CHRIST; OR JESUS OF NAZARETH PROVED TO BE THE MESSIAH

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

IF it be admitted, that, as a transgressor, man needs a Savior, and that one has been provided for him; then, all the evidence which establishes the personal identity of such a Savior, must be considered as invested with fearful interest. Who is he? When did he appear? What is his character?

What has he done? How is an interest in him to be secured? These, and similar questions, a serious and reflecting mind will not only propose, but desire to them all satisfactory answers.

The more knowledge of the fact, that we need a Savior, however deeply felt, cannot save us: nor can any reliance, however strong, we repose in a pretended deliverer, secure our everlasting peace. In the former state of mind, we only perceive the ruin in which sin has involved us, without being rescued from such ruin. In the latter, our reliance being placed upon a false foundation, must, of course, disappoint us when the time of trial comes.

Besides, one who undertakes to rescue us from sin and death, must demand our confidence, and ought to receive both our homage and our obedience. But how can that confidence be demanded by one unknown?

And how can such homage and obedience be rendered to one, whose merits and character are concealed?

The very existence therefore, of spiritual character, and of a well founded hope for eternity, must depend upon a proper knowledge of Him, whom God hath sent “to destroy the works of the devil,” and “to bring in everlasting righteousness.”

What then is the nature and strength of the evidence, upon which Christians have so uniformly regarded Jesus of Nazareth, and none other, as their great Deliverer and Hope? It is known, that the Jews as a race, do not agree with Christians in this faith. It is known, that the larger portion of the world are altogether ignorant of such a person as Jesus. It is also lamentably true, that many, who are familiar with his name and history, yet reject him as a Savior. Why is it, that in distinction from all these, Christians repose their trust in Jesus, and make him, and him only, the foundation of their hope for eternity?

The ground upon which such confidence is reposed in Jesus can of course be none other, than the firm conviction, that he is in truth the great Deliverer, promised to mankind from even the earliest ages. If deceived on this point, all Christians are in a dreadful delusion; and, notwithstanding their most sanguine hopes, must still be under the power of sin and the displeasure of God. On the contrary, if Christians be not deceived in their faith, and if indeed, Jesus of Nazareth be the promised Messiah, and “the only name given under heaven whereby men must be saved;” then are the rest of mankind in a most perilous and dreadful condition. Whether therefore the one or the other be in error, the evidence, which substantiates the claims of Jesus of Nazareth to Messiahship, can be considered only with the deepest interest. It is that evidence which we now proceed to exhibit.

THE GENEALOGY OF JESUS

ONE sign, which was to designate the person of the promised Messiah, was, his regular descent from Abraham, through the tribe of Judah, and family of David. If the will of God had so determined, the Messiah might have descended from any other nation than the Israelites, or from any other tribe than Judah, or from any other family than that of David. But since the purpose of God has marked out successively, Abraham, Judah, and David, as the lineal ancestors of the promised Savior, it is in that line, and that only, that we must expect his birth. And should every other part of the evidence be complete, and yet this be wanting, it could not be proved, that Jesus of Nazareth is really the Christ. He might have been an illustrious prophet; he might have been a great “teacher sent from God;” his life might have been the most blameless and pure, and his doctrine the most exalted and heavenly; he might too, have effected a great moral change among the Jews, and also in the state of the world generally; still his claims to Messiahship could not be established, unless he were born in the predicted line of ancestry.

When God called Abraham from Ur of Chaldea, among other promises, he gave him the following, “And in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” Genesis 12. This promise was afterwards repeated when Abraham was called to offer up his son Isaac. Genesis 22. Now, whatever blessings mankind may in general have derived from the Israelites, it is evident, that this promise refers to the Messiah. The Apostle Paul has given us its true exegesis — “He saith not, and to seeds, as of many, but as of one and to thy seed, which is Christ.” Galatians 3.

The Messiah then was to be a lineal descendant of Abraham.

He was also to descend from the tribe of Judah. When the patriarch Jacob was blessing his sons, he pronounced, by divine inspiration, the following remarkable prediction concerning Judah: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come, and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.” Genesis 44.

Whatever criticisms the learned may have made upon this passage, the opinion has almost universally obtained, both among Jews and Christians, that its reference is to the Messiah as descended from the tribe of Judah. “The Jews,” says Hengstenberg, “regard verse 10th, as predicting the Messiah. Thus it was interpreted by the Chaldaic paraphrases; the Targum of Onkelos, of Jerusalem, and of Jonathan; the Talmud, the Zohar, and the old book Bereshith Rabba; and even by several of the more modern commentators, as Jarchi. The Samaritans also explain this passage of the Messiah. In the Christian church, the Messianic interpretation has, from the earliest times been generally approved.” 1 Gesenius renders the passage thus — “Judah shall not lay aside the scepter of a leader, until he shall have subdued his enemies and obtained dominion over many nations; referring to the expected Kingdom of the Messiah, who was to spring from the tribe of Judah.” The same reference to the Messiah, as descended from the tribe of Judah, is to be found in Psalm 108, where it is said of that tribe, “Judah is my lawgiver.” This passage may have primary reference to the establishment of the throne in that tribe; but its allusion evidently extends farther, and designates that future and illustrious Lawgiver, whom not only the Jews, but all the nations of the earth were to obey. “Perfectissime hoe completum in Christo,” 3 — says Poole — This is most perfectly fulfilled in Christ.

The prophet Isaiah is even more explicit. “And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains, and mine elect shalt inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there.” The allusion here is so obvious as to need no explanation. The Messiah, therefore, was also to be a descendant from the tribe of Judah.

He was also to be of the house or family of David. “And thy house and thy kingdom,” said God to David, “shall be established forever before thee: thy throne shall be established forever.” 2 Samuel 7. The Psalmist in alluding to this promise, represents Jehovah as saying — “Once have I sworn by my holiness, that I will not lie unto David.

His seed shall endure; and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established forever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven.” Psalm 89.

These promises include specifically and with great emphasis, the perpetuity of the throne in the house of David. Now, from Solomon to Zedekiah, there was included but a period of about four hundred and thirty years. And from Zedekiah to the dispersion of the Jews by the Romans, only a period of about six hundred more: unless, therefore, the throne of David be set up in the person of Messiah, these promises can have no real fulfillment.

But the prophets are more specific — “And 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. And he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes; neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: but with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.” Isaiah 11.

The reference of this passage to the Messiah is not only proved by the context, but also by a similar one in Jeremiah. “Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch; and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth; and this is his name whereby he shall be called — The Lord our Righteousness.”

Jeremiah 23.

But, even if there were any obscurity in these passages, there can be none in the following. Speaking of the Messiah, Isaiah says — “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 with justice from henceforth even forever.” Isaiah 9.

These prophetic passages sufficiently explain the promise originally given to David, and so delightfully dwelt upon by the ancient Israelites in their inspired songs. The perpetuity of David’s throne and kingdom, was to exist in the person of the Messiah; who according to the flesh was to be made of the seed of David. David himself died soon after the promise was given.

The line of earthly kings descending from him, terminated in the period of a few centuries. Even the dependent and afflicted dominion of the family of David and of the tribe of Judah which succeeded, was terminated under Titus and the Roman legions. All these were to pass away. But the kingdom of Messiah was to be strictly “everlasting,” and his dominion without end. In him, the throne of David was to be re-established, and was destined to continue “forever.” The descent then of the Messiah was to be through Abraham, Judah, David. Any other descent therefore must destroy the title and defeat the claims of him, who pretends to be the subject of these remarkable predictions. Was Jesus of Nazareth of such descent?

This question is both fully and satisfactorily answered in the New Testament. The evangelists, Matthew and Luke, have each given genealogies of Jesus, the express object of which was to exhibit these facts.

These tables are in many respects different; but in that which is essential, they perfectly agree. Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus to Adam; Matthew only to Abraham. Luke follows either the line of Mary’s ancestry, or of Joseph’s legal ancestry; Matthew that of Joseph’s natural ancestry. From Jesus to David, Luke mentions forty-two names; Matthew but twenty-seven. Matthew has also omitted three names found in First Chronicles, chapter 3.

Now, notwithstanding these discrepancies, and the various methods adopted by the learned to reconcile them, the facts, about which we are inquiring, are obvious in both tables. Each evangelist traces the genealogy of Jesus to David. They take different routes, but arrive here at the same point. Nor is there the least variation between them from David, through Judah to Abraham. Here the tables perfectly agree, and the testimony of each is, that Jesus of Nazareth was linearly descended from David, Judah, Abraham.

In explanation of the differences between these tables, the following observations of Bloomfield will be found appropriate. “As to the reconciling this (Matthew’s) genealogy with that of Saint Luke, it is best done, by supposing that St. Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, and St. Luke that of Mary. And therefore the former, who wrote principally for the Jews, traces the pedigree from Abraham to David, and so through Solomon’s line to Joseph the legal father of Jesus. And it must be remembered, that among the Jews, legal descent was always reckoned in the male line. St. Luke, on the contrary, who wrote for the Gentiles, traces the pedigree upwards from Heli, the father of Mary, to David and Abraham, and thence to Adam, the common father of all mankind. Finally, whatever difficulties, even after all the diligence of learned inquirers, shall exist on certain matters connected with these genealogies, we may rest assured, that if these genealogies of Christ, which must be understood to have been derived from the public records in the Temple, had not been agreeable thereto, the deception would have been instantly detected. And thus, whether Christ’s pedigree be traced through the line of Joseph or of Mary, it is undeniable, that Jesus was descended from David and Abraham, agreeably to the ancient promises and prophesies that the Messiah should be of their seed.” The following statements from the learned Dr. Clarke are also valuable. “Mary therefore appears to have been the daughter of Heli. Joseph and Mary were of the same family; both came from Zerubbabel; Joseph from Abiud, his eldest son; Mary by Rhesa his youngest. Thus it appears, that Jesus, son of Mary, reunited in himself all the blood, privileges, and rights, of the whole family of David; in consequence of which he is emphatically called, the son of David.” There is another remarkable fact recorded in the New Testament, which casts light upon the ancestral descent of Jesus. Luke records it in the following manner — “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. And all went to be taxed every one to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem (because he was of the house and lineage of David) to be taxed, with Mary his espoused wife.” Luke 2.

Here is an event in which we see most clearly the hand of Divine Providence. The emperor Augustus makes a decree, which in its operation, requires every Jew to be enrolled in his own family and tribe. The names of Joseph and Mary are entered at Bethlehem, as belonging to the house of David. What a remarkable occurrence! What a public and authentic attestation of the real ancestry of Jesus! The humble circumstances of Joseph and Mary; their remoteness especially from the ordinary dwellingplace of the illustrious family of David, might have obscured the ancestry of their extraordinary Son. But a circumstance occurs forever to dispel all doubt on that subject. By an imperial mandate, they are enrolled at Bethlehem, as the descendants of the royal house of the son of Jesse!

But there are a great many different passages in the New Testament, which distinctly state, that the genealogy of Jesus was such as the Old Testament Scriptures had assigned to the Messiah. Thus the Apostle Paul declares, that Christ “took not on him the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham.” Hebrews 2. Again he affirms, that “it is evident, that our Lord (that is Jesus) sprang out of Juda.” Hebrews 7. Zachariah also speaks of Jesus as “a horn of salvation raised up in the house of David.” Luke 1.

Peter affirms, that Jesus was “the fruit of the loins” of David, Acts 2; and Paul, that Christ, “was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.”

In truth, so numerous are the statements of this sort to be found in the writings of the Apostles, that it is impossible to deny, that their plain, uniform, and invariable testimony is, that Jesus was descended from David, Judah, Abraham.

The evidence then, in behalf of the Messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth, so far as ancestral descent is concerned, is perfect. The purpose of God and prophecy require, that the Messiah should be descended through certain persons, specially designated, in the Old Testament Scriptures. The Evangelists and Apostles furnish indisputable testimony, that Jesus of Nazareth was thus descended. His genealogy, both legal and natural, passes through these very persons. The most authentic records are employed to show that these were his ancestors. And those who knew him best, never considered him as belonging to any other family, tribe or nation.

THE BIRTH OF JESUS

BESIDES the evidence arising from the previously defined ancestors of the Messiah, there was to be one circumstance connected with his birth, so peculiar and extraordinary, as to point him out in distinction from all others — He was to be born, of a virgin. True, a fact of this kind might be of more difficult proof than many others, in the life of the promised Savior. Delicacy too, would naturally cast a veil over it for a time. Still however, it might be proved; and when proved, it would powerfully tend, not only to identify the person of the Messiah, but to demonstrate also, the extraordinary character of his mission.

In Genesis 3:15, are these words, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

The reference in this passage is evidently to the Messiah. We have already seen that the term seed, employed in the promise given to Abraham, refers to the predicted Savior. The same allusion is intended by the word in the present instance. The Messiah was to be, not only a son of Abraham by natural descent, but a soil of the woman, by miraculous conception and birth.

That which is here affirmed of this seed is applicable only to the Messiah.

He was to bruise the head, that is, to overthrow the kingdom of the serpent, or Satan. But who is competent to a work of this kind, save the chosen of God, the Savior of men? Nor was Eve the specific woman alluded to in this promise. The Messiah was not born of her; for, he was afterwards promised to Abraham and David. Eve, therefore, could not be the woman here meant. The prophecy must therefore refer to some other woman, who should exist in after ages. “He, (Christ) says Scott, is called the seed of the woman, and not the seed of Adam, though descended from both; not only because Satan had prevailed first against the woman, but likewise with an evident prophetic intimation of his miraculous conception and birth of a pure virgin.” 1 “Christ is called the seed of the woman, says Lowth, by way of distinction, as not to be born in the ordinary way of generation.” 2 Bloomfield also speaks of Mary, as “that particular virgin who was prophesied of from the beginning, and whose seed was to bruise the serpent’s head.” The prophet Isaiah, is still more explicit, in predicting the miraculous birth of the promised Deliverer. “And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men; but will ye weary my God also? Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

Isaiah 7:13,14.

Attempts have been made to explain away the meaning of this passage, by asserting that the Hebrew word hml[ here translated a virgin, denotes also a young married woman, and by applying the language either to the son of the prophet himself, or to some other child, born about that time.

This mode of interpretation seems almost inexcusable in Christian commentators, from the fact that the Evangelist Matthew applies the passage directly to Mary and to Jesus. A safer expositor, no plain and honest believer could desire. Gesenius, although he asserts the meaning of the word in this place to be, “a youthful spouse,” yet defines it as generally meaning, “a girl, maiden, or virgin, of marriageable age.” 4 “The primary meaning of the word, says Lowth, is hid, or concealed; from whence it is taken to signify a virgin, because of the custom in eastern countries, to keep their virgins concealed from the view of men.” 5 The Hebrew word, says Scott, most properly signifies a virgin; and so it is translated here, by all the ancient interpreters, and it is never once used in the Scriptures in any other sense.” There is, however, another and very obvious objection to the application of this language in the manner above alluded to. The birth of the predicted child was to be a sign, a miracle. Now, what sign or miracle could it be, that a young married woman should bear a son? Evidently, the force and propriety of the language, are entirely destroyed by such an interpretation.

Nor is it any objection to the Messianic character of the passage, that in the context, the prophet alludes so much to the existing state of things among the Jews. It is the usual practice of the ancient prophets, not only to make rapid transitions in their subjects, but also to mingle their predictions of the Messiah, and his kingdom, with the state of the Jewish commonwealth around them. The latter was a sort of prophetic observatory, from which these holy men contemplated and described the more distant objects under the Messiah’s reign, a sort of national prism, casting its various hues upon the glories of the latter day.

The name also of the predicted child, forbids the application of this passage to any ordinary Jewish family — “And shall call his name Immanuel.” This name which is made up of three Hebrew words combined, means literally, God-with-us. Now, it is certain, that such a name was really given to no child born at the time, of which we have any account. It is also certain, that such a name could be appropriately given to no ordinary Jewish child whatever. Of whom, but of the. promised Son of David, the Messiah, could such a name be descriptive? He and he only, could be, “God-with-us.” If then we associate these passages together, we have two distinct and positive declarations, the one made immediately by God himself, the other by a prophet in his name, that the promised Savior was to be virgin-born; that he was to be peculiarly and independently the woman’s son. How do these prophecies apply to Jesus of Nazareth?

The circumstances and manner of his birth are thus given by Luke: “And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored; the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind, what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her. Fear not Mary, for thou hast found favor with God. And behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. 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 over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her; The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also, that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.” Luke 1:26-35.

The narrative as furnished by Matthew is the following: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: when as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins.

Then Joseph being raised from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife; and knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son. and he called his name Jesus. Matthew 1:18-25.

Jehovah, to execute his purposes of grace to man, and to fulfill the prophecies previously delivered, sends an angel to Nazareth in Galilee, to make known to a virgin there, that she had been selected as the mother of the long expected Savior. With conscious innocence, but deep interest in the tidings brought, the virgin states, what seemed to her an insuperable barrier to the accomplishment of the event announced. Her doubts however, are removed by the angel, who informs her, that the birth of her son was to be miraculous, and not ordinary. Mary was at the time espoused to a man, also living at Nazareth, whose name was Joseph.

Joseph, in the course of time discovers the condition of his intended wife.

He loves, he esteems her; but being “a just man,” and not willing by a public act of marriage, to cover a crime he considered so heinous and offensive, he resolved to give her a bill of divorce, and thus, according to the Jewish usage, to destroy the contract of marriage existing between them. He determined, however, from the regard he felt for his intended bride, to do this privately. While meditating upon these things, an angel appears to him also, and informs him, not only that Mary had not offended, but that the child she was about to bring forth, was the promised Deliverer of men. So satisfied was this just and good man with the information given him by the angel, that all his fears were dissipated, and he hesitated not publicly to receive Mary as his wife, and thus to become not only her guardian and protector, but the guardian and protector also, during his infancy and childhood, of her illustrious Son.

There is in these simple and undisguised narratives, every possible appearance of truth. There is nothing improbable that the birth of a Savior should be attended with miracle. And if such a birth be miraculous, there is nothing improbable in the visitation of angels on the occasion, and especially, of their visitation to the parties most deeply concerned. The reserve too and modesty of the virgin, the fears and. anxieties of Joseph, the native simplicity which pervades the narratives, all tend to give great probability to the facts here stated.

Besides the testimony of Mary and Joseph to the miraculous conception and birth of Jesus, another witness is introduced by the Evangelists. This witness is Elizabeth. Being informed by the angel that Elizabeth was also about to become the mother of an extraordinary personage, Mary pays her a visit. Upon her entrance into the presence of Elizabeth, the latter is filled with divine and extraordinary influences. Under these supernatural impulses, she announces to her visitor the very facts communicated by the angel to Mary, and with which she supposed none acquainted but herself.

Luke 1:39-45. Elizabeth, herself a woman of great piety, was the wife of a very reputable priest, by the name of Zacharias. Her testimony, therefore, was well calculated to confirm the extraordinary statements made by Mary and Joseph, concerning the supernatural conception and birth of Jesus.

Nor would facts like these be apt to be withheld from Zacharias, or from the other relatives of both families, indeed, of the three families. Mary would be likely to narrate them to some at least of her immediate and most trust-worthy friends. Joseph would no doubt, make them known to some of his; and Elizabeth and Zacharias, to some of theirs. By this means, a number of persons would soon be informed of these wonderful events.

The near approach too of the long expected and earnestly desired Messiah, would be too good news to be kept altogether a secret. Modesty, it is true, together with the extreme sacredness of the matter, might prevent clamor or commotion. There might be no general fame, no widespread report.

Still, however, there would be found a sufficient number of faithful hearts, to which, like Mary’s, these wonders might be confided. And that this was really the case, there can be no doubt. Matthew and Luke both speak of them as of events well known.

