Secondly, That God always intended that this same Christ should literally sit upon his (that is, David's) throne; for the word "his" in the text does not refer to Christ.

Thirdly, That as Christ was to die, this could

*Acts ii. 29-32.