Nor can we suppose, that the statements of the Evangelists are themselves but inventions, to embellish their history and to exalt their hero. All the evidence which proves the truthfulness in general of the Gospels written by these two Evangelists, will also go to establish the accuracy of these particular parts of those Gospels. The facts here stated, therefore, must stand or fall with the New Testament itself. Besides, had these statements of the Evangelists been false, that fact might easily have been detected. So that instead of adding to the interest of their composition, or to the dignity of Jesus, the imposture would have produced just the contrary effect. The Evangelists, however, speak of these things, as of facts worthy of the utmost credit; of facts too, which the subsequent and illustrious life of Jesus, served but to confirm and establish in the minds of men. We cannot, therefore, without minds capable of resisting the strongest evidence, capable of denying the positive statements of the most authentic history, disbelieve the miraculous conception and birth of Jesus of Nazareth. His mother, Joseph, Elizabeth, two of his disciples, and many of his most intimate acquaintances, all agree in their testimony on this point.

But if the birth of Jesus was miraculous, then have we another, and a most powerful proof of his being the Messiah. According to two express prophecies concerning the Messiah in the Old Testament, he was to be “the woman’s seed,” “a virgin’s son.” He was to be born, not in the ordinary method of human generation, but by the exercise of Divine and supernatural power. A body was to be prepared, for the manifestation of the Godhead in human flesh. These prophecies have been fulfilled in the birth of Jesus. Nor have they been fulfilled in the birth of any other person whatever. Abel, Noah, Abraham, David, John and Peter, were all born in the ordinary way. Even the mythological stories about the birth of Alexander, Romulus, Aeneas, and others, were not believed by the very historians, among the Greeks and Romans, who narrated them. Nor can the history of the world, save the New Testament, produce one probable case, of a miraculous conception and birth. This has been peculiar to one only, of all the multitudes that have lived upon our globe. That one is Jesus. He, and he only, was miraculously conceived; he, and he only, was born of a pure virgin. So far then as these prophecies are concerned, Jesus must be the Christ, must be the promised Savior of men.

CHAPTER - THE BIRTH-PLACE OF JESUS.

ANOTHER indication of the person of the Messiah, as presented in prophecy, is to be found in the place of his nativity. He must not only be descended from certain specified ancestors, and born of a virgin, but his birth must occur in a particular town. A birth, therefore, any where else, even should it be miraculous, would destroy the claims of him who might pretend to be the Messiah.

The designation of the birth-place of the Messiah is thus given by the prophet Micah: “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be Ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Micah 5:2.

As in most of the ancient prophecies, the Messiah is not named in this passage; he is, however, so significantly referred to, as to render the name altogether unnecessary. Long before the days of Micah, this remarkable personage had been revealed to the Israelites as some great king, whom God would set over them. He was to be more righteous and wise than other sovereigns, and in his day there was to be great peace and prosperity. Such prophecies fixed, of course, the eyes of all Israel on this predicted and pre-eminent Prince. They turned to him as a bright star in a cheerless night, and even when oppressed and enslaved, looked forward to his day, as to one of deliverance and triumph. When, therefore, one of Israel’s own prophets, as he looks far down the future, speaks of Him, “who is to be Ruler in Israel,” certainly he can be understood to refer to none else, but to that distinguished Sovereign, the Messiah, whom the Lord God was to raise up in the latter day.

The reference in this passage evidently cannot be to David. Micah, as both the title and the contents of the book prove, prophesied in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah; that is, about two hundred and sixty years after the reign of David. Nor can the reference in this passage be to any of the royal descendants and successors of David. Josiah was the only one of any note among them, who filled the throne after the days of Micah. It is evident, however, that he is not meant; the description does not suit him, nor was he born in Bethlehem, but in Jerusalem. There is no one then to whom this prophecy can be legitimately applied, but to that Great King, the Messiah, whom God, in later times, was to set upon the throne of Israel.

The description here given of the character of this extraordinary Sovereign, also limits the application of the passage to the Messiah: “His goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Such language, which can in no case be applied to mere mortals, is precisely such as is applied in many other passages of Scripture to the Messiah. There is a sublimity, a greatness, a sort of prophetic obscurity in language of this kind, which at once indicates the person to whom it is to be referred, and marks out, as with the light of sunbeams, the extraordinary character both of his nature and office.

The ancient Jews also uniformly applied this passage to the Messiah.

When a number of them were almost persuaded that Jesus was the Christ, others said, “Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the Scripture said, that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?” John 7:47.

The objection here raised, was to the supposed fact that Jesus was born at Nazareth in Galilee. The very objection however proves that Bethlehem was to be the birth-place of the Messiah.

We have, however, not simply the opinion of the multitude on this subject. The Sanhedrim, the highest court formerly of the Jewish nation, expressed the same sentiment. Herod, alarmed at the visit of certain Eastern Magi, who had come to Jerusalem to inquire after him “who was born king of the Jews,” instituted the inquiry before this celebrated council, “where Christ was to be born?” The answer given was, “In Bethlehem of Judea; for thus it is written by the prophet: “And thou, Bethlehem in the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah; for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my’ people Israel.” Matthew 2:5,6 This is decisive. The very text itself is used by the Jewish Rulers and Rabbins, to prove the birth-place of the Messiah.

If then this passage have reference to the Messiah, it is perfectly clear, where that Messiah must be born; not at Jerusalem — not at Nazareth — not at Hebron or Capernaum — but in Bethlehem. Nor would any place by the name of Bethlehem answer the purpose. It must be Bethlehem Ephratah; that is, Bethlehem in the land of Judah, as distinguished from another Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulun. Any other birthplace, therefore, than that of Bethlehem of Judah, would destroy all other evidence of one’s being the Messiah. Where then was Jesus of Nazareth born?

And here, we cannot but admire that overruling providence of God, which employs, not only various, but often apparently contradictory means, to effect its purposes. Joseph and Mary had been living at Nazareth, a town in Galilee. It was in this town they had seen their extraordinary visions. It was in this town they had loved, had wedded. Nor had the visiting angel informed them, that Bethlehem must be the birth-place of the predicted child. Nor did Joseph and Mary seem at all to suppose that the birth of their son, occurring at Nazareth, would vitiate his claims to Messiahship.

Probably the passage in Micah had escaped their notice, or they had forgotten it. Of themselves, there is not the least probability, that they would have visited Bethlehem. The distance was considerable, and the condition of Mary unsuited to the fatigues of travel. But He who has ordained the end, has also ordained the means. God never forgets a promise, or overlooks a word he has spoken. Caesar Augustus, ignorant alike of prophecy and of the Messiah, having no knowledge of the Divine decrees, nor any intention to fulfill them — holding, it may be, the whole nation of the Jews in contempt, and believing not a word of all their sacred writings — this distant, and proud Emperor is made to fulfill a prophecy, of whose very existence he was entirely ignorant. Either to gratify his vanity, or to fix a regular rate of taxation, the Emperor issues a decree, “that all the world should be taxed;” that is, enrolled. To accomplish this, it was necessary for each Jew to report himself in his own tribe and town.

This edict, so unexpectedly issued, brings Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem, just at the time when Mary was about to be delivered of her extraordinary son! Thus the birth of Jesus, which, under ordinary circumstances would have occurred at Nazareth, was made to happen at Bethlehem, according to the prediction of the prophet Micah, many centuries previously.

But what evidence have we that Jesus was really born at Bethlehem? To satisfy ourselves on this point, we must consult the testimony given us by the two evangelists, Matthew and Luke. The statement of the latter is the following: “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. And all went to be taxed, every one to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David) to be taxed, with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

And she brought forth her first-born son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. And there were in the same country, shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone about them; and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not; for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day, in the city of David, a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will toward men. And it came to pass as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord has made known unto us. And they came with haste, and found Mary and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it, wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.” Luke 2:1-18.

The narrative of Matthew is the following: “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the East to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East and are come to worship him.

When Herod the King had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them, where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judea. Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.

And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child, and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. When they had heard the king they departed; and lo, the star which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and. fell down and worshipped him.

And when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold and frankincense and myrrh. And being warned of God in a dream, that they should not return to Herod, they departed unto their own country another way.”

Matthew 2:1-12.

From these narratives, we infer the following facts concerning the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem. The decree of the Emperor Augustus, was the palpable reason of the visit of Joseph and Mary to that town. Owing probably to the situation of Mary, their arrival was late. The best accommodations, as is usual where great crowds collect, had already been engaged and occupied. Joseph and Mary are, therefore, compelled to take that part of the caravansary, or inn, which, according to Eastern custom, is occupied jointly by men and cattle. The birth occurs probably, the very night of their arrival; at any rate but a short time afterwards. It was the very night of the birth, and while Joseph and Mary were still occupying their humble lodgings, that the shepherds paid to the infant stranger their remarkable visit. Not long after this, Joseph and Mary are removed to a comfortable house. Either the dispersion of this crowd gave them more room, or the visit of the shepherds brought them into higher notice.

Shortly after this removal, the visit of the eastern Magi occurred, who, “when they were come unto the house, saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him.” This again was soon followed by the descent into Egypt, and the bloody work of Herod, in slaughtering all the babes in Bethlehem and its coasts, in order to destroy in the mass, the infant King of the Jews.

In reference to the evidence which these narratives afford, that Jesus of Nazareth was born at Bethlehem, I offer the two following remarks. It is in the first place, not at all probable, that the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem is a mere invention of the Evangelists. True, these Evangelists must have known, that had Jesus been born at Nazareth, and not at Bethlehem, this one fact must have invalidated greatly, all their testimony to his Messiahship. Still, however, it was impossible for them to have transferred his birth from Nazareth to Bethlehem, had he not really been born in the latter town. It may be difficult in the earliest ages of society, to determine the birth-place of distinguished men. Thus, seven towns of ancient Greece, contended for the honor of having given birth to Homer.

No such difficulty, however, exists in a more polished and literary age.

How impossible would it be, for instance, for any historian of the present age, to establish the birth of Napoleon at Paris, or that of Washington at New York! The undertaking would be ridiculed; and the author who should attempt such an imposition upon the credulity of an enlightened age, would destroy the reputation of both himself and his work in the attempt. Similarly situated were the two biographers of Jesus. They lived in the Augustan age of Roman literature. Jesus too was a man so famed for his doctrines and mighty works, as to attract general attention. How absurd, then, must have been the attempt of these men, to prove that he was born at Bethlehem, had he really been born at Nazareth, or elsewhere!

The undertaking would have been hazardous to themselves, and ruinous to their work.

Nor can we, in the second place, suppose the Evangelists to have been deceived, as to the true birth-place of Jesus. So did Providence order events, as to give great publicity to his birth at Bethlehem. The decree of Augustus, the visit of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem to be taxed, the testimony of the shepherds, the unusual appearance at that time of the eastern Magi in the town, the subsequent slaughter of the infants — these were all facts of so very public a nature, as to leave no doubt whatever, concerning the true birth-place of this remarkable personage. Indeed, if it be not proved by these things that Jesus was born in Bethlehem-Judah, then can we establish the birth-place of no one whatever. We have the testimony of his own biographers, the testimony of his parents, the testimony of the shepherds, of the Magi, indeed the testimony of the age in which he lived; for no one in all that age has even started the doubt, that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem- Judah.

The testimony, therefore, given by the Evangelists to the true birth-place of Jesus is both reasonable and credible. It is such as if given by any other historians, in reference to the birth-place of any other distinguished individual, would not be questioned. We are, therefore, bound to receive it.

In receiving it, however, we admit another proof, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. Micah had predicted, ages before, that “the Ruler of Israel” the Messiah, was to come forth of Bethlehem-Judah. The Evangelists show to a demonstration, that Jesus of Nazareth was actually born in that very town. In this particular, therefore, does the history of Jesus, accord with the ancient predictions concerning the Messiah. And if all other parts of his history shall agree as well with those predictions, then may Jew and Gentile, yea, angels and men, unite in the song, “Glory to God in the highest; on earth peace, good will towards men;” for “unto us has been born in the city of David, a Savior, which is Christ, the Lord.”

THE TIME WHEN JESUS MADE HIS APPEARANCE

ANOTHER criterion for determining the person of the Messiah was, the time of his appearance. The prophecy, which most accurately fixes that time, is one delivered by Daniel. “Seventy weeks,” says Gabriel, “are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to build and to restore Jerusalem, unto the Messiah, the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks, shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself. And the people of the prince that shall come, shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week, and in the midst of the week, he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of the abominations, he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.” Daniel 9:24-27.

This is one of the most remarkable prophecies in the Old Testament. In many parts of it there is obscurity, and critics have exhausted much time and patience in its elucidation. Still, however, the leading facts are remarkably clear. It evidently refers to the Messiah. It both names and describes him. It also assigns a definite time for his appearance. This time was sixty-nine weeks, or four-hundred and eighty-three years, after the issuing of the decree “to restore and to build Jerusalem;” or, it was sixtytwo weeks, that is, four hundred and thirty-four years, after the complete re-establishment of Jerusalem and. the Jewish polity.

To understand this better, it will be necessary to observe, that the Jews had two kinds of weeks, one of days including seven days; and another of years, including seven years. Leviticus 25:8. It is evident, that the former kind of weeks cannot be meant; for seventy weeks of days, which would be less than a year and a half, would be entirely too short a time, even to build Jerusalem, much less to complete what the prophet mentions, as occurring long after that event. The prophet must therefore speak of weeks of years. Seventy of such weeks would make four hundred and ninety years; which is the whole space of time specified in the prophecy.

This four hundred and ninety years was to begin, “from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem.” The chief difficulty in the application of the prophecy is, that there were no less than four decrees, overspreading a space of at least eighty-four years, which were issued by the Persian kings, in reference to the restoration of the Jews.

The first of these was published by Cyrus, (Ezra 1.) in the first year of his reign, and one year after Daniel was favored with this revelation. Daniel 9:1. The second was published by Darius Hystaspis. (Ezra 6.) about sixteen years later. A third was issued by Artaxerxes, son of Xerxes, in the seventh year of his reign, (Ezra 7:1,) which was fifty-five years after the one issued by Darius, and seventy-one after that issued by Cyrus.

Artaxerxes also delivered the fourth decree to Nehemiah, in the twentieth year of his reign. Nehemiah 2:1.

Cyrus founded the Persian empire about the year 536 before Christ. Now, if this prophecy be applied to the edict published by him in the first year of his reign, it will fall short of the vulgar Christian era by forty-six years.

So also, if it be applied to the edict of Darius, it will anticipate the period of the birth of Jesus, about thirty years. Prideaux, therefore, and many others have selected the third edict, or the one published in the seventh year of Artaxerxes as the commencement of this prophetic period.

According to the data above, this would bring the reckoning down to the year of our Lord 26, which was about the time that John the Baptist began his public ministry. There are some variations however, in the modes of computing dates. Prideaux, therefore, makes the termination of this prophecy, precisely coincident with the death of Jesus. “The beginning, therefore, says he, of the seventy Weeks, or four hundred and ninety years of this prophecy, was in the month Nisan of the Jewish year, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes king of Persia, and in the 4256th of the Julian period, when Ezra had his commission; and the end of them fell in the very same month Nisan, in the 4746th of the Julian period, in which very year and very month, Christ our Lord suffered for us, and thereby completed the whole work of our salvation, there being just seventy weeks of years; or four hundred and ninety years from throne to the other.” Usher, and many others, are best satisfied with the last edict, as the one with which to begin this prophecy. According to this mode of reckoning, the seventy weeks would end Anno Domini 38. Usher however, and they who think with him, employ lunar instead of solar months in computing these dates. They also make allowance for some few years during which Artaxerxes was associated with his father in the throne of Persia. Cruden remarks on this calculation as follows: “This hypothesis or system seems to be the most rational of any proposed by the ancients, and is adhered to, some small particulars excepted, by the greatest part of interpreters and chronologers.” It will be seen however that all of these interpretations terminate the prophecy within a period of 84 years of each other; that which takes its beginning from Cyrus, falling 46 years before Jesus was born, and that which places it in the 20th of Artaxerxes, terminating 38 years after that event. Now, if we make some allowances for the different methods of computing dates, and for some other inaccuracies in the calculations of critics and commentators, and especially if we keep it in mind, that some of these calculations, very nearly, if not precisely concur, with the epoch of Jesus; if, I say, we consider these facts, there certainly is a most remarkable coincidence between the prophecy and the history of the Evangelists. Indeed, we may affirm positively, that if this prophecy relate to the Messiah, of which there can be no doubt, then must the Messiah have appeared somewhere between the 46th year before the Christian era, and the 38th after that era. Here is certainly a narrow, and considering the nature of the subject, a very narrow compass in which to look for the Savior of the world. The date is no doubt, accurately given; and if we err, it is through our ignorance of some of the facts in the case. The error however, is so trifling, that no one need mistake the person to whom the prophet alludes.

But this prophecy was rendered more perspicuous, especially to the Jews, by being divided into three parts. During the first forty-nine years, the city of Jerusalem in particular and the Jewish commonwealth generally, were to be established. At the termination of the next four hundred and forty-one years, the Messiah was to appear. And sometime during the remaining seven, he was to die as a sacrifice for sin, and thus bring in “everlasting righteousness.” Here are allusions to events so palpable, that one would think, the people among whom they occurred, could not possibly have misapplied the prophecy.

But in addition to the dates here given, there are other things mentioned, which unquestionably had their fulfillment in connection with the personal history of Jesus. At or near the end of these seventy weeks, the Jewish nation was to be overwhelmed in a terrible war; their temple was to be profaned and burnt; their city and country laid in ruins, and the Jews themselves dispersed and scattered, until some remote period alluded to in the prophecy. Now, when did these events occur? Josephus, himself a Jew, fixes their date about forty years after the crucifixion of Jesus. His description of the events too, most wonderfully agrees with the prophecy.

The Romans, after capturing every other important place in the land, laid siege to Jerusalem. The Jews held out an obstinate resistance. Subdued at length, however, by faction, by pestilence and by famine, they surrendered to the conquerors. Their temple was destroyed, their city burnt and ploughed, and the nation, after suffering incalculable evils, was carried into a captivity, from which they have not even yet recovered!

If then, there be any thing in the dates of this prophecy to deceive us, the notorious facts which it contains would still strike conviction upon the mind. About the end of these seventy weeks, there did live an extraordinary personage, claiming to be the Messiah. He taught the most heavenly doctrines, he wrought the most illustrious miracles, he set the most perfect example, and he was eventually put to death by a public execution. The Jewish nation was soon afterwards conquered and scattered. Who was this extraordinary person? Who, if he was not the Messiah, the Savior of the world?

The time then, according to prophecy, at which the Messiah was to appear, coinciding so accurately with that of Jesus of Nazareth, demonstrates, with almost positive certainty, that he was the person referred to by Daniel. Certain it is, that if this prophecy be not fulfilled in Jesus, it is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine another, in whom it either is to be or has been fulfilled. Jerusalem has been already captured.

The Jews have long ago been dispersed. The seventy weeks of Daniel therefore, have certainly ended many centuries ago. We are not then to look to the future for the fulfillment of these predictions. We must look to the past. And if to the past; where is there one, who can have any adequate claims to being the subject of these prophecies, but Jesus? He, and he only can claim them; and to him they most certainly refer.

THE TESTIMONY OF INSPIRED WITNESSES

THAT God may communicate supernatural knowledge to men, has been the uniform belief of all nations. Hence, the ancient Egyptians, Syrians, Chaldeans, Greeks, Romans, etc., had, not only temples, but oracles.

They believed that certain consecrated persons had intercourse with the Deity, and could make known his will to others. Hence, even kings, often consulted such oracles about future events, especially in reference to the issues of battles, in which they were about to engage.

Among the Jews, belief in such divine inspiration, may be said to have been universal. It is true, many false prophets existed even among this people; their fabrications however, never destroyed the faith of the nation in the testimony of well authenticated prophecy. Hence, notwithstanding the number of the prophets of Baal who lived in the days of Elijah, or of the impostors who lived in the days of Isaiah and Jeremiah, still, the national confidence was unshaken in the predictions of these faithful messengers of Jehovah. This confidence, too, in the truth of real prophecy, did not diminish among the Jews by the lapse of time; it rather increased. “We know,” say they, in the clays of Jesus “that God spake unto Moses.” John 9:29. “For prophecy,” says Peter, “came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Peter 1:21.

Now, it happened, that when Jesus of Nazareth was on earth, no less than five inspired persons, of the very best reputation; bore witness to him as the Messiah. These were, Zacharias and Elizabeth, Simeon and Anna, and John the Baptist. Of the first two it is said, “they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” Luke 1:6.

The testimony of Elizabeth is the following: “And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women; and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

Luke 1:42,43.

This testimony is not only explicit, but was spoken when Elizabeth “was filled with the Holy Ghost.” The testimony of Zacharias is even more remarkable. For his unbelief, he had been made dumb for nearly a year. But upon writing the name of his son, John, his mouth was opened, he was filled with the Holy Ghost, and uttered the following prophetic language: “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, and hath raised up for us an horn of salvation in the house of his servant David.” “And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the highest; for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways.” Luke 1:68,69,76.

In this prediction, Zacharias distinctly recognizes the son of Mary, as the Christ, that had been long promised.

Forty days after the birth of the infant Jesus, his parents, according to the law of Moses, presented him in the temple to the Lord. There was living at Jerusalem at the time, a very remarkable and pious Jew by the name of Simeon. To him it had been revealed, that he should not depart hence, until he had seen the Messiah. No doubt, this good man was filled with much anxiety, about the fulfillment of this revelation. He, probably too, expected to behold in the person of the Messiah something remarkable, something unearthly. But while entering the temple along with Joseph and Mary, the Holy Ghost indicated to him, that the babe then brought in, was the Messiah he was to see. Taking the child at once in his arms, he exclaimed, “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word; for mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; a light to lighten the Gentiles and the glory of thy people Israel.” Luke 2:29-32.

Scarcely had Simeon uttered these remarkable words, when a certain prophetess, by the name of Anna, drew nigh. She was a widow of more than fourscore years, and “departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.” This woman also gave thanks to God at the sight of the babe; “and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Israel.” Luke 2:36-38.

The fullest and most remarkable inspired and contemporaneous testimony, however, is that of John, commonly called the Baptist. The mission of John, as the immediate precursor of the Messiah, had been predicted, both by Isaiah, (40.) and Malachi, (4.) His birth, like that of Isaac, occurred when his parents were in extreme age. During the early part of his life, he seems to have lived in very great seclusion from society. And notwithstanding the remarkable occurrences attending his birth and that of Jesus, and the relationship between them, he seems to have had no personal knowledge of the latter, until the time of his baptism. John 1:33.

In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod Antipas, Tetrarch of Galilee, John began his public ministry. His dress was remarkably simple, resembling that of the ancient prophets, and his mode of living very abstemious. The object of his ministry was, to reform the Jewish nation, and to designate to them the person of the Messiah. He enjoined the strictest morality, and condemned with an unsparing zeal, the vices of the times. He addressed all classes of men; and was equally faithful to scribes and pharisees, as to the humblest Jew; to the haughty Herod, as to the mercenary soldier. The influence of his ministry was powerful; and what made it more remarkable was, that it was accompanied with the solemn rite of baptism. Great multitudes flocked to hear him; and not only to hear him, but to receive his baptism. “Then went there out to him,” says Matthew, “Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.” Matthew 3:5,6.

Even king Herod “feared him, knowing that he was a just man, and an holy, and observed him, and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly.” Matthew 6:20.

He was for a time “a burning and shining light” among the Jews, being esteemed by all who knew him, not only a good man, but “a prophet.” Matthew 21:26. And, if it were proper here to employ the testimony of Jesus to his character, we would put upon him the climax of praise, by saying, “Among them that are born of women, there hath not arisen a greater, than John the Baptist.” Matthew 11:11. Such is the character of the witness; such the high estimation in which he was held at the time.

What then is his testimony?

When the Jewish nation, from the peculiar life and preaching of John, began to agitate the question, whether he were not the Christ, his reply was, “I indeed baptize you with water’ but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” Luke 3:16.

But a short time after this, John, while contemplating Jesus as he approached him said, “Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he, of whom I said, after me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. And I knew him not, but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.” Surely no testimony could be more explicit, as none at the time was more weighty, than this of John. Jesus is publicly designated as the Messiah, and the attention of the people, as it always ought to be, is turned away from the mere servant, to the contemplation of the great Master and Lord of all.

Now, if the express and well authenticated testimony of one inspired witness, is enough to establish any matter of fact whatever, the carefully recorded testimony of five such witnesses, all concurring in the same fact, ought much more to establish any point in which they thus agree. Here then are five such witnesses, all attesting, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Surely then, that incredulity must approximate even to madness, which deliberately rejects evidence of this sacred and weighty character.

DIRECT TESTIMONY FROM HEAVEN

THERE are several instances recorded in the Old Testament Scriptures, in which Jehovah, by a public acknowledgment, recognized certain persons as his servants. Thus, when the Israelites were at mount Sinai, God made, in their view, a public and awful manifestation of his presence and glory on the top of that mountain, and thus recognized, in the strongest possible manner, the mission of Moses. Exodus 19. Thus also at mount Carmel, there was a visible and public recognition on the part of Jehovah, that Elijah was a true prophet, and that his ministry was directed by the will of heaven. 1 Kings 18. There are also many other cases, in which God was pleased directly to interpose in the attestation of his truth.

It is not wonderful then, that testimony of this kind should be vouchsafed to Jesus, if he were indeed the Messiah. There are three instances of this sort recorded by the Evangelists. The first occurred at his baptism: “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him; and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him.

And, lo, a voice from heaven, saying; This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Matthew 3:16,17.

This recognition of Jesus as the Messiah, was of the most public nature.

Thousands of Jews were spectators of the baptism of Jesus; and this extraordinary manifestation was made in their presence. Bloomfield supposes that the opening of the heavens here spoken of, was “a preternatural light” which accompanied the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus; and that the allusion to the dove, does not suppose a natural dove, or the Spirit in shape of a dove; but refers to “the gentle and hovering manner,” in which this extraordinary light rested upon Jesus. 1 The person spoken of as hearing the voice, is no doubt John. It was to assure his mind in the clearest manner possible, of the person of the Messiah, that this extraordinary manifestation was given: But, whether we suppose the voice to have been intelligible only to John, or to have been understood at once by the spectators, still the miracle remains unimpaired, and the actual and heavenly attestation to Jesus, as the Son of God, continues an authenticated and well established fact.

The second instance of this kind occurred when Jesus was spending a night in devotion, with three of his disciples, on one of the mountains of Galilee, by many supposed to be Tabor, by others, one of the peaks of Hermon. Sometime during the night, probably near morning, when the disciples were sleeping, a cloud of extraordinary glory covered the top of the mountain. Such was its brightness, that the disciples seem to have been awaked by it. Luke 9:32. When thus aroused, they beheld not only the glorious cloud, but three glorious forms before them. Their Master had in the meantime, entirely changed his appearance, becoming so luminous and bright, that they could scarcely gaze upon him. Besides him, there were Moses and Elias, whose countenances were also overcast with the brightest glory. The disciples, amazed at the extraordinary scene, and experiencing a peculiar delight at the unusual glory before them, desired to dwell upon the top of the mountain. But while they were thus ravished and captivated with the heavenly glory they were permitted to behold, a voice issued from the cloud, saying, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.” Matthew 17.

Such was the extraordinary splendor of this scene, and such its testimony to the Messiahship of Jesus, that we find the apostle Peter, who was one of the spectators, alluding to it long afterwards, as proof of this very fact. “For, says he, we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of his Majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, ‘This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.’ And this voice which came from heaven, we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.” 2 Peter 1:16-18.

Here then are three credible witnesses, Peter, James, and John, who were eye-witnesses of this glorious display, and who actually heard the voice from heaven, recognizing Jesus as the Christ. And so universally was the truth of this vision believed among the early Christians, that Matthew, Mark, and Luke, have each of them inserted it in his history of Jesus.

The last instance of such divine and heavenly attestation to the Messiahship of Jesus is recorded by John. Jesus had just uttered the prayer, “Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it; and will glorify it again. The people therefore that stood by, said it thundered. Others said, an angel spake unto him.” John 7:28,29.

Doddridge paraphrases the passage thus, “Then at that very instant, while he was speaking, there came a voice from heaven which said, I have both already glorified it by the whole of thy ministry thus far; and I will glorify it again in a more signal manner, by what yet remains before thee. The multitude, therefore, who stood by and heard it, though not all in a manner equally distinct, were perfectly astonished at the awful sound; and some among them said it thundered, while others, who were nearer, said that an angel spake to him from heaven. But Jesus answered and said to his disciples, who stood near and distinctly heard it, This voice from heaven came not chiefly for my sake but for yours, that you may not be offended at the treatment I shall meet with, and quit your hope in me, on account of any of the sufferings that are coming upon me.” Here, then, are three distinct and important instances in which the Lord Jehovah, by an audible voice from heaven, bore witness to the peculiar character of Jesus. He acknowledged him on the banks of the Jordan before assembled multitudes; he acknowledged him in a yet more glorious manner on the top of Tabor, or of Hermon; and he acknowledged him, near the close of his ministry, in the neighborhood of Jerusalem, and in the presence of many spectators and witnesses. If then the ancient Jew, who witnessed the Divine recognition of Moses and of Elijah, entertained no doubt that God spake by them, with what just pretense can the modern Jew, or the unbeliever, deny the testimony which proves even from heaven itself, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God?

Nor can the evidence above alluded to, be evaded, by supposing that either these voices from heaven were the inventions of the Evangelists, or the auricular illusions of the original witnesses. The Evangelists, if not inspired, were at least honest historians. No one can read their statements, especially in connection with each other, and not perceive every possible mark of historical fidelity. But if honest, they have stated these facts only upon what they considered adequate testimony. That they were competent judges of such testimony, no one can doubt, who considers, either their relation to the original parties, or the general accuracy in their various narrations. They evidently state, therefore, what was generally believed in their day to have taken place.

Nor can we suppose the original witnesses to have been deceived. The words uttered were entirely intelligible; they were heard by several, if not by many persons; and these persons were men of the highest character, men who taught the purest doctrines, who lived the most exemplary lives, and some of whom sealed their testimony with their blood. How is it possible for so many men, of such irreproachable character, on so many occasions, to have been deceived? Surely the hypothesis which admits such deception, must not only disprove all similar communications mentioned in the Old Testament, but must also deny that the ear is a safe guide in all matters of hearing and sound.

The evidence then cannot be set aside by either supposition. It must, therefore, be true. But if true, then has Jehovah announced from heaven, by an audible voice, and at three different times, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

THE PERSONAL TESTIMONY OF JESUS

THERE is a general disposition among mankind, to receive as true, that is delivered upon personal testimony, especially if the person testifying is known to be honest, and the fact he relates be in itself credible. Hence, the degree of credit with which we receive the promises and statements of friends. Hence, the confidence reposed in the testimony given by the eyewitnesses of any fact whatever. It is too, upon this principle, that witnesses are allowed to give testimony upon the most important matters in law; and that men are often permitted, in their own behalf to affirm upon oath, certain matters of fact, which it is important for them to establish. Ignorance, fraud, the habit of prevarication, and the absurdity of the thing stated, are the most common causes of disbelief. Now none of these causes operate to invalidate the testimony of Jesus concerning himself. He certainly was not ignorant; for even his enemies were astonished at his wisdom and knowledge. Nor was he influenced by any selfish or base motives. Such was the benevolent and holy character of his life, that a motive like this cannot, with the least degree of probability, be imputed to him. Nor was he in the habit of prevarication; nor was the thing itself incredible. The Jews had long been expecting a Messiah. It was a part of their national faith, to look forward to his appearance. Certainly then, the actual manifestation of the Messiah among them, was not a thing in itself incredible. There is no reason, then, why the testimony of Jesus concerning himself should be rejected.

This testimony to his own Messiahship was given by Jesus during the whole of his life; and it was for bearing this testimony that he was condemned to suffer death.

In the first place, he never denied that he was the Messiah. There were numerous occasions when he might have done so. He was often placed in circumstances, when it would seem to be his interest, to have done so. But on no occasion whatever, does he at all intimate, that he is not the Messiah. Under the circumstances too, in which he was placed, this very silence of Jesus is testimony to the fact. Men regarded him as the Messiah. They worshipped him as the Son of God. They hailed him as the King of the Jews. All this he received as his due, never once intimating, as John the Baptist had done, that the people were mistaken in his character, and that they were heaping upon him honors which he did not deserve.

Jesus too, as we shall see more fully hereafter, acted the character of the Messiah. In his manners, in his doctrine, in his works, in the tone of authority with which he spake, in every thing, there is such an exercise of the Messianic prerogatives, such an exhibition of more than human pretensions, as to leave no doubt about his own impressions and convictions on this subject.

But there is, as recorded in the gospels, an abundance of express personal testimony given by Jesus, to his Messiahship. When the woman of Samaria had said, “I know that Messiah cometh, and that When he is come, he will teach us all things;” the reply of Jesus was, “I that speak unto thee am he.” John 4:26. When John the Baptist sent two of his disciples to inquire of Jesus, whether he was the one about to come, or whether they should look for another; the answer given was, “Go, and show John again those things which ye do hear and see.

The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached unto them.” Matthew 6:5.

The answer of Jesus is here given in the affirmative; and he appeals to his works as proofs of the fact.

When Peter, on another occasion, had expressed it as his belief, and as the belief of his fellow disciples, that his Master was the Christ, the Son of the living God, the reply of Jesus was, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”

Matthew 16:17.

When too, Nathanael had said to Jesus, “Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel;” the answer returned was, “Because I said I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? Thou shalt see greater things than these.” John 1:50.

Such testimony to his Messiahship, Jesus uniformly gave to the Jews, and to the multitudes who thronged his ministry. He delivered it also to Pilate, at his examination, and it was his solemn asseveration upon oath before the Sanhedrim. “And the High Priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us, whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, “Thou hast said;” Matthew 27:64; that is, I am the Christ.

If, then, there be any case, in which a man may be allowed to speak for himself, and if there be any thing in moral virtue to create confidence in human testimony, in short, if there be any thing in the life and character of Jesus, upon which to base his high claims to Messiahship, then is his own testimony to those claims of the very highest character, and worthy of universal belief.

THE MIRACLES OF JESUS

A miracle is defined to be, “a supernatural operation performed alone by God.” 1 The power, therefore, to perform miracles, is evidence, that a man is at least sent from God.

How far miracles may be imitated by the art and cunning of man, it is difficult to say: no real miracle however, can be performed in this way.

The magicians of Egypt were enabled for a time to counterfeit the wonders wrought by Moses. But, they soon came to the end of their art, and were compelled to exclaim, “This is the finger of God.” Exodus 8:19.

The proof by which the reality of a miracle is established, is the senses of the human body. It is by these senses, that the regular operation of the laws of nature is known. It must therefore be, by the same means, that a reversal or suspension of those laws is ascertained. This however applies to the immediate or first witnesses of a miracle. Those who live at a distance, or who live in later ages, must depend upon human testimony for their belief in miracles. It is in this way that the whole nation of the Israelites credit the miracles of Moses; and it is in this way, that we must yield our assent to the miracles of Jesus. The Apostles and multitudes who witnessed these miracles, certainly had every possible opportunity for judging of their reality. These original witnesses, therefore, could not have been themselves deceived. Nor can we suppose, that they have designed to deceive us. The doctrines they taught, the lives they lived, and above all, the influence of Christianity upon the world, all convince us, that they were honest and credible witnesses. We receive therefore, as true, the miracles recorded in the Holy Scriptures, upon the same sort of evidence that we receive other similar truths.

The miracles performed by Jesus differed in several respects, from those wrought either by the Prophets or Apostles. They were in the first place universally benevolent in their design and character. This was not always the case with miracles wrought by others. Many of the miracles of Moses were of a judicial and punitory nature. His principal ones were wrought, in executing the judgments of God upon Pharaoh, and upon Egypt. Elijah also, called down fire from heaven, upon the companies sent by the King of Israel to arrest him. 2 Kings 1. And even the miracle at Carmel resulted in the slaughter of all the prophets of Baal.

Several of the miracles too of the Apostles, were of a similar character.

One performed by Peter was the smiting to death of two persons, Ananias and Sapphira. Acts 5. Another wrought by Paul, was the infliction of blindness upon a certain false prophet. Acts 13. On the contrary, the miracles of Jesus were universally benevolent in their character. He heals the sick; gives hearing to the deaf; sight to the blind; and causes the lame to leap for joy. The only instance, in which the least imputation of the want of benevolence can be alleged, is the miracle which resulted in the destruction of the swine at Gadara. Nor is this an exception. It was the transfer of demons from a man to swine. It was also, simply allowed, and that upon the earnest request of the evil spirits themselves. The swineherds are also supposed to have been employed in an illicit trade at the time. The main object, however, of this permission, was to arouse the attention of the people of Gadara to his Gospel, and to himself, as the Messiah. He certainly exhibited nothing malignant in feeling toward the Gadarenes, when upon a simple request he left their borders. Matthew 8:4. No, there is no malignity in all the wonderful works wrought by Jesus. Do the Nazarenes attempt to cast him down headlong from the brow of the hill on which their city was built? He escapes from them miraculously, but injures none of them. Luke 4:29. Do John and James petition that fire should be called down from heaven upon a city of the Samaritans, because they would not receive him? His reply is, “The son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” Luke 9:56.

Does Judas come with a band of men to arrest him, while engaged at midnight in his devotions? Although the simple announcement, “I am he,” causes his enemies to fall to the ground, still he works no miracle either to extricate himself, or to punish them.

The miracles of Jesus were also more numerous than those wrought by others. His three years’ ministry was but a constant succession of miracles. He performs them in Galilee in Judea, in the temple, in the synagogue, in private houses, in the street, on the highway, in the wilderness, on the sea. He often performed great numbers of them in a few hours on the same day. What a catalogue, for instance, is the following: “And they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatic, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.” Matthew 4:24 Or the following: “And when the men of that place had knowledge of him, they sent out into all that country round about, and brought unto him all that were diseased, and besought him that they might only touch the hem of his garment, and as many as touched were made perfectly whole.” Matthew 14:35,36.

Or the following: “And great multitudes came unto him, having with them those that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others; and cast them down at Jesus’ feet, and he healed them!” Matthew 15:30.

Or, still the following: “And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple, and he healed them!” Matthew 21:14. What mighty works are here crowded together! What illustrious miracles here follow each other in rapid succession! No other ever performed so many, or so many together.

The miracles of Jesus were generally superior to those performed by others. He removed not only the ordinary bodily infirmities of men, but their most permanent and deep-rooted diseases and sufferings. Leprosies, palsies, lunacies, deafness, blindness, lameness, and similar afflictions, were among his ordinary cures. He delivered the bodies of men from satanic power, a power which seems to have been exerted at that time, with peculiar malignity. He raised the dead; and thus, not only arrested the power of corporeal corruption, but called back the spirit, from its invisible abode to its bodily home. He exercised also an absolute power over the elements. He walked upon the waters, and by a word he calmed their wildest commotions. He multiplied a few loaves and fishes, so that several thousands were fed by them! Such were some of the mighty works of Jesus of Nazareth. He stood upon the bosom of nature as its God and Author, controlling and directing all things simply by the energy of his will. “He spake and it was done, he commanded and it stood fast.”

The miracles of Jesus differed also from those of the ancient prophets in what may be termed their universality. Most of the miracles of the Old Testament, were confined to the Israelites. Jesus seemed to take peculiar pleasure in overstepping this boundary of nationality, that he might exercise his miraculous power among Gentiles as well as Jews. He goes at the bidding of a heathen centurion, he yields at the call of a Syrian woman, and cures with delight a Samaritan leper. None are sent empty away; and to all, bond or free, Greek or Jew, his answer is, “Be it to thee, according to thy faith.”

But that which distinguishes the miracles of Jesus more than any thing else is, the God-like manner in which they were performed. When Moses brings darkness upon Egypt; when he divides the sea, and when he furnishes water from the rock of Horeb, he is evidently but an instrument, a mere servant, in the whole matter. He is told what to do, and informed what will take place. His own will had nothing to do with the effect produced, save only so far as he obeyed the Being commanding him. Any other person or creature, would have answered just as well as Moses, in the history of the miracle. It was not his work but God’s; it was not his will, but God’s. He was a mere mouth, or a mere hand for another. The same is true of all the miracles performed, by both the prophets and Apostles. Does Elijah raise the son of the widow of Zarephath! He stretches himself three times upon the child, and calls upon the Lord to restore him to life. 1 Kings 17. Does Isaiah bring the shadow ten degrees backward upon the dial of Ahaz! It is done only after he “had cried unto the Lord.” 2 Kings 20. Does Peter heal the cripple at the beautiful gate of the temple? Acts 3. He acknowledges himself, that it was the name of another by which the miracle was wrought. And so of all the rest.

The miracles of Jesus, however, were differently performed. Does a leper petition for a cure? The reply is, “Be clean;” and immediately the leprosy departs. Does a centurion desire his servant to be healed? “Be it unto thee according to thy faith,” is the brief reply. Does a blind man seek for sight?

The command is given to the sightless balls, “Be opened;” and vision is restored. Are devils to be cast out? “Come out of him,” is the command, and the evil spirits obey. Are the waves of the sea to be quieted? There is no prayer, no instrumentality used; but simply the command issued, “Peace, be still.” Is Lazarus to be raised from the dead? “Lazarus, come forth” is the fiat, and the dead is raised. And so of all the miracles of Jesus.

There is a directness in them, an energy, a power, such as we behold no where else. Indeed, to find the like, we must go back to the history of the creation, and place the first and second chapters of Genesis, beside the gospels of the Evangelists, as affording the only actual resemblance in all the book of God. In the former, it is said, “Let there be light” — “Let there be a firmament” — “Let the dryland appear” — and the results follow immediately upon the issuing of the command. There is no delay, no hesitation. The simple will of the Creator produces the effect intended.

Just so in the history of Jesus. The bare exercise of his will, without the intervention of any means whatever, effects the end contemplated. His word is power, his volition accomplishment. There is no resistance, no hinderance, no delay. Diseases, death, the elements, men, and devils, all yield to his absolute authority.

What should be remarked too, in this matter is, that Jesus was regarded by those around him, as the independent dispenser of such miraculous powers, He is so addressed by the sick who come to him, or by their friends who petition for them. “Lord, if thou wilt thou canst make me clean,” is the manner in which the leper addresses him. “Speak the word only, and my servant shall be whole,” is the language of the Centurion. “Have mercy on us,” is the cry of the blind men. And, if at any time, there be a reserve, or the least hesitancy of faith, it is considered as derogatory to the character of Jesus. Such doubt must be abandoned, such reserve must be dissipated, before the miracle is wrought. The absolute power of Jesus, and the entire independence of his will, must first be recognized and trusted in, or else the intimation is given that the cure will not be effected. Matthew 9:28; 13:58. Mark 9: 22,23.

Nor is this all; not only did Jesus work miracles in this absolute manner, and not only was he considered by those around him, as the sole and independent dispenser of such influences, he also communicated miraculous powers to others. To the twelve, it is said, “he gave power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of diseases.” Matthew 10:1.

The same powers were also given to the seventy, for, upon their return, they reported, “Lord, even the devils are subject to us through thy word.” Luke 10:17. It is true, that the Apostles and the seventy did not pretend to work any miracles, but in subserviency to Jesus. They spake in the name of their Master; they commanded through his power. They were but instruments; and in this respect, the miracles wrought by them, resembled all others performed by mere human instrumentality. The point to be observed here however, is, that Jesus, with the same absolute independence with which he himself wrought miracles, communicated also these supernatural endowments to others. Not that he could give, or men receive, either the offices or the absolute powers which he himself possessed. But in the same manner, in which Jehovah endued Moses, or Elijah, or any of the ancients, with power to work miracles in the same manner, did Jesus empower his disciples. He not only wielded an absolute control himself over natural causes and effects, but he permitted others in his name, and by his authority, to do the same thing. He not only exercised in his own person a governing will over all things around him, but he exercised such will also by means of others.

Such were the miracles of Jesus of Nazareth. More benevolent than all others, they were also greater; more numerous, they were also performed in a more God-like manner. The only conclusion to which reason can come concerning them is, either that Divinity dwelt in humanity, in the person of Jesus, or that the Godhead gave to human nature discretionary powers in the use of its sole and absolute prerogatives. Whether the mystery be greater in the one case than in the other, or whether the one be more credible than the other, is left for each to decide for himself. But of this we are certain, that if there be a Christ yet to come, he cannot do greater miracles, or miracles in a manner more divine, than Jesus of Nazareth hath already done. John 7:31. If miracles then, or the manner of performing them, can furnish evidence to the truth of Messiahship, then is the Messiahship of Jesus attested in the strongest and fullest manner possible. What greater works can any future Messiah perform? What higher prerogatives can he exert? What other laws of nature can he control? Surely the works of Jesus proclaim, as with the voice of thunder, that he is “the Son of God, the King of Israel.”

THE CHARACTER OF JESUS

WE naturally expect that character should be adapted to office. In a parent we expect providence, in a friend fidelity, in a laborer industry, in a soldier bravery, in a judge justice, in a scholar learning, and ia a king or governor wisdom and integrity. And whenever this expectation is disappointed, the mind experiences a sense of pain, resulting from the considera. tion of the unadaptedness of the office-holder to the office, of the agent to the end designed.

With men, and in all human things, incongruities of this kind often happen.

How frequent is it, that judges are unjust, professed scholars unlearned, rulers weak, and friends treacherous! But, when God himself designates an officer to an office, or creates an agent for an end, we may calculate upon a wonderful adaptedness, between the character of the person chosen, and the sphere to be filled by him. Are Bezaleel and Aholiab appointed by Jehovah to build the tabernacle? God previously “fills them with wisdom, and understanding, and knowledge, in all manner of workmanship. Exodus 31. Is the youthful David chosen from the sheepfold, at Bethlehem, to be king over Israel? The Spirit of God accompanies the oil of consecration, and the inexperienced shepherd-boy is so endowed and trained, as to be fitted to occupy the throne in Israel. 1 Samuel 16. Is Jehu designated as the instrument of executing the vengeance of God upon the impious house of Ahab? His natural vindictiveness of temper, his bold and fiery zeal, admirably qualify him for the bloody drama through which he was called to pass. 2 Kings 9. And so of all other instruments, directly chosen of God, to fulfil his pleasure in the history of human life.

These remarks must of course have a peculiar application to the personal character of the Messiah He was to rear a celestial tabernacle; to sway a divine sceptre. His office was to be the highest of all — his duties the most difficult of all. His character therefore must be proportionably exalted.

And what is here a deduction of reason, is matter of positive revelation. “Behold, saith the Lord, my servant whom I uphold; mine elect in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my Spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench; he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth, and the isles shall wait for his law.” Isaiah 42.

Here it is expressly announced, that the character of the Messiah is to be peculiar, and wonderfully adapted to the exalted office he was appointed to fill.

It must be admitted that there is great difficulty in forming suitable conceptions of the appropriate character of a Savior. We know not altogether what such an office requires. The office of a parent, of a judge, of a teacher, or ruler, is familiar to us. But when we consider an office, whose relations are chiefly spiritual, and which exercises its influence principally in eternity, we are at a loss rightly to conceive of its nature, and justly to estimate its magnitude.

Nor is this all. Even the earthly developments of this office are not as yet fully made known. How ill prepared was the ancient Jew to appreciate the events and histories of the new dispensation! And how disqualified are we to enter with minuteness and certainty into the hidden purposes of God, or to delineate with historical accuracy, the final results of unfulfilled prophecy! Even if Jesus be the Messiah, the whole of his character has not as yet been given; and there may be much in the future still to corroborate prophecy, and to furnish higher evidence than we now have, that the Son of Mary is the promised Christ, the Savior of men.

But, abating these difficulties, what is the character which a Savior for men might be expected to possess? This is best learned by considering the condition of the persons to be saved. If a man’s condition were one of pecuniary embarrassment and bankruptcy, he would require in a helper, funds; if it were one of disease, he would require medical skill; if of sorrow, he would need a kind and sympathizing heart. Now, men are vicious and depraved; with them passion is predominant, and reason enslaved; inclination is law, and truth and duty trampled under foot. The character of a Savior, therefore, for such, must tend to counteract this state of things. It must inspire a love for duty, a desire for holiness. It must awaken conscience and arouse all the high moral faculties of the soul. If a skillful general is commanding a cowardly army, he must show in himself contempt of danger, if he would inspire them with courage. And if Jesus would awaken in the breasts of sinners a love for moral virtue, they must find it first in his own example.

And, here, we rejoice to say it, the only perfect model of moral virtue ever described or exemplified on earth, is presented to us by the Evangelists in the life of Jesus. Here it exists in absolute solitariness, without a rival or another. Here, and here alone, we find a character with every fault absent, with every virtue present.

Cicero enters a complaint against ancient philosophers in the following language: “How rare is it, says he, to find a philosopher with a mind and life so regulated as reason requires, who deems his own doctrine, not a parade of science, but a rule of life; who yields obedience to himself, and deference to his own decrees. Whereas, how common to see some so full of vanity and ostentation, that it had been better for them not to have been taught; some the votaries of money; some of glory; many the slaves of their passions; so that their lives are strangely at war with their language.” An elegant writer too, of our own times, bears similar testimony to the practical results of ancient philosophy: “They promised what was impracticable; they despised what was practicable; they filled the world with long words and long beards, and they left it as ignorant and as wicked as they found it.” Nor have modern times produced a solitary instance of absolutely perfect human character. Most of the best men lack many virtues; multitudes of them exhibit real faults and vices. How often in biographies do we find remarks like the following: “The characteristic peculiarity of his intellect was the union of great powers with low prejudices.” 3 Or the following: “He had one fault, which of all human faults is most rarely found in company with true greatness — he was extremely affected.” 4 So Cicero notes the vanity of Demosthenes, who confessed that he was delighted when a female water-carrier said, as he passed — “There goes that Demosthenes.” 5 Similar complaints are alleged by inspiration against the worthies among the Israelites — against patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. Adam sinned when in innocence; Abraham prevaricated; Jacob was guilty of falsehood; Moses spake unadvisedly with his lips; David was guilty of even foul crimes; Peter was cowardly, and Paul and Barnabas quarrelled. There is, even on the page of revelation, but one perfect character, but one without a fault, but one possessing every virtue, and that is the character of Jesus.

It may very much be questioned, whether, if all human characters were put in common, and one had the privilege and the power to combine from the mass one perfect man, it could be done. Their virtues would be so defective, and their vices so subtle, that the effort would resemble that of a sculptor attempting to produce a statue of marble from a forest of trees; or of a philosopher attempting to find one immortal in a world of mortals.

Indeed, we may go a step further and say, that even if men were allowed to draw from the world of absolute ideality — if they should forsake realities and proceed to conceptions of their own — it is doubtful whether a man could be found, who could either paint, chisel, or write the perfect model of a perfect man. Each inventor would be himself so much under the influence of human prejudices and infirmities, that he would be likely never to exhibit a specimen, which even the rest of his species would pronounce absolutely perfect. How can the blind construct a rainbow, or the deaf originate an anthem, or erring mortals, unless divinely inspired, portray one unerring many. But in the gospel we have both the original and the description, the faultless character, and its faultless delineation.

In all merely human biographies, we always discover, not only the faults of him whose life is given, but the faults of the writer by whom the character is drawn, either malignity, or partiality, or prejudice, or bigotry, or ignorance, is permitted to throw colorings upon the page, which the pen of independent truth. could never sanction. Now virtues are magnified, now vices are concealed. Now facts are presented in a distorted condition, and now motives are ascribed to conduct which never existed. Now one character wears all the splendors of angelic perfection, now another is clothed in the vices of Apolyon.

Not like these are the narrations of inspired men. They speak as if they saw the throne of judgment, or as if they had been solemnly sworn in the court of Heaven. Their inspiration too, enables them to see all the facts, and to see them as they are. Hence they conceal nothing, invent nothing; but with the accuracy of a skillful surgeon’s knife, following every muscle and nerve in the human body, they exhibit the character as it is, and not as they think it ought to be. Hence they speak as fearlessly of Lot’s incest, as of his escape from Sodom; of Abraham’s prevarication, as of his offering his son Isaac; of David’s adultery as of his conquest over Goliah; of Peter’s denial of his Master, as of his sermon on the day of Pentecost.

It was into the hands of writers like these that the character of Jesus was committed for portrayal. Nor have they failed to do it justice. Yet amid the glory of the most illustrious miracles — under the breath of a fame resembling the roarings of the whirlwind — in constant view of a character to which there had never been even an approximation, and while describing too the actions of their own Master, whom they devotedly loved, there are no exaggerations, no swellings of vanity, no attempt at ingenuity, no parade, no show! With the simplicity with which the sunbeam falls upon the flower in spring, or the drop of rain rests upon the unfolded leaf, do they tell and narrate all just as it happened. Their pens seem to have been steel, their arms iron, and their hearts stone. One never thinks of the writer, perhaps does not recognize his presence, but seems in his own person to be travelling in Galilee, or listening in the temple, or sitting by the sea-side, lost and amazed at the simple greatness, anti the mighty works of the illustrious Nazarene. Surely Heaven must have held the hands which described its own model of virtue.

But what is that model? The character of Jesus exhibited, among others, the following excellences. It possessed the most perfect and exalted piety.

Abraham was illustrious for his faith, Moses for his meekness, Daniel for his integrity, and David for being a man after God’s own heart. But the piety of Jesus, not only concentrated all these, but far excelled them. Is prayer an act of piety? How often did Jesus rise before day, or spend the whole night in communion with his Father? Is obedience an act of piety?

Hear him exclaim, “My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me, and to finish his work.” John 4:34. Is submission to the Divine will an evidence of piety? Hear him say, when crushed by the most over-powering sorrows — “Not my will, but thine be done.” So shone the piety of Jesus. It was a full-orbed sun, without a cloud and without an eclipse.

The character of Jesus also exhibited the greatest benevolence toward men.

He did not, like some eastern monarch, shut himself up in a palace, and communicate with his subjects only by means of others. He did not, like the more modern eremite, seek the wilderness, and there in a life of seclusion and abstinence, gratify an ambition, which could not find a suitable theatre for exercise among the abodes and miseries of living and active men. Nor did he, like the philosopher, spend his time amid dusty volumes, and learned demonstrations, to the neglect of the more practical duties of life. He mingles with society, he is surrounded by the multitude, he visits the market, the synagogue, the public festivals, the highways, and the haunts of misery and suffering. “He went about doing good.” The ignorant, the wretched, the outcast, the afflicted, and the poor, are all the sharers in his divine munificence. Though without a place to lay his head, he invites to him the wearied and heavy laden that they may find rest.

Though destitute of store-house and barn, he satisfies the hunger of the thousands around him. Though uneducated in the schools of the Rabbins, he instructs with the greatest kindness, the multitudes that attended his ministry, in a philosophy more elevated than that of Gamaliel, more heavenly than that of Moses. And though destitute of the protection of either Tiberius or Pilate, Herod or Caiaphas, he interposes the shield of his care around the persons of his followers to defend them from threatened danger. Indeed, his benevolence was boundless. He reasons with his enemies, comforts his friends, prays for his murderers, and dies for a world of sinners!

But see his unaffected humility! Does Nathanael affirm — “Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel?” The simple reply of Jesus is — “Because I said, I saw thee, under the fig-tree, believest thou?

Thou shalt see greater things than these.” John 1:50.

Does Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, and a member of their great council, approach him as “a teacher sent from God?” He is not the least flattered by the salutation, or by the approach of so illustrious a personage, but simply asserts — “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” John 3. Do the Apostles testify — “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God?” He does not deny but that they have asserted the truth; yet charges them to tell no man of that fact. Matthew 16. Do the multitudes, from their admiration of his character and extraordinary powers, desire to make him their King? He retires from them and spends his time in the solitary retirement of some mountain top, far removed from both their admiration and their efforts.

John 6. Do the crowds that follow him as he makes his last entrance into Jerusalem, shout as they proceed, “Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord; peace in heaven and glory in the highest?” He stops on the top of Olivet, and there pours out his tears in broken utterance at the approaching fate of the Metropolis of Judea. Luke 19. O wonderful humility! O lowliness of heart, beyond a parallel and without a rival!

But look at the moral sublime in the character of Jesus. This trait of character has always been admired by mankind. To be victorious over fortune, and composed when in the greatest danger, shows such selfrespect, or such confidence in an overruling Providence, that all must consider it a rare excellence of human character. Hence, the reply of the vanquished Indian to Alexander, has always been admired. When the Macedonian asked, how he wished to be treated — “Like a king,” responds the indomitable Porus! The reply of Caesar, also, to his pilot has been celebrated: “Why are you afraid? you carry Caesar!” There is also an instance recorded by Cicero, of the same kind. When the philosopher Theodorus was threatened by king Lysimachus with crucifixion, his reply was — “Reserve, may it please you, those threats of honor, for these thy minions, clothed in purple; for truly it is nothing to Theodorus, whether he rots on the ground, or in the air!” There are, however, no instances of such elevation of character, to be found in the history of mankind, equal to those which every where crowd the life of Jesus. Do the disciples awaken him in a sea-storm, when in dreadful apparent peril? His reply is, “Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith!” Matthew 8. Do the Pharisees inform him that Herod, (who had already put the Baptist to death,) was about to kill him; and do they urge him to use haste in his escape? “Go ye,” says he, “and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures today and tomorrow, and the third day, I shall be perfected!” Luke 13.

Does an armed band seek to arrest him, at midnight, and do they come to him with “officers, lanterns, torches and weapons?” He goes to meet them, and asks “Whom seek ye?” and when they replied, “Jesus of Nazareth,” his answer is — “I am he!” John 18. Is he tried for his life before the Jewish senate? He is perfectly calm and unmoved; and when they fail in procuring testimony, he gives it himself; “Thou sayest that I am!” Is he brought before Pilate and accused of treason against Rome? See his selfpossession, his unexcited manner! “Art thou a king, then?” asks the Procurator. “Thou sayest that I am;” says Jesus. “To this end was I born, and for this end came I into the world.” John 18. But look at him in the hour of crucifixion. Is he nailed to the cross? Is he mocked and hissed at?

Is he elevated between thieves? Is he ridiculed by priests and people; by strangers and citizens? Not an angry word escapes his lips; not a frown contracts his brow; not a resentful feeling is enkindled in his heart! No — nothing of this kind, but just the contrary. His look is still benevolent; his eye still friendly; his breast still affectionate; while the only utterance of his lips is, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do!” Well might it be said, “if Socrates died like a philosopher, Jesus of Nazareth died like a God.”

Such was the unyielding greatness of the soul of Jesus. No temptations could corrupt him, no dangers could alarm him, no subtlety could ensnare him, no sufferings could intimidate him. In all circumstances he was the same, in all places the same, to all men the same; condescending, but elevated; kind, but uncompromising; famed, but not exalted; obedient, but not self-righteous; he exhibited in himself a concentration of virtues, which must not only raise him for ever above the approximation of men, but render him worthy of the title given him by an Apostle, “the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his person.” Hebrews 1:3.

The Apostles who were most intimately acquainted with the character of their Master, who were with him in private and in public, who saw him in triumph and in sufferings, who heard his frequent instructions and were often under his plain reproof; they all testify that his life was the radiance of every virtue, and that he had not a solitary fault. Peter calls him “The Just;” 1 Peter 3:18. And again, “The Holy One, and the Just.” Acts 3:14.

Again, he says of him, “He did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth; who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered he threatened not; but committed himself to Him who judgeth righteously.” 1 Peter 2:22,23.

Paul says of him, “He was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.” Hebrews 7:26. John says, “We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” Hebrews 1:14.

Again, he represents him as throwing out a challenge to his enemies, in the following words: “Which of you convinceth me of sin?” Hebrews 8:46.

Nor is this all, but Jesus is made the pattern which Apostles were to imitate, and all believers were to follow. And when, too, human nature should arrive at its utmost perfection, that perfection was to consist in resemblance to Jesus “Beloved,” says John, “now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know, that when he shall appear, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.” 1 John 3:2.

It was the consideration of the extraordinary virtues of Jesus, that extracted even from an enemy to the gospel, the following spirited eulogium. “Peruse the works of our philosophers, with all their pomp of diction, how mean, how contemptible are they compared with the Scripture. Is it possible, that a book at once so simple and sublime, should be merely the work of man? Is it possible that the sacred personage whose history it contains, should be himself a mere man? Do we find that he assumed the air of an enthusiast, or ambitious sectary? What sweetness, what purity in his manners! What an affecting gracefulness in his delivery! What sublimity in his maxims! What profound wisdom in his discourses! What presence of mind! What subtlety! What truth in his replies! How great the command over his passions! Where is the man, where the philosopher, who could so live and die without weakness and without ostentation? Shall we suppose the evangelical history a mere fiction? Indeed, my friend, it bears not the marks of fiction; on the contrary, the history of Socrates, which no body presumes to doubt, is not so well attested, as that of Jesus Christ. The Jewish authors were incapable of the diction, and strangers to the morality contained in the gospel; the marks of whose truths are so striking and invincible, that the inventor would be a more astonishing character than the hero. Here then, if Jesus be not the Messiah, is one of the greatest wonders the world ever beheld. A man without depravity — a man without sin, or fault — a man, whose life exhibited every virtue, and who is the pattern to all others of absolute perfection! Why, such a character? Did Jehovah mean by such an exhibition to reproach the weaknesses and errors of mankind?

Was it a mere freak in his government — the mere dropping down upon earth of the inhabitant of some other sphere? What does it mean? Why spotless holiness in a world of pollution? Why immaculate benevolence in a world of universal selfishness? Why the image God, where that of Satan is chiefly familiar? Surely, this was not contempt, and it could not be accident. The moral character of Jesus proves him to have been sent to us, on some high errand of mercy — proves, that he came as our moral and spiritual liberator — proves, that he was the Messiah — the Son of God — the Savior of men.

JESUS A TEACHER

THERE are four things to be considered in estimating the character of a teacher; his preparation for the task, the sources whence he derives his information, the nature of the truths he teaches, and the manner of their delivery. A fifth might be added, viz: the moral character of the teacher himself. But, as we have in a previous chapter dwelt on this topic, it is omitted here, save only to remark, that the doctrines of Jesus were as fully illustrated in his life, as they were lucidly expressed by his lips; for, if it be true, that “never man spake like this man,” equally true is it that never man lived like this man.

The preparation necessary to become an instructor of others in great and important truths, is usually laborious and protracted. Ancient philosophers not only read much, and took long journeys to distant countries for this purpose, but often subjected themselves to the most rigorous course of life for its accomplishment. They retired from the noise of politics, and the stir of business; they shut themselves up in cloisters and even in caves, that their habits of thought might acquire the greater perspicuity and elevation. Nor was this all; feeling the insufficiency of mere reason, both to discover and to sanction the truth, they even sought intercourse with the Deity, or with some invisible agent, from whom, as pretended at least, they received some of their best instructions.

The prophets of Israel seem also to have had a regular, and even a long probation, before entering on their office as public instructors. Hence Jeremiah complains of his youth, as a reason why he should not fill this office; and Hosea marks his case as a special exception to the ordinary course of things, inasmuch as he had been selected from “the herdsmen of Tekoa.”

In reference to Moses, whose character and station as a public teacher, bore a stronger resemblance to Jesus than those of any other, his preparations were unusually thorough and extended. Providence placed him in the court of Pharaoh, where he was well instructed in “all the wisdom of the Egyptians.” Nor was this all; he was allowed to spend forty years after this in such meditations and studies as might tend to qualify him for the important office to which he was to be called.

The training of Jesus was different from all these. Although, in obedience to the legal requirements of the Israelites, he entered not upon his public ministry until about thirty years of age, yet we have much. more evidence, during this period, that he was a mechanic, than that he was a scholar. He no doubt received an education similar to that of Peter and of John; but that he was educated in the schools, is expressly denied by one of his own historians. John 7:15. Jesus, then, may be said to have had no adequate preparation, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, for the great work of a moral and religious teacher. He had not been drilled in the metaphysics of Aristotle; he acquired no mental acumen from the disputations of the Stoics; he had not cultivated his taste with Plato or Homer; nor had he even been a regular pupil of the Scribes and Pharisees. In a high and peculiar sense he was both a self-made scholar and teacher.

But what were the sources from which Jesus drew his doctrines? He evidently did not derive them from his education. This was no better, nor even as good, as that of many of his hearers. Equally certain is it, that he did not borrow them from the Jewish doctors. His doctrine and theirs were generally diametrically opposite. Nor could he have gathered them from the learned men of other countries. He had no intercourse with such men; nor did either his theology or morality agree with them. Whence, then, did he deduce those truths of divinity, and those lessons of morality, which have been so lauded by all candid minds for the last eighteen centuries? To this we reply, from two sources — from revelations already given, and from Heaven.

No one can read the instructions of Jesus, and not be struck with his familiar and intimate acquaintance with the Scriptures of the Old Testament. He illustrates, enforces, and quotes them on all occasions, And although he often leveled to the dust the traditions of the elders, and the doctrines of men, yet he every where shows the greatest regard for the oracles of the living God. He put an infinite difference between tradition and Scripture; the writings of men, and the inspirations of Jehovah. The one he reverenced as the ancient Israelite did the temple, the altar, or the ark; the other, he regarded as the same Israelite did a common farm-house, a stable, or a barn. The one he reaffirms and inculcates, the other he often denies and subverts.

One source, then, of the doctrines of Jesus, was the Old Testament Scriptures. “He came not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill.” In the language of another: “Although he proposed to erect a second temple of truth, the glory of which should eclipse the splendor of the first, yet he deigned to appropriate whatever of the ancient materials remained available.” 1 As to the moral truths, however, he altered none.

The other source whence Jesus derived his doctrines was from Heaven. “My doctrine, says he, is not mine, but His that sent me.” John 7:16.

One of the most remarkable passages in the Old Testament is the following: “The Lord thy God, says Moses, will raise up unto thee a Prophet, from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me, unto him ye shall hearken.” Deuteronomy 18:15.

The allusion here is evidently to the Messiah. Joshua was not a prophet, but a general; and of the other prophets, none of them exercised such authority over the Israelites as Moses had done. This remarkable prophet or Messiah was to resemble Moses in many things; he was to be like him, yet he was to be superior to him; for the Israelites are directed to submit themselves entirely to his instructions and teachings, as announcing in all things the will of Heaven.

The manner, however, in which Jesus received the will of Heaven, was totally different from that in which Moses received it. For this purpose Moses was called to the bush, called to the mount, or conversed with from the Shechinah — at most, he communed with the Holy One only “face to face.” This, it is true, is great honor for a mere mortal; and it is distinctly stated, that Moses was the only one ever allowed to approach so near to Jehovah. But the manner in which Jesus held intercourse with the Deity, was wholly different. He had no dream or vision; he was called to no particular place; there was no visible oracle to which he resorted. He was himself the bush, the mount, the Shechinah, the image of God. True, he prays to his Father; and on several occasions, that Father called to him out of heaven. This, however, was done mainly to establish the faith of men in his mission. There is no instance recorded, where either by prayer he sought to know the Divine will, or where by a voice from heaven, that will was made known to him. No; the knowledge of that will was internal and personal; it was not from another, but from himself. In the language of an Apostle, “In him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” Colossians 2:9.

It is owing to this mysterious and remarkable manner in which Jesus held communion with the Deity, that we often hear from him such language as the following: “No man knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.” Matthew 6,7. “He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou, then, Show us the Father? Believest thou not, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works’ sake.” John 14:9-11.

And the following, more remarkable still: “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” John 3:13.

Such was the intimacy which Jesus had with the counsels of Jehovah. He is not caught up into heaven to learn them. No messenger is sent from heaven to communicate them. There is no trance or apparition. The holy oracle dwelt in him. The Divine mind emanated from him. His words were truth; they were attended with awful power; and his uttered will was unalterable and eternal. Surely such an one could not have been less than “God manifest in the flesh.”

In reference to the truths, which this great Teacher delivered, they may be considered as the carrying out, or completion of a previously existing and partially developed system. He came not to “destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill.”

The Old Testament Scriptures had left things in a half-finished state. A peculiar providence is there exhibited as cleaving to a certain people, amid all their infirmities and rebellions, without an adequate reason. A host of types are there displayed, all significant, all instructive, all useful, yet all referring to a future something, as yet undisclosed, and which was to constitute upon its manifestation, a key to all these religious symbols.

Numerous prophecies are there recorded, all referring to one who had not as yet appeared; and all speaking of a kingdom not as yet commenced.

Revelation is there presented as half-made — religion as half-taught — the Church of God as half-built. It was left, therefore, for the Messiah, upon his appearance, to illustrate and complete a system, thus left in an unfinished state. This great work, Jesus of Nazareth accomplished. His history vindicated the providence of God towards the Jewish nation for preceding thousands of years. His teachings completed whatever was left obscure or unintelligible in previous revelations, and his death as an atonement for sin, unlocked the symbols of the past, and gave to ancient sacrifices and offerings their true and intended meaning.

Even then, if Jesus had never opened his mouth as a teacher, even if one unbroken silence had sealed his lips from the manger to the grave; still, his very life would have been instruction, and his every act an elucidation of some great doctrinal truth. But he did speak. Of him it is expressly said, that “He opened his mouth, and taught.” And what teachings! In what is called his Sermon on the Mount, what a powerful elucidation and application of the moral law! In his parables, what beautiful and striking paintings of the new system he was about to set up! Who can read the one, without feeling the sword of the Spirit pierce the inmost recesses of his soul? Who can contemplate the other, without being inwardly drawn towards truths so inimitably depicted, and without being captivated by a teacher so simple yet so sublime, so faithful, yet so tender in all his instructions!

The doctrines of Jesus, so far as they may be considered as peculiar to a new system, or as constituting the second part of an old one, may be divided into three classes. They refer to the manifestation of the Godhead in man’s redemption, to the duties obligatory upon those to whom the knowledge of such redemption should be communicated, and to the final results of his mission in the world to come.

The teachings of Jesus reveal God in the work of man’s redemption. In the works of nature, God has always been revealed to the eye of reason; “for the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.” Jehovah had also been revealed to Israel as a lawgiver. Amid the darkness and smoke of Sinai, the lightnings of his inflexible justice were made fearfully to play; and the thunders of his indignation awfully to roll. In the incipiency too, of redemption, God was exhibited to the ancients, as a God of mercy. Every angelic visitant, every sweet promise, every burning lamb manifested the graciousness of the divine nature. It was left, however, for the Messiah, the Son of God, fully to make known the character of Jehovah, as a God of mercy. Hence it is said of Jesus, “no man hath seen God at any time the Only Begotten which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” — And again, “the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” John 1:17,18.

The paternal relation of the Deity to mankind, is clearly and strongly stated by Jesus. Does he teach his disciples to pray? he begins in the endearing manner — “Our Father, which art in heaven.” Matthew 6. Does he teach them confidence in divine providence? It is by telling them, “your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.” Matthew 6. Does he leave them in a world of trial and affliction? It is with the assurance — “I ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” John 20:17.

The eternal Sonship of the Mediator is also clearly exhibited by Jesus. “I,” says he, “and my Father are one.” The Jews being about to stone him for this declaration, the reply of Jesus is, “Many good works have I shown you of my Father; for which of those good works do ye stone me?” The reply is, “For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” Jesus proceeds to vindicate himself from such a charge. “Is it not written in your law, I said ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came — say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; but, if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works, that ye may know, that the Father is in me, and I in him.” John 10.

The personality and work of the Spirit are also clearly taught by Jesus. “It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, of righteousness and of judgment.” John 16.

Thus did Jesus remove the thick darkness which surrounded the throne of the Eternal, and make known to a world of sinners, the character of God as a God of compassion and of grace. The Father pities the miseries and ruin of our world; the Son becomes incarnate and dies for its redemption; and the Spirit, by illuminating the hearts of men, and eradicating their moral pollutions, applies the grace of salvation, and constitutes them for ever the sons of the living God.

The duties inculcated upon those to whom the knowledge of redemption should come, are repentance, faith and holy obedience. The doctrine of the atonement effectually “condemned sin in the flesh,” and not only rendered repentance obligatory, but acceptable. The price Of the sinner’s pardon also exhibited the evil of sin, and was well calculated to break and subdue any heart, not made of marble and stone. Nor was this all; the great Teacher demands an implicit faith, not only in his doctrines as divinely true, but also in his sacrifice as amply sufficient for the sins of men. Not a word he uttered is to be discredited, for he is himself “the truth” of God.

Nor is another sacrifice to be mentioned, for he, and he only, is “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.”

These are the foundation duties, but others are also enjoined. Pride, anger, covetousness, worldly mindedness, every evil passion and act, are all condemned. Humility, meekness, purity, zeal, devotion, and brotherly love, are all enjoined. His disciples are to consider themselves as the citizens of heaven, as the sons and heirs of God, as the brethren of a common family; and they are exhorted to make Jehovah himself their pattern and example. “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” Matthew 5:48. If persecuted, they were not to resist, and if put to death, they were not to desert the faith taught them.

External commotions were not to separate them from their Master; nor were internal agitations to alienate them from each other. United to Jesus by a common faith, they were to be united to each other by a common affection; and having renounced the world at the beginning of their discipleship, they were never more to allow it an ascendency over their hearts. They were to be “the light of the world;” and “the salt of the earth;” and upon their full and patient exemplification of the doctrines of their Master, was to depend, not only the honor of their Christian character, but the esteem among men of Christianity itself.

But the teachings of Jesus were also prospective; they embraced another world. And here, one cannot but remark the vast superiority of his instructions above those of the ancient prophets. These prophets saw futurity at a great distance; and although they describe it, they describe it as one would a foreign country, and not as he would speak of his own.

There is a veil thrown over it, and their images are east indistinctly upon that veil. The actual geography of the future is not laid before us, nor do we seem to know and commune with its inhabitants. On the contrary, the doctrines of Jesus bring “life and immortality to light.” Heaven and hell with him are places not far from Judea, and eternity presses upon the sun of tomorrow. There is no faintness or imperfection of description, but one has only to lift the eye, and he sees at once, as living realities at hand, all the glories or horrors of the invisible state. Here the soul of the rich man quails and cries in all the miseries and woes of the second death; there Lazarus reclines in the bosom of Abraham, with not an affliction felt, with not a want ungratified. Here the sudden cry, “the Bridegroom cometh,” arouses the drowsy expectants of future glory; there the great white throne collects before it all the assembled sons of Adam. Here, on the one hand, we see the wicked, associated with devils, their former tempters and accomplices in crime, hastening to their final allotments in the world beneath; there, on the other, we contemplate the righteous, justified and vindicated, ascending to the realms of glory, to dwell for ever in the paradise of God. Here hell exhibits its lurid flames, its deathless worm, its ceaseless wailings and gnashings of teeth; there the loud song of heaven falls upon the ear, and the glorified worshippers are seen occupying their everlasting mansions. The veil is torn away, and the hearer of the great Teacher seems to see before him, in all the distinctness of actual vision, the realities of the future state.

The manner in which Jesus taught was adapted not only to the nature of his subjects, but also to the character of his hearers. What sublimity, and yet what simplicity, in his style! His thoughts are majestic enough for the contemplation of angels; and yet his language is plain enough for the comprehension of children. There is no pomp, no parade. The speaker never attempts to exalt himself or to astonish his hearers. All the ordinary accompaniments of scholastic oratory are unknown; yea, despised. There is no exact position of the feet, no regular and studied extension of the hand, no foretaught intonations of the voice, no contortions of the countenance. On most occasions, he does not even stand to speak. He either sits upon the side of a mountain, or occupies a seat in a fisherman’s boat. There is, too, no scaffold or pulpit built for him; no particular place assigned him, where the people are to expect an oration, or to anticipate a sermon — circumstances seem to have arranged all these. He is as ready on the road-side as in the temple; at the dinner-table as in the synagogue. He speaks to a few as readily as to a multitude; and to one class of persons as promptly as to another. His subjects were also selected in the same manner. There is no previous notice given to the people that he is to deliver a discourse on the law, or on the general judgment, against the errors of the Pharisees, or concerning the nature of his kingdom. His teachings seem generally to have resulted from some question asked him, or from some object brought incidentally before him. Do the birds of heaven fly over his head, or the lilies of the field bloom beneath his eye?

He employs them in his discourse to inculcate confidence in the providence of God. Are the fishermen casting their net into the sea? He illustrates thereby the effects of his gospel in saving men. Does he attend a marriage-supper? He makes the customs of society, the midnight procession, the burning torches, and the cry of the porter, all to illustrate and enforce the great truths of futurity. Does he sit at the dinner-table among self-seeking guests? He inculcates humility in the selection of places in this world. Is the exclamation heard — “Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God?” He seizes at once upon the remark, and exhibits by it the exceeding reluctance of men, and especially of the Jews, to embrace the glad tidings of salvation. Do the disciples point to the magnificence of the temple? He takes occasion to predict its downfall, and even extends his remarks to the fading away of all earthly glory, and the final introduction of his eternal kingdom. With him, wells of water, dinnertables, vines, the shepherd watching his flock, the sower casting his seed, the reaper cutting down his harvest, the eyes of the blind, the weakness of childhood, the rigor of creditors, the questions of enemies, and the mistakes of friends, all, all are texts from which he discourses; and with which he associates an elevation of imagery and a grandeur of thought, unsurpassed in the history of human instruction.

Nor are we left simply to the reported discourses of Jesus to ascertain the excellences of his mode of communicating truth. The effects of these discourses on the multitudes at the time, show their wonderful power. What vast audiences heard his sermon on the mount! What crowding companies pressed upon the sea-shore to listen to him as he sat in the fisherman’s boat! What numbers crowd around the private houses where he teaches!

What anxiety to hear him! What fixed attention! What bursting applause!

Now the officers affirm, “Never man spake like this man.” Now the people are said to be “astonished at his doctrine, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the Scribes.” And now the inmates of the synagogue are all “amazed at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth.”

And yet, this great philosopher, this popular preacher, this more than a prophet, is but an un educated Galilean! Well may we ask, as did his acquaintances of Nazareth, “From whence hath this man these things, and what wisdom is this which is given unto him?” Mark 6:2.

Why so superior to all other Galileans? Why so much exalted above philosophers and sages, above patriarchs and prophets? It cannot be ascribed to birth, or education. It cannot be ascribed to cunning and management. It cannot be attributed to either faction, or fanaticism, for the one was too weak even if it existed; and the other does not appear either in the life or doctrines of Jesus. Surely, if we had only the teachings of this remarkable personage as evidence before us, we should be compelled to admit, that if ever a Messiah was to come, he must be the person, and that if ever God dwelt in man, it was in Jesus of Nazareth.

JESUS A SACRIFICE AND PRIEST

PROBABLY no part of the gospel is more offensive to carnal reason, than what may be termed its glory-spot — the vicarious death of its author.

Too proud to acknowledge the need of atonement, too ungrateful to honor him who has made such atonement, haughty man passes scornfully by, nor turns a look to the cross, on which expires the Redeemer of the world.

Thus has “Christ crucified” always been “to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness.” The hero who, at the expense of tails, and sufferings, and blood, has liberated his country, is loudly praised; the man who risks his own life to rescue from death his friend, is never forgotten.

But Jesus, the author of salvation — Jesus, who has reconciled us to God by his own blood, is, alas! too often despised; and despised too, because of his wounds — because of his sufferings — because of his cross!

All know, that nothing in the history of Jesus was more obnoxious to the prejudices of the ancient Jew, than his death on Calvary. His birth in a stable was offensive; his origin at Nazareth was an objection; his humble and mean appearance caused many to reject him: but it was over his crucifixion that the whole nation stumbled. This offended them more than every thing else. “What!” they were ready proudly to ask, “What! can a malefactor save us? Can the condemned deliver us? Can one, who has been crucified be the Christ, the chosen of God?” The same objection exists at present in the mind of the modern Israelite. Notwithstanding all the typical sacrifices which his forefathers offered, and the constant use they made of blood to cleanse the unclean, still he sees in the death of Jesus an insuperable objection to his being the Messiah. With such an objection it is our province to reason.

The first remark I here make is, that the doctrine of sacrifice for sin is neither contrary to reason, nor repugnant to the sentiments of mankind.

Wherever wrong has been done, justice requires that satisfaction should be rendered. Hence, in all civil laws, such satisfaction is usually demanded by the civil code itself. When, too, the offender is made justly sensible of his crime, and is brought to a proper repentance for it, his own heart prompts him to some mode of restitution. He becomes willing either to apologize, to make payment, to serve, or to suffer, as the case may demand. The very same feeling is awakened in the human bosom, where God is the party offended. Not only is it admitted and felt in this case, that the offender should be punished, but so strong is this conviction, that wherever the hope of forgiveness is entertained, there is always a resort to some mode of penal satisfaction. Either the body is lacerated, or a fine is imposed for religious purposes, or a child is slain, or an animal is sacrificed.

No one at all acquainted with the history of mankind, can doubt the truth of these statements. This inward sense of the need of sacrifice to take away sin, is so much a component part of human nature, that it has not only existed in all nations, but may be said to have pervaded the principal institutions of every country. In proof of this, I offer the two following authorities. In the days of Tullus Hosttitus, king of Rome, a celebrated rencontre took place between the Curiatit and Horatii — -one of the Horatii alone survived. Provoked at the lamentations of his sister for the lover he had killed, he stabbed her to the heart. He was tried and condemned as a murderer. Through an appeal, however, made to the people by his father, his punishment was remitted. A sense of justice, however, produced the following mode of its remission. “Itaque ut caedes manifesta aliquo tamen piaculo lueretur, imperatum patri, ut filium expiaret pecunia publica. Is, quibusdam piacularibus sacrificiis factis, transmisso per viam tigillo, capire adoperto, velut sub jugum misit juvenem.” 1 “Wherefore, that so plain a case of murder might be expiated by some sort of atonement, it was required of the father, that he should expiate his son’s crime at the expense of the state. He, certain propitiatory sacrifices having been offered, caused his son to pass under a beam suspended across a road, with his head covered, as if under a gallows.” As murder was a crime against the state, the father of Horatius made the murderer pass under a beam, as a public recognition of his desert of death; but since it was also a crime against the gods, certain expiatory sacrifices were offered.

The next authority is that of a learned Jewish Rabbin Abarbanel gives the following explanation of the import of ancient sacrifices. “They burned the fat and kidneys of the victims upon the altar, for their own inwards, being the seat of their intentions and purposes, and the legs of the victims for their own hands and feet; and they sprinkled their blood, instead of their own blood and life, confessing that in the sight of God, the Just Judge of things, the blood of the offerers should be shed, and their bodies burnt for their sins: but, that through the mercy of God, expiation was made for them by the victim being put in their place, by whose blood and life, the blood and life of the offerers were redeemed.” I remark, again, that if the object of the mission of the Messiah be moral and not political; if it refer to deliverance from sin and misery, and not from national oppression, then was it necessary that he should bring with him some adequate sacrifice or satisfaction, in order to redeem men from the condemnation under which they were lying. The law of God had been violated; it must therefore be honored. Divine wrath had been justly provoked; it must therefore be appeased. But how can this be done without a price — without a sacrifice? Had the Messiah, therefore, appeared as our great Deliverer, and yet brought with him no means of deliverance, no ransom for our souls, his mission would have been altogether abortive. Divine justice would still have held its captives, and Divine wrath would still have continued upon the offenders of a holy God.

Precisely what this sacrificial offering should be, on the part of the Messiah, human reason is not prepared to say. It might consist in the sacrifice of himself, or it might consist in some other mode of ransom.

Mere human reason could never decide this question. But that a price should be brought, that satisfaction should be made, is the obvious dictate of the sentiments and consciousness of mankind on this subject.

I remark, thirdly, that the Jewish scriptures universally teach, that the Messiah was to be a sacrifice for sin. This is taught in the very first promise of a future Savior. “He shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” The following exposition of this passage is given in Poole’s Synopsis: “Christi caput est Divinitas; calcaneum Humanitas, quam dum offendit et occidit Daemon, occisus est.” “The head of Christ is his divinity, his heel his humanity; which while Satan persecuted and killed, he was himself destroyed.” 3 The same interpretation is given to this passage by Dr. Adam Clarke: “And Satan bruises his heel. God so ordered it, that the salvation of man could only be brought about by the death of Christ.” 4 Henry also says, “Christ’s sufferings and death were pointed at in Satan’s bruising his heel, which is his human nature.” 5 Thus is the very first ray of gospel light, tinged with a streak of sacrificial blood; thus does the first promise of deliverance for man, indicate a suffering Deliverer.

The same truth is also exhibited in all the human types of a coming Messiah. Is Adam a type of that Messiah? It was upon him that the sentence of death was pronounced. Was Abel a type of the Messiah? He was wickedly and unjustly slain by his brother. Was Noah a type of Messiah? He was for more than a year enclosed within an ark, and buried, as it were, in the bosom of a flood. Was Isaac a type of Messiah? His father’s hand and knife were lifted up against him, and just ready to make him a burnt-offering, had not Jehovah prevented. Was Joseph such a type?

He was hated of his brethren, cast into a deep pit, sold into Egypt, thrown into prison, and only by sufferings made his way to the throne. Was Moses such a type? He lay in infancy exposed to the crocodiles on the banks of the Nile, and was afterwards threatened with death by Pharaoh.

Was David a type of Messiah? He was for years persecuted by Saul, and hid in the caves and dens of the earth. So of all the human symbols of the great Redeemer. Their lives were all characterized by suffering; and in this respect they prefigured Him who was “a man of sorrows,” and “who gave his life a ransom for many.”

It is, however, in the animal types of the ancients, that we more clearly learn the sufferings of a promised Messiah. The sacrifice of animals as a religious rite, had its origin at a very early period of the world. The first allusion to such a practice, was in the days of Adam. Genesis 3:21. That Abel offered such sacrifices, is distinctly stated. Genesis 4:4. The practice was also common in the days of Noah. Genesis 7:20,21. From these early patriarchs this custom extended itself among almost all the nations of the earth.

Now, whence the origin of this religious ceremony? It certainly was not a device of man. It must, therefore, have been from God. But if from God, what was its design? It certainly was not a vain ceremony; much less could it have been a mere act of cruelty. This practice was evidently introduced, as indicating some method of removing sin. Either the death of the animal excited compunction on the part of the offerer; or, the animal itself was considered as his substitute; or, such sacrifice was typical of a nobler offering for sin. In the first of these methods alone, sin could not be removed. However deep one’s sorrow for a crime, such sorrow can never make amends for the crime itself. The thief is not liberated because of his tears; nor is the murderer released when he repents. Nor can sin be removed by the second method. A mere animal can never be a legal satisfaction for sins committed against Jehovah. Even for crimes against a neighbor, the Jewish law required, not only sacrifice, but also restitution.

Leviticus 6. There were many crimes too, where sacrifice was inadmissible but the criminal suffered death as the only adequate punishment. If, too, animal sacrifices were real atonements for sin, then ought they never to be abolished; for men would need them now as much as in past ages. It is evident, however, that such sacrifices were not considered by God as real atonements, nor were they so regarded, by the better informed of the Jewish nation.

What then was their design? They were evidently intended to prefigure the vicarious death of the Messiah, as the only adequate substitute for the guilt of man. They originated with the promise, “the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head;” and they were abolished when Jesus exclaimed upon the cross, “It is finished,” and yielded up his spirit. It was then that “sacrifice and oblation were caused to cease, and that real “reconciliation was made for iniquity.” Daniel 9:24,27.

Every sacrifice, therefore, that was offered under the Jewish economy — the dove, the lamb, the goat, the bullock — were all expressive of a suffering and dying Messiah. The sacrifices of Adam and of Noah, of Greeks and Romans, indeed of the whole world, were expressive of this truth.

But there are also many plain and express texts of Scripture, which assert, that the Messiah was to be a sacrifice for sin. In the 22d Psalm, the following language is put in the mouth of the Messiah by the pen of inspiration — “I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint’ my heart is like wax: it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me to the dust of death. For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.” 14-18.

That this Psalm refers to the Messiah is almost absolutely certain. “By far the greatest number of interpreters,” says Hengstenberg, “acknowledges the Messiah as the exclusive subject of this Psalm. This interpretation was followed by a portion of the older Jews. It has also been the prevailing one in the Christian church.” 6 If, however, this Psalm refer to the Messiah, then was that Messiah to be a suffering and dying Messiah. Indeed, the very manner of his death is predicted — that of crucifixion, “they pierced my hands and my feet.”

Another passage even more explicit is found in the 53d chapter of Isaiah — “He is despised and rejected of men. He was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities. The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. It pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.” “The Jews,” says Hengstenberg,” in more ancient times, unanimously referred this prophecy to the Messiah.” 7 In this interpretation he also asserts “the best interpreters” to be agreed. “What impostor,” asks Barnes, “ever would have attempted to fulfil a prophecy, by subjecting himself to a shameful death? What impostor could have brought it about in this manner, if he had attempted it? No. It was only the true Messiah that could or would have fulfilled this prophecy.” 8 But, if these passages refer to the Messiah, then was that Messiah to die as a sacrifice for sin.

The prophet Zechariah employs on this subject the following language — “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.” 13:7.

Daniel is even more explicit. “And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself.” 9:26.

All these, together with a great number of similar passages, plainly foretell that the Messiah was to suffer death, and that that death was to be a sacrifice for sin. Was the death then of Jesus, truly and properly such a sacrifice? That he died, neither Jews nor Christians will deny. It is the nature of that death about which we are concerned. On this subject I offer the following remarks.

The death of Jesus was evidently not for crime. We have already noticed that in all the relations and duties of life, “he was harmless and undefiled.”

Nor was he guilty of the specific crime alleged against him before the Governor. That crime was treason. His judge himself; however, declared, “I find in him no fault at all.” John 18:38.

Nor was the death of Jesus a matter of coercion. True, he was bound by the soldiers, and afterwards violently condemned and crucified. Still he had all the power necessary for his deliverance. Even at this period of apparent weakness and desertion, “twelve legions of angels” stood ready at his call.

He must then have suffered death voluntarily. But if he suffered death voluntarily, and was yet free from all crime, there is, to say the least, a strong probability that his death was of a sacrificial and not of an ordinary character.

But I remark thirdly, that Jesus uniformly taught, that reconciliation or atonement was to be effected by his death. “And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many, for the remission of sins.” Matthew 26:27,28.

The following testimony given after his resurrection is still more explicit: “And he said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” Luke 24:46,47.

The Apostles also put the same construction upon the death of their Master. They never for once considered him to have died as a martyr, much less as a criminal. They uniformly declare, that his death was vicarious, that by it forgiveness of sins was obtained, and that it was that alone which reconciled us to God. “For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” 2 Corinthians 5:21.

In his Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apostle also declares, “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.” Hebrews 9:28. And again, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.”

Galatians 3:13. This is their uniform testimony; and it was this fact — the redemption that is in Christ Jesus — which animated their hearts, and inspired them with a zeal, which no persecutions could allay, which no sufferings could extinguish. They gloried in the cross, as an expiatory offering for sin, and were willing to rest, not only their lives, but their souls, upon its sufficiency and validity.

Why then should the Jew, or the infidel stumble at the cross of Jesus?

Have they no sin to be removed? or, do they imagine that sin can be pardoned without a sacrifice — without an atonement? Or if a sacrifice is necessary, why is it, that this one provided with so much cost, with so much preparation, should be despised? The death of Jesus as a sacrifice for sin, was predicted in the garden to Adam; it was even “foreordained before the foundation of the world.” All the types and symbols of the preexisting systems refer to it; and it was the burden of much of that Scripture which holy men of God dictated, “as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

Whatever use, however, Jew or Gentile shall make of the death of Jesus, still will it stand to the end of the world, as an irrefragable proof of his Messiahship. It was predicted of the Messiah, that he should be “bruised,” that he should be “set at naught,” that he should be “pierced,” that “his soul should be made an offering for sin.” All these things, even in the most minute manner, have been fulfilled in Jesus; and they have been fulfilled in no other. The very cross, then, its wood, its nails, its spear, its blood and death, all proclaim that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior of men.

But the Messiah was also to be a priest. “The term Messiah,” says a Jewish writer,” is applicable to a king, to a prophet, and also to a high priest.” 9 In proof of the last, he quotes from Exodus 29:7; “Thou shalt also take the anointing oil and pour it upon his (Aaron’s) head and anoint him.”

The passage of Scripture which more clearly exhibits the priestly character of the Messiah than any other, is Psalm 110:4. “The Lord hath sworn and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.”

That the Messiah is the subject of this Psalm, has been almost universally believed. The Jews themselves in the days of Jesus, did not pretend to deny it. Matthew 22:41-46. And although their opposition to Christianity has induced many of them to consider Hezekiah, Zerubbabel, the Jewish nation itself, or even Abraham, as its subject, yet says Hengstenberg, “the weight of the internal evidence, and the authority of tradition induced many of the older Jews to adhere to the Messianic interpretation.” 10 The Christian Church generally, and the early fathers in particular, considered this as the only true sense of the Psalm. Says Theodoret, “if David, who stood on the highest eminence of human greatness, called another his Lord, that person must of necessity possess more than human dignity” — (ouk ara monon anqrwpov, alla kai qeov ). If, however, the Messiah was the subject of this Psalm, he was to be not only a king, ( °lm ) but also a priest ( ˆøhk ).

In the part of this Psalm, in which the priesthood of the Messiah is asserted, the following particulars are to be observed. His priesthood is introduced with an oath — “the Lord hath sworn and will not repent.”

This intimates not only the certainty of the event, but the vast importance of the priesthood itself. It is also asserted in this passage, that this peculiar priest was to arise, not after the order of Aaron, but after that of Melchizedek. He was to be a priest, not by human, but by express divine appointment. His priesthood, too, was to be perpetual; it was never to cease; “thou art a priest for ever.” Nor was this perpetuity of the priesthood to result from a succession of different priests; it was to be confined to one person, THE MESSIAH.

Do the New Testament Scriptures then teach, that Jesus possessed any such priesthood? On this subject, we must refer particularly to the Epistle to the Hebrews. This Epistle was written by a Jew, was addressed to the Jews, and it discusses this very subject. In chapter 3, the Apostle says, “Wherefore, holy brethren, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus.” Again, in chapter 4, he says, “We have a great High Priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God.”

Again, in chapter 9, he declares that, “Christ being come an High Priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.”

There is, then, a Christian as well as a Jewish priesthood. This Christian priesthood has been set up in the person of Jesus, our Lord and Savior. It is not an earthly, but a heavenly office; nor is it temporal; it is to last to the end of the world. Being set up in one who rose from the dead, who is really immortal, it cannot be abrogated or changed by death.

Now there is no similar priesthood to this among the Jews; nor has there ever been. “a priest for ever,” they have never known; nor have they had one set up “after the order of Melehizedek.” But such a priesthood the New Testament makes known to us. It represents Jesus as the very priest predicted in the 110th Psalm. And what makes this more striking is, that this Christian priesthood is exercised at a time, when the Jews have neither temple nor altar, High Priest nor Holy of Holies; yea, when their capital is in the hands of strangers, and they themselves are scattered to the ends of the earth! What means all this? Surely, either Jesus must be both High Priest and King, or else royalty and priesthood have perished in Israel.

We consider, therefore, the present priestly character of Jesus, both as fulfilment of prophecy, and as proof of his Messiahship. The prediction of such a priesthood has been fulfilled in no other; it has, however, been fulfilled in him. He it is, who is now sitting “at the right hand of the Father,” as a King and Sovereign; and who is also exercising a priestly office in heaven, not after the order of Aaron, but after that of Melchizedek.

JESUS A KING

IT is evident from the Old Testament Scriptures, that the Messiah was to be a sovereign. “The scepter,” says Jacob, “shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet until Shiloh come: and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.” Genesis 49:10.

In the second Psalm, Jehovah is represented as saying of the Messiah, “Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion.” Verse 6. Jeremiah also employs the following language: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is the name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness.”

Jeremiah 23:5,6.

These are but a few of the many passages which predict the royalty of the great Deliverer. Indeed, the Jews themselves have never doubted but that their Messiah was to be a Prince. It was, too, chiefly for the unprincely appearance of Jesus, that they were led to reject and crucify him.

If, then, it be affirmed that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah, his pretensions to royalty must be defended. It is not enough that he be a great teacher; it is not enough that he possess the most worthy character; it is not enough that he have power to work miracles; or that he be lineally descended from David; that he appear at the right epoch, and be born in the predicted place. It must also be demonstrated that Jesus of Nazareth is a King.

It is evident that if we understand the word “king,” in its ordinary acceptation, the past history of Jesus cannot maintain his claims to that office. His appearance was more that of a beggar than of a king, and his end was more that of a criminal, than of one possessed of supreme authority.

Yet, Jesus of Nazareth was a King.

He was so recognized by many during his earthly life. Say the wise men from the east, “Where is he that is born King of the Jews?” Matthew 2:2.

Says Zacharias, “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he hath raised up an horn (that is, king) of salvation for us in the house of David.” Luke 1:69.

Nathanael also said to him, “Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.” John 1:49. The multitude, too, who attended Jesus to Jerusalem, just before his crucifixion, sang as he entered the city, “Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord, peace in heaven and glory in the highest.” Luke 19:38.

The thief on the cross speaks of his kingdom; and when Jesus himself was interrogated by the Roman governor. “Art thou a king then;” his reply was, “Thou sayest, that I am a king.” John 18:37. The superscription, too, written on his very cross was, “Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews.” John 19:19.

From the manger, then, to his cross, Jesus of Nazareth was considered by many as a King. They respected him as such; they sang his praises as such. This truth, too, was his dying confession; and was even written over his head when suffering the agonies of crucifixion.

The kingly character of Jesus may also be defended upon another principle, often asserted and invariably recognized in the New Testament.

This principle is, that in Jesus of Nazareth there was the actual indwell-ing of the great Theocrat of the previous dispensation.

This truth is taught in such passages as the following: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” John 1. “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness. God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” 1 Timothy 3:16. “God, who, at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds, who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.” Hebrews 1.

The sublime vision, too, which Isaiah had of the glory of Jehovah, is in the New Testament ascribed to Jesus. “These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory and spake of him.” John 12:41.

Now, if it be admitted, that in Jesus of Nazareth there was an indwelling Divinity — yea, that the very same illustrious Being, who appeared to Abraham, who spake to Moses, who delivered the law from Sinai, who dwelt in the Shechinah, was actually manifested in the person of Jesus; if, we say this be admitted, then is the royalty of Jesus established beyond all doubt. For if the Jehovah of the Old Testament was in reality the King of Israel, the Jehovah of the New, must also be in like manner Israel’s King. The difference in the form under which he appeared at these two different periods, cannot change either his character or his rights, Hence the complaint alleged by John against the Jews for not receiving Jesus — “He came unto his own, but his own received him not.” John 1:11.

The New Testament, however, expressly declares that Jesus is not only a King, but the greatest of all Kings. He is said to be — “Head over all things.” (Ephesians 1:22) “Lord of all; (Acts 10:36) “the Head of the corner;”(Acts 4:11) “both Lord and Christ;”(Acts 2:36) a prince and a Savior;” (Acts 5:31) “King of kings and Lord of Lords.” (Revelation 19:16) The kingly character and office of Jesus, however, not only differ from those of all earthly monarchs, but far excel them. His character as sovereign is far superior. Most earthly kings have been not only of inferior, but even of base character. Many of them have been ambitious, many tyrannical, many weak, and many addicted to the foulest vices. On the contrary, the royalty of Jesus is tarnished by no misdeed, but adorned with every virtue. He is possessed of infinite wisdom, absolute purity, unerring justice, and boundless benevolence and sympathy towards his subjects. What renders his kingly character, too, infinitely attractive, is, that it is blended with that of Savior. He has redeemed with his own blood the subjects he rules, and with a mighty arm is leading them from under the bondage of the great oppressor, to a place of absolute security and peace.

His right to rule is also differently established from that of mere earthly sovereigns. Many earthly kings are usurpers; or are the exponents of faction; or at most, hold their thrones by established usage or the popular will. Not so with Jesus. He is the anointed of God. Jehovah has placed him upon his holy hill; has “constituted him the heir of all things;” and “given him a name that is above every name.”

The throne, too, which Jesus occupies is far more glorious, than that of the kings of the earth. He is seated “on the right hand of the Majesty on high;” “he has sat down with his Father in his throne.” Earthly monarchs dwell in earthly palaces, they occupy thrones of ivory, of cedar, or of some costly materials. Jesus, however, has passed into heaven itself, and occupies the throne of the Eternal.

The extent, too, of his dominion is far greater than theirs. They rule earthly kingdoms, composed sometimes of one country, and sometimes of several countries put together. The greatest of them have not ruled even one entire continent. On the contrary, the dominion of Jesus is literally over “all things.” “God,” says an Apostle, “has set Jesus at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named not only in this world, but also in that which is to come, and hath put all things under his feet.”

Ephesians 1.

The kingdom of Jesus, too, is far more permanent than that of earthly kings. Earthly kings are mortal, and even though they build great pyramids, as the receptacles of their royal persons after death, still those very pyramids but proclaim with a louder tongue the truth of their unabiding mortality. The pyramid remains, the rock of which it is composed withstands the ravages of time, but the body of the king, where is it? The traveller looks, and finds where once it was; but where it is, he cannot augur.

How different is the reign of Jesus! “Christ,” says an Apostle,” being raised from the dead, dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.” Romans 6:9.

He is emphatically, “The King Immortal.” Earthly thrones may crumble, earthly kings may die, human generations may waste away; yea, the solid earth, and the firm heavens may depart; still, however, will it be true of Jesus, that “his throne is for ever and ever.” Hebrews 1:8.

But we must speak more particularly of the nature of the kingdom of Jesus.

This kingdom is a spiritual one. This feature of it is very much insisted on both by Jesus and his Apostles. “My kingdom,” said Jesus to Pilate,” is not of this world.” John 18:36. Again, he affirms, “The kingdom of God is within you.” Luke 17:21. The Apostle Paul also asserts, that, “The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.” Romans 14:17.

The Apostle Peter, too, calls Jesus a “living stone,” and represents all believers as “lively stones, built up into a spiritual house, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God.” 1 Peter 2:8.

By the spirituality, however, of the kingdom of Jesus, is not meant a sort of mystical kingdom, which consists principally in contemplation, which sets aside the ordinary duties of life, and which seeks a sort of mysterious absorption into the divine nature. The doctrines of Jesus are eminently practical, and they are designed to penetrate and control every part of human life. They regulate business, they direct friendship, they diffuse themselves through society, pervading all its springs, and doings, and history.

Nor is the spirituality of the kingdom of Jesus inconsistent with the external organization of his church. “God,” says an Apostle, “is not the allthor of confusion, but of peace.” When we look into the kingdom of nature, we see universal arrangement. Place, office, destiny, is assigned to every thing. When we contemplate the polity set up under Moses, there is an exact system almost universally observed. So, in the Christian church; its spiritual character does not exclude its visible organization.

By the spirituality of the kingdom of Jesus, we mean that it is created by a spiritual agency, that it consists of spiritual subjects, that it is governed by spiritual laws, and that it awaits a spiritual destiny.

This kingdom is created by a spiritual agency. “Verily, verily,” says Jesus, “except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5.

John also describes the subjects of this kingdom as “born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will’ of man, but of God.” John 1:13.

And the Apostle Paul says of all true saints, that they are God’s “workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.” Ephesians 2:10.

Men then are, or are not, the subjects of the kingdom of Jesus, as they are, or are not created anew by the power of the Holy Ghost upon their hearts.

Neither birth nor baptism, priest nor church, self-exertion nor dependence upon others, can produce the spiritual character. It comes of God, if it comes at all; it is heaven-sent, if ever enjoyed on earth.

The subjects of the kingdom of Jesus are also spiritual. Like begets like.

And as all the subjects of the kingdom of Jesus are begotten anew by the Holy Ghost, so do they resemble in their character the Author of their regeneration. One point of such resemblance is vitality. Previously to this Divine operation, the subject of it was “dead in trespasses and sins.”

Upon its occurrence he becomes “quickened,” he is made to possess spiritual life. Other points of similarity refer to traits of moral character. “The fruit of the Spirit,” says the Apostle Paul, “is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance.” Galatians 5:22,23. Thus does the subject of “the renewing of the Holy Ghost” receive upon his own nature, in the very act of his renewal, the impress and moral image of the Spirit by which he is quickened. Hence such are said to “live in the Spirit,” to “walk in the Spirit,” and “to be spiritual.”

The kingdom of Jesus is also governed by spiritual laws. Natural laws refer to physical bodies, civil laws to men in their relations to human governments. Spiritual laws are those which regulate the heart and conduct of men toward God. Owing to the natural depravity of men, such laws have but little influence over them, previously to their renovation by Divine power. But after that power has been exerted, the spiritual subject is then prepared to be put under this spiritual administration. The laws of God then have force and influence with him, and nothing delights him more than to obey them. This is what is meant by the Apostle, where he says, “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free (or delivered me) from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Romans 8.

There is also an allusion to this spiritual subjection to the Divine law in the following passage, “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts, and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.” Hebrews 8:10.

The kingdom of Jesus also awaits a spiritual destiny. “But we are come,” says the Apostle Paul, “unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the Mediator of the New Covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.”

Hebrews 12.

Again, the same Apostle says, in allusion to the resurrection of the bodies of the saints, “It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.” Corinthians 15.

It is true, there may be much of materiality in the heaven that awaits the saints. This, however, will not prevent their ultimate and glorious spiritual destination. “The spirits of just men will then be made perfect.” Every citizen of the New Jerusalem will resemble Jesus in his glorified state.

None will possess “spot or wrinkle or any such thing;” but all will be perfectly holy, and eternally blessed.

Such is the nature of the kingdom of Jesus, as to its internal and essential part. It is pre-eminently a spiritual kingdom. Hence it is entirely diverse from all the kingdoms and organizations of men. It is truly “a stone cut out of the mountain without hands.” Hence, too, its real character and excellencies have never been perceived, and cannot be perceived by the men of the world. The Jews did not perceive it when first set up among them. Nor have the nations of the earth yet perceived it, though it has been set up in their midst for eighteen centuries past. It is this character of the kingdom of Jesus, too, which makes it so odious to those who can conceive of Christianity only in its external organization and forms. Hence, “he that is born after the flesh,” now as formerly, persecutes, and will ever persecute “him that is born after the Spirit.” It is upon this principle we are to account for the antipathy of the Jews against the Apostles; of the ancient Romans against the early Ghristians; and in later times, of Romanists against the Reformers. It all results from the general truth, that the carnal mind perceiveth not the things of the Spirit.

We have already said, that the spiritual character of the kingdom of Jesus is not incompatible with a visible and external organization. What is this organization, and how far did it displace the one previously existing? We proceed to answer the latter question first.

The Christian organization, then, did not destroy the original covenant between God and Israel. This covenant was not Mosaic, but Abrahamic. It is also uniformly mentioned in Scripture as an “everlasting covenant.” The present dispersion of the Jews, too, does not prove the non-existence of this covenant; for under the circumstances, the covenant itself requires such dispersion in fulfilment of one of its conditions. Besides, the Jews are to be gathered in; they are to be brought again into their own land. “The wastes of Canaan are again to be builded, and that desolate land to be filled.” Exodus 36.

How can such a restoration take place, unless the provisions of “the everlasting covenant” secure it? Hence, the apostle Paul says: “Blindness in part (or for a limited time) is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in; and so (or afterwards) all Israel shall be saved. As it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob; for this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.”

Romans 11.

Nor did the new organization abolish the rite of circumcision. This rite was the seal of the covenant made with Abraham. If then the covenant continue, so must also its seal. It is true, that the Apostles would not impose this rite upon believing Gentiles. Acts 15. The reason of this, however, is obvious. The covenant and circumcision were national; they referred to the Israelites as a people. Inasmuch, then, as Christianity was not destined to Judaize the nations, not designed to make Jews of them, it was proper that peculiarities belonging to the Jews as a people should not be imposed upon those who were not by nature the descendants of Abraham. Nor was the new system designed to interfere with the civil or national laws of the Jews. Being a spiritual system, Christianity did not directly oppose any existing forms of political government. It might modify all, but it could exist under any.

Much less did Christianity subvert the moral part of the previous dispensation. Its position on this point is, “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tithe shall not fail from the law.” All the morality then of the Old Testament still abides, and receives additional sanctions from the New.

What changes then, were effected by the Messianic kingdom? These four — the temple, the priesthood, and the ceremonial law were abolished, and the blessings of salvation were extended to the rest of the world.

Said Jesus to the woman of Sychar — “The hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.” John 4:21.

He also said of the temple itself, “There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” Matthew 24:2.

When the body of Jesus, of which the temple was a type, was “destroyed,” the purposes of the temple were answered, and a new one was to be raised without hands.

But not only was the temple abolished, the Jewish priesthood shared the same fate. This priesthood was typical of that of the Messiah. When, therefore, the latter began, the former ended. Hence, at the death of Jesus, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. This was significant, not only of the abolition of the types and shadows, but of the appointment of a new High Priest. Hence the Apostle Paul says, “But Christ being come, a High Priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” Hebrews 9:11,12.

Again, the Apostle says expressly, that the Aaronic “priesthood was changed,” (12:12.,) from the sons of Levi to Christ.

If then, the temple be abolished and the priesthood, of course, the ceremonial law departs with them. This is the reasoning of the Apostle. “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change of the law;” that is, of the ceremonial law. Indeed, the entire Epistle to the Hebrews exhibits in the clearest manner, that the temple, priesthood and sacrifices of the ancient dispensation were all abolished by the new system. We there learn, that the Christian Jerusalem is a heavenly one; that his temple is above, that his High Priest is Christ, that the shedding of his blood is the only sacrifice for sin; and that the ancient Jewish ceremonies are now a mere nullity, except as they may be used to illustrate the “good things” of the new dispensation.

The other change effected by Christianity, and which the Apostle Paul considers a “great mystery,” was, the extension of the blessings of salvation to the world at large. No language can better describe this than that of the Apostle himself — “For he is our peace, who hath made both one; and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments, contained in ordinances, for to make in himself, of twain, one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God, in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby; and came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have an access by one Spirit unto the Father.” Ephesians 2:14-18.

Such were the effects of the new system upon that which pre-existed. It abolished its temple, priesthood, and ritual, as of no longer use; it also so extended the blessings of salvation, as to embrace the world in general, according to the promise given to Abraham, that “in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed.”

We now proceed to the other inquiry, What is the organization of the new system, as a distinct establishment from that which preceded it?

This question, we are aware, is thickly set with difficulties, and is also associated in the minds of most men, with more or less of prejudice. It is not intended, however, to go into details, or to advocate any particular system.

The organization of the Christian Church may be divided into three periods — that of Jesus himself, that of the Apostles, and that which has taken place since. The part accomplished by Jesus in person, consists of the four following particulars — the communication of its moral truths, the delineation of its moral character, the appointment of its teachers, and the institution of its ordinances.

The doctrines, or moral truths of the new system, were placed by the Founder of Christianity, as the basis of the new establishment. These were the rock on which the Church was to be built, secure from all the devices of the gates of hell.

These truths were to be employed by the agency of the Spirit, both in the production and sustentation of the Church; eternal life was placed in the proper knowledge of God and of his Son, and the truth was ordained as the means of sanctification.

The truth, being thus essential both to the existence and development of the new system — being its heart, or vital part, was made by Jesus the great idea in Christianity. His disciples were to illustrate this truth in their lives; it was the message which his ambassadors were to publish; the ordinances appointed by him were to cherish it; and, in its rejection, there collid be neither discipleship nor salvation.

Hence, Jesus spent his life, not in organizing a system, but in publishing the truth. “To this end,” says he, “was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth.” John 18:37.

Again he exclaims, “I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.” John 12:46.

Upon the reception, or rejection of this truth, too, has he suspended the eternal destiny of al! to whom his gospel should be made known — “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Mark 16.

The fundamental idea then, in the organization of the Christian Church is, the moral truths of the gospel. The Church is where these are; it is not, where these are excluded.

The second step in the organization of the Church was, the distinct delineation of the character of its members.

Jews were made by birth, or by circumcision; not so Christians. Men could become real subjects of the kingdom of Jesus, only by the cordial reception of its moral truths in their spiritual renovation. The preparation of the soil, and the implantation of the seed, were alike a divine work.

Hence the importance of describing those in who in this change was wrought, and by whom this truth had been received. These were not simply Israelites, or hearers, or professors, or preachers, or apostles; they were “the poor in spirit,” “the meek.” “those that hunger and thirst after righteousness.” “the merciful,” “the pure in heart,” “the peacemakers,” “the persecuted for righteousness’ sake.” Matthew 5. The cordial reception of the moral truths taught by Jesus, produced traits of character like these; the renewing of the Holy Ghost and his holy guidance, led to a life like this. Hence they and they only are the subjects of the new kingdom, who thus exemplify the gospel, and thus exhibit before men its great cardinal virtues.

This is the second step of Jesus in organizing his Church. He first delivers its doctrines — he next describes its members.

The third step was, the consecration and mission of men who should publish these great moral truths, and thus disciple others, to whom the teachings of Jesus himself did not extend.

Men were to be made converts after Jesus left the world, just as they had been previously. It was his preaching, accompanied by the Holy Ghost which had converted them during his life. It was by preaching, accompanied by the same power, that they were to be converted after his departure from the world. Hence the necessity for preachers, and for the continuance of preachers, as long as men were to be converted to God.

This necessity led to the great commission given to the eleven, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.”

The last part of the work of Jesus in the organization of his Church, was the appointment of the ordinances of Baptism and the Supper. The former was designed to indicate publicly his disciples — the latter, to keep ever before the minds of these disciples, the one great truth of the new system, the vicarious sufferings of Jesus for his people. The one was to express, that the moral truths of the system had been embraced; the other was to strengthen and invigorate the faith of disciples in those truths. The one was to separate Christians from the world; the other was to bind all Christians together, by uniting them more closely to their common Head.

Such was the organization of the Christian Church, as left by Jesus himself. There was no general and systematic organization of the Church as a whole; nor was there the regular constitution of one individual congregation. Its great foundations were laid; the sort of materials to be placed on these foundations were described; the master-builders were appointed, and its simple, but significant ceremonies, were instituted.

Jesus left, then, but two classes of persons in his Church — teachers and disciples; baptizers and the baptized — administrators and communicants — or, in other words, the preachers and the receivers of the word. The preachers were all on a perfect official equality; the disciples were so likewise. The former had been called and commissioned by the same Master, and they were to accomplish the same work; the latter had been converted by the same grace, and baptized with the same baptism. The one class were ministerial, the other Christian brethren. Nor was the officer to exalt himself above the member; but he was to be greatest in the estimation of his Master, who had a spirit to be accounted least, and servant of all.

How far the Apostles modified these great essential principles of the Christian Church, it now remains to inquire.

The Apostolic Church was first organized in the city of Jerusalem. It was not, however, done at once. For a considerable time, no officers but the Apostles were known. These and the membership composed the Church.

Hence, when a new Apostle was to be chosen, the election was made by the disciples,2 under the management of the eleven Apostles. Acts 1. Nor was there any ordination, but a simple enrollment, after the lot was cast: of the name of Matthias with the other Apostles. Even the temporalities of the new society were under the care of the Apostles. Acts 4:15; 5:2; 6:2. When, however, these temporalities became too burdensome, they were committed to a set of men chosen by the disciples for that purpose, and who, through prayer and imposition of hands, were ordained to the new office by the Apostles. Acts 6. The church now consisted of three classes of persons — apostles, deacons, and the membership. This membership, though very large, was still not as yet divided into separate societies; but constituted one united body now called the Church. Acts 2:47; 5:11; 8:1. About this time a great persecution arose. Stephen, one of the deacons, was stoned, and the members, with the exception of the Apostles, were driven into other countries and, cities. This persecution, however, served greatly to enlarge the Church — for “they that were scattered abroad, went every where preaching the word.” Not that they were all regular preachers; but they published the gospel in every practicable and prudent method.

About this time a new set of officers was introduced into the Christian society. These were Elders. The name implies ruling; especially among the Jews, where it was applied both to the general rulers of the nation, and to the particular rulers of each synagogue or religious assembly. We must suppose, therefore, that either the office in the synagogue was transferred to the new church; or, that an analogous office was instituted in the new society. The first mention of these new officers is made in Acts 11:30, where the Christians of Antioch are said to have transmitted to “the elders” in Jerusalem, certain funds to supply the necessities of the poor saints there, and who seem not to have left the city with their wealthier brethren during the persecution. The next allusion to this office, not only refers to it as an office well understood, but also casts light upon the manner of its creation — “And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord on whom they believed.” Acts 19:23.

The word (ceirotonhsantev ) which is here translated “ordained,” is used but in one other instance in the New Testament. In 2 Corinthians 8:19, it is applied to Luke’s being “chosen of the churches” to travel with Paul and others. It means literally to lift up, or extend the hand; which was an ordinary mode of taking a vote. Hence the Genevan version, Tyndal and Cranmer, all render the passage thus: “And when they had ordained them elders by election.” 3 As, too, the deacons had been chosen by the members; and as these elders were put into this office from among the brethren over whom they presided, there can be no doubt, that they were elected by the popular vote. The conclusion then to which we come is, that these primitive elders were grave and judicious men, elected by each Christian congregation from among their own number, to superintend their spiritual interests, and to preside in their religious assemblies; and that they were solemnly consecrated to that office by prayer and fasting.

Whether these elders were really preachers, or simply rulers in particular congregations, has been much debated. The objections to their being strictly preachers are such as these. They were elected by their brethren, and from among themselves, as their spiritual guides. Now, it seelns incredible, that an election of the brethren should make a preacher. Nor can we conceive, how the new churches planted by the Apostles could have had men, fitted at so early a date, to be preachers of the word. The locality too of these officers is an objection. Regular preachers were to “go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” Their commission was general, their mission was to the world at large. These primitive elders, however, seem to have been entirely local. We find no instance of their exercising their gifts or office, beyond the churches over which they presided. The name too, is an objection. Why are they called elders? The term evangelist means a gospelizer, or one who preaches the gospel. The term prophet refers to speaking. The term elder, then, can awaken no other idea, than that of ruling, or of one, who manages the affairs of a Christian congregation.

On the contrary, there are some things to favor the position, that these elders were preachers. Who were to instruct these new churches, if they were not? The Apostle Paul also exhorts those of Ephesus. “To feed the church of God,” Acts 20:28; which seems to refer to the preaching of the word. The same Apostle also says that Elders must be “apt to teach,” Timothy 3:2; and that they should be able “by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.” Titus 1:9.

The conclusion then, to which we come in relation to these officers is, that their original designation was that of exercising spiritual supervision, and authority in individual congregations; that to render them competent to such supervision, they needed themselves to be well instructed in the Christian doctrine, and that when no apostle, evangelist, prophet, or regular teacher, was present, it was their duty to instruct their several congregations. “Certainly,” says the learned Neander, “it is not capable of proof that the teachers always belonged to the presbyters. This much only is certain, it was a source of great satisfaction, when among the rulers of the church there were men qualified also for teachers;” Besides elders and deacons, whose offices confined them to individual Churches, there were many others associated with the Apostles in their labors. Barnabas, Silas, Luke, Philip, Mark, Timothy, Titus, Apollos, and many others were of this number. These all appear to have been regular preachers of the word. It is true, nothing is said of the ordination of any of them except Timothy, and of Barnabas when appointed missionary to the Gentiles. How they were inducted into office, or whether any regular mode was used, we know not.

That there was no regular general government of the church instituted by the Apostles, is evident from the history of the facts left us. The only case which has the appearance of such a general government is, the reference of a particular question, by the church at Antioch, to the church at Jerusalem.

Acts 15. This reference however was altogether voluntary, on the part of the church at Antioch; and it was decided at Jerusalem, not by an Apostle, or by a council of Apostles; but by the Apostles, Elders and “whole church.” Acts 15:22.

Such was the Apostolic Church. The disciples, who had previously existed in common, were by them distributed into separate congregations; and two new sets of officers were appointed, deacons and elders. The bond which held all their separate churches together was not authority or system, but the truth and mutual love. Never were churches more closely united, and yet never were churches less forced into union.

If it be asked, what was the umpire in cases of doctrinal or other controversies, the answer is, the word of God. This word, otherwise that it was recorded in the Old Testament Scriptures, was at first delivered by inspired men. As these inspired men were mortal, their instructions were committed to writing, and in that form were always afterwards to control the churches.

If it be still asked, who was to decide in controversies which should arise as to the meaning of these apostolical writings, the answer is, every church for itself, every teacher for himself, every man for himself. To place uninspired authority over inspired, and to require one church, preacher, or disciple, to yield absolutely to the decision of some other church, preacher, or disciple, is at once to overthrow the authority of God by establishing that of man; and to subvert the decision of one man or set of men, by the decision of some other men or set of men.

Nor is there the least shadow of proof that any such human umpire was either appointed by Jesus, or sanctioned by his Apostles. It is true, that in forming opinions about cantroverted points, some deference was due to those men who had the best opportunities for knowing what was true; or to those churches that had been most under apostolical teaching, or which had best preserved apostolic practices. All this, however, was but secondary and auxiliary; and in all matters of faith and practice, the apostolic writings, and these alone, were to govern. Not man, but God, was to be the only “Lord of conscience.”

We come now to the third and last part of the organization of the Church.

This has occurred since the days of the apostles; is merely human, and therefore exceedingly imperfect. That the state of things left by the Apostles, continued for a considerable time, is evident from the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. In that epistle there is not the least intimation given, that Rome had any authority over Corinth. It also distinctly states, that Presbyters or Elders were chosen by the people, and that the subjection of the people to them was voluntary, not forced. “Wherefore we cannot think that those may be justly thrown out of their ministry, who were either appointed by the Apostles, or afterwards chosen by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church.” Again, says Clement, “It is a shame, my beloved, yea, a very great shame, and unworthy your Christian profession, to hear that the most firm and ancient Church of the Corinthians should, by one or two persons, be led into a sedition against its Presbyters.”

The changes which were afterwards introduced into the apostolic organization of the Church are principally these three: The presbyterial feature was overshadowed by the episcopal, the episcopal by the patriarchal, and the patriarchal by the papal. The spirit of domination began with the rulers of each particular church, and ceased only, when every church, yea, the whole world, was subject to one man. 6 Authority was thus substituted for truth, and the will of man for the will of God!

These changes, it is true, were effected only gradually, and through many centuries; still, however, they were effected, and became alike destructive to the purity and the freedom of the Church. And it is remarkable in this extraordinary drama, that one man, the Pope, has been made to hold a place of power, such as no one of the Apostles, nor all of them together ever held; indeed, such as Jesus himself never exercised while here on earth!

The diversities which now exist among various Protestant sects, on the subject of church government, may be traced to the prominence which they respectively give to certain parts of the original organization. It is likely that no one of them, in all particulars, agrees with the apostolic model. Some of them by giving great prominence to the independence of the churches in the days of the Apostles, have gone into pure congregationalism. Others by magnifying the prerogatives of the church rulers and teachers have approached an ecclesiastical hierarchy. Others, again, in consideration of the plurality of elders in each church, and of their being elected by their brethren, have adopted the presbyterial system.

Doubtless, there are some things in which all these are right, and there are also some things in which they have all departed from apostolic practice.

These churches, however, may all sufficiently adhere to the original constitution, to render them brethren in the kingdom of one common Lord and Savior. Do they attach the chief importance to the moral truths of the new system? Do they place discipleship in the cordial reception, and the proper manifestation of those truths? Do they receive and maintain a set of preachers and teachers under the sanction and upon the authority of Jesus? Do they administer the Christian sacraments? Are the writings of the Apostles their only umpire in all matters of faith and practice? Do they allow to each other the rights of conscience and of personal judgment? If so, they all rest upon the foundation laid by Jesus for his Church. If so, they are all sufficiently apostolic, to live together in peace on earth, and to reign together in glory hereafter.

We have dwelt the longer upon the kingdom of Jesus, because it is a matter of deep interest to Christians. Let us then apply this argument to his Messiahship. According to ancient prophecy, the Messiah was to be a king, indeed he was to be the greatest of kings. But we have seen, that these predictions have all been fulfilled in Jesus. By all who receive his doctrines, he is considered as possessed of the very highest possible royalty. Though crucified, he yet lives, and though assigned to the greatest ignominy once, yet does he now sit upon a throne “high and lifted up.”

The crown of power is on his head, the scepter of dominion in his hand, and his name is “King of kings, and Lord of lords.”

THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS

THERE are three sources of evidence to the Messiahship of Jesus, derived from his resurrection. It fulfils several ancient prophecies concerning the Messiah, it confirms the testimony given by Jesus to his own Messiahship, and it proves that he has power to exercise all the prerogatives of the Messiah.

In the 16th Psalm, are the following expressions concerning the future Deliverer. “My flesh shall also rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. Thou wilt show me the path of life, in thy presence is fullness of joy; at thy right hand are pleasures for evermore.” This psalm evidently refers to the Messiah. Hengstenberg says of it, “We must nevertheless assert, that every impartial critic must regard the Messianic interpretation of verses 9- 11, as the easiest and most natural, and that it would be universally adopted, were it not for the influence of doctrinal views.” 1 If, then, these verses of the psalm be applicable to the Messiah, they embrace his resurrection from the grave, and his exaltation to the right hand of God in the heavens.

The same truth is taught in the 22d Psalm. After a most vivid description of the cruel sufferings of the Messiah, the writer represents him as being remarkably delivered, by special Divine assistance. “Thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns. I will declare thy name unto my brethren.

My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation. All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn unto the Lord, and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee. For the kingdom is the Lord’s, and he is the Governor among the nations. A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.” Here, the same person, who, in the previous part of the sacred poem, is described as enduring the most dreadful agonies, is exhibited as rising above his sorrows; as entering the great congregation, and as exercising sovereignty over the nations. These facts never occurred, all of them, in the life of David; but were predictions concerning his illustrious Son.

In the 53d chapter of Isaiah the resurrection of the Messiah from death is also foretold: “When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed; he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death.” Here, the same person, whose “soul was made an offering for sin,” and whose “soul was poured out unto death,” is represented subsequently as living, reigning, and triumphing. If then the psalm refer to the Messiah, it of course teaches his resurrection from the grave.

The author above quoted, makes the following judicious observations in reference to the three passages of Scripture above referred to. “Whoever had learned from Isaiah 53., to know the servant of God, who after having died for us, should be exalted to the highest glory, and enjoy a never ending life; or from Psalm 22, had become familiar with the thought of a Messiah, who should pass through suffering to glory, and at the same time had perceived that the speaker in a psalm, was not always of course its subject, might easily come to the conclusion, that not David, but the Messiah, in the expectation of whose advent the whole spiritual life of the people entered, here appears as speaker, and foretells his own resurrection. And even granting that no one under the Old Testament attained to this knowledge, it is yet so obvious to us, who can institute a far more extensive comparison of the prophecies illustrated by the fulfilment, that we must regard the Messianic interpretation, as at least the most probable, even without the evidence of the New Testament.” If then it was foretold that the Messiah was not only to die, but also to arise again from the grave; and if it be proven, that Jesus of Nazareth after his crucifixion, did thus arise by the special energy and interposition of God, then is it clear, that in this particular, the history of Jesus also fulfils prophecy concerning the promised Deliverer, and shows that he was indeed the Son of God.

But Jesus himself not only asserted his Messiahship as we have already seen, but predicted his resurrection after three days. “From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.” Matthew 16:21.

Now, if in accordance with this and similar statements, he actually did arise from death, not only is his testimony to his resurrection to be believed, but also his more important testimony, that he was the Messiah, is established. This truth he often asserted, this truth he always admitted.

If then, by the direct concurrence of heaven, he was actually raised from the tomb, his Messiahship is confirmed by God himself, and illustrated by a miracle the most remarkable, of which we have any knowledge.

Equally evident is it, that if Jesus was raised from the dead, and if he did ascend up into heaven, according to the testimony of the Evangelists; and if especially, the concurrence of his own will was employed in this resurrection and ascension, then must it be admitted, that Jesus has all those attributes and qualifications, which peculiarly and exclusively adapt him to the Messianic kingdom and throne.

Is the resurrection of Jesus then, a well authenticated fact? This will depend of course, upon the number, the competency, and the credibility of the witnesses, who have testified to the rest of the world on the subject.

The number of witnesses is sufficient. The Jewish law, and the laws of other nations, require even in capital offences, the testimony of but two or more witnesses. “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death, be put to death.” Deuteronomy 17:6.

The witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus are the eleven Apostles, together with a large number of others. “He was seen of Cephas, says the Apostle Paul, then of the twelve; after that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; after that he was seen of James; then of all the Apostles, and last of all, he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.” 1 Corinthians 15:5-8.

These witnesses were also competent. The competency of a witness in this case depends upon three things; — upon his knowledge of Jesus before his crucifixion; upon his personal observation of his death; and upon personal interviews with him after his resurrection. The witnesses were acquainted with Jesus previously to his crucifixion. They had been intimate with him, many of them, even from his childhood. Others had been his constant companions for several years; they knew no one more certainly than they had known him.

They were also the personal spectators of his crucifixion and death. This scene took place at the feast of the Passover, when Jerusalem was crowded with Jews from every part of Judea, and almost of the world. It was exhibited in the most public manner. If, therefore, the Apostles felt any interest in the fate of their Master, they could not avoid witnessing it.

It is impossible to deny that they felt the deepest interest in him. They must therefore have had the most certain knowledge, of the issue of his crucifixion. Hence, they have detailed with the greatest accuracy every event which occurred, from the bloody sweat of Gethsemane, to his expiring cry upon the cross. When the soldiers drove the nails, and lifted up the cross, they saw it; when the multitudes derided him, wagging their heads, they saw it; and when Jesus exclaimed, “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit,” and immediately expired, they witnessed it. And when, after his death, “a soldier with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came thereout blood and water,” they saw it. In recording his personal testimony to this fact, John says, “and he that saw it, bare record; and his record is true, and he knoweth that he sayeth true, that ye might believe.” John 19:35.

The certainty of his death was also conveyed officially to Pilate. Nor could Joseph and Nicodemus, who were rulers, and who buried him, be deceived. And even if it were possible for all those to be imposed upon, call we imagine, that “the chief Priests and Pharisees,” who had his sepulchre sealed, could have been mistaken? Indeed, the reality of his death was never questioned by the Jews, or by any one in that day; it was in reference to his resurrection only, that they disbelieved.

The Apostles also had, not one, but many personal and protracted interviews with Jesus, after his resurrection. He not only appeared to Mary Magdalene, but conversed with her. He was not only seen by the two on the way to Emmaus, but entered into a long conversation with them. The very same evening, too, he entered the room where ten of the Apostles had assembled, and furnished them with the most indubitable proof of the reality of his resurrection. “And he said unto them, why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your mind? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet, (that is, the marks of the nails.) And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? and they gave him a piece of broiled fish, and of an honeycomb, and he took it, and did eat before them.”

Luke 24.

He next enters into a protracted discourse with them. In this case, the personal identity of Jesus, is submitted to the most minute and varied examination of ten men, for the space at least of several hours. How was it possible for them to be deceived?

One of their number, however, being absent, the interview was repeated a week afterwards. “And after eight days, again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side, and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered, and said, “My Lord and my God!” John 20. Another discourse of considerable length also follows, during which the Apostles had every possible opportunity for ascertaining the truth of his resurrection. The interview, at the sea of Galilee, was also of the same convincing and irresistible character. Jesus not only appears to seven of the Apostles, but works a miracle for them, eats before them, and converses with them for a considerable time. John 21.

It is impossible therefore, for the witnesses to this fact, to have been deceived. They had every opportunity that men could have, to know the truth in the ease. They knew Jesus before his crucifixion most intimately; they were spectators of his crucifixion, and they had several protracted, interviews, with him after his resurrection, during which he not only exhibited the very marks of his execution, but both ate in their presence, and conversed freely with them.

Are these witnesses then credible? This question is to be decided by a reference to their moral character. It is impossible for a good man, and especially for a number of good men, to impose a deliberate falsehood upon others. Were the Apostles then good men?

The first evidence to this fact is to be adduced from the doctrines and precepts which they promulged, and which it is certain they believed.

Now, character is the result of certain truths upon the heart. If then the Apostles published to the world, and really embraced themselves, a set of doctrines, and a code of morals, the most pure and heavenly, that the world has ever known, how is it possible for them to have been wicked or deceitful men?

The publication of these truths, too, and especially their public testimony to the resurrection of their Master, subjected them to every sort of indignity and persecution. It was at the peril of their lives, that they bore such testimony. And yet they bore it, not only in the temple, but in the presence of the very murderers of Jesus.

The spirit, too, which these witnesses exhibit, demonstrates their sincerity. What brotherly love reigned among them, what benevolence toward mankind! What an absence of resentment, what a calm submission to injuries! What adherence to truth! What love of principle! There is, indeed, not the least evidence against the moral character of even one of them. Their reputation was above suspicion. Look at the charges, brought occasionally against them by their enemies! What are they? They all lie against the very truth they were publishing, and in the publication of which they jeoparded their lives. The only crime is, that they teach the people, that Jesus was alive, and that he was indeed the Messiah!

If then, these witnesses were of sufficient number, if they were competent to judge as to what they testified, and if they were credible witnesses, being all of them men of the greatest integrity of character, then, does the resurrection of Jesus, as a matter of fact, rest upon a foundation the most solid of which we can conceive. No other truth in history is more clearly attested — no other truth in history possesses higher claims upon our belief.

Now, whether we consider Jesus as raised by the Father, according to several Old Testament prophecies, or by the Spirit, according to the testimony of Paul, or by himself, according to his own testimony, it alters not the case. There doubtless are senses in which the Three Persons of the Trinity were all concerned in his resurrection to life. The reality of his resurrection is the main point in the argument. This we have fully proven.

If then, he really arose from the dead, there are several prophecies referring to the resurrection of the Messiah fulfilled in him. Then is his own testimony to Messiahship confirmed; and then, may we readily believe, that, in as much as he triumphed over all the powers of death, so he possesses all those powers and prerogatives that are appropriate tothe Messiah, and that he is able to save and deliver all who put their trust in him.

There is one other source of evidence to the reality of the resurrection of Jesus, which must not be altogether omitted. Jesus had promised to his disciples “the Comforter.” He had assured them, that after a few days, they would be endued with extraordinary power from on high. This promise was fulfilled in the most public and extraordinary manner. About ten days after the ascension of their Master, and in the midst of the feast of Pentecost, the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Apostles. They were at once endued with the knowledge of foreign languages. They received power to work miracles. They had also such spirit and energy imparted to them, as rendered them willing to face either danger or death, in their extraordinary mission.

Now, it is impossible for such an event as this to have taken place, without Divine approval. And it is equally impossible for that approval to have been given, and yet the Apostles to have been bad men, and engaged at the time in fabricating a pernicious delusion for the rest of mankind.

This extraordinary effusion, then, of the Spirit upon the witnesses, so publicly given, must be considered as the sanction of Jehovah to the truth of their testimony, as a Divine attestation to the resurrection of Jesus.

THE BLESSINGS CONFERRED ON THE GENTILES BY JESUS

IN the ancient predictions concerning the Messiah, it was foretold, that the Gentiles should derive great benefits from his advent. To punish the nations for their idolatry, God had been pleased to confine his revelations and covenants, for many centuries, to the descendants of Abraham. But when the Great Deliverer should appear, and should give to the world new and fuller exhibitions of the Divine character and government, then, the nations of the earth were to be recalled from their idolatries, and restored to the worship of the true God.

This fact is intimated in the primary call given to Abraham; “In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” Genesis 12:3. Besides other and similar announcements of this truth to Isaac and Jacob, the latter patriarch makes a very striking allusion to it in the benediction pronounced upon Judah — “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.” Genesis 49:10.

Hengstenberg paraphrases this passage thus — “Judah shall not cease to exist as a tribe, nor lose its superiority, until it shall be exalted to higher honor and glory, through the great Redeemer, who shall spring from it, and whom not only the Jews, but all the nations of the earth shall obey.” Similar predictions are also to be found among the inspired songs of ancient Israel. In the 2d Psalm, Jehovah addressing his Son, or the Messiah, says “Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.” In the 22d Psalm it is also said, that in the days of the Messiah, “All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.” In the 72d Psalm, it is predicted of the Messiah, “He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and froth the river, unto the ends of the earth.”

The Prophets too, of ancient Israel, predict the conversion of the Gentiles under the Messiah. “And in that day,” says Isaiah, “there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek and his rest shall be glorious.” Isaiah 11.

Again, the same Prophet says, “I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee as a covenant for the people, for a light of the Gentiles.” Isaiah 42:6.

Jeremiah also predicts, “The Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things in which there is no profit.” Jeremiah 16.

And Malachi also declares, “For, from the rising of the sun, even to the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles.” Malachi 1.

It is evident, that these predictions do not refer to those incidental blessings, which the Israelites, from age to age, may have conferred upon some Gentiles. These blessings were to be general — they refer to a particular period — they center in a special person. It was in the Messiah. and from the Messiah, that the nations were to be blessed.

Have these predictions, then, any fulfilment in Jesus the son of Mary?

It is noticeable, then, I remark first, that even the birth of Jesus was attended with circumstances which seem to point him out as the appointed means of converting the Gentiles. “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will toward men,” Luke 2., sang the celestial multitudes at the birth of the infant Jesus. This natal song evidently points out Jesus, as the means of blessing to the world at large. The visit of the Eastern Magi was also indicative of the same thing. Matthew 2. The venerable Simeon, too, as he held this remarkable babe in his arms, predicted that he was to be, not only “the glory of Israel,” but “a light to lighten the Gentiles.” Luke 2.

Many things also occurred during the ministry of Jesus, which demonstrated that these prophecies were about being fulfilled in him.

Thus, when he was about to heal the centurion’s servant, he said to those around him, “And I say unto you, that many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of God.” Matthew 8.

His healing also of the Samaritan leper, Luke 17.; his casting out the devil from the daughter of the Syrophenician woman, Matthew 15.; the parable of the good Samaritan, Luke 10.; that also of the prodigal soil, Luke 15.; his remarks to the woman of Sychar, John 4.; his observations at the feast when certain Greeks desired to see him, John 12.; and especially his declaration to the chief priests and elders, that “the kingdom of God should be taken from them, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof,” Matthew 21., all teach, that the Gentiles were to be blessed in the mission of Jesus.

After his resurrection, however, this truth was made more plain. Although the Apostles were “to tarry in the city of Jerusalem until endued with power from on high,” (Luke 24,) yet, he commanded them to “go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” Mark 16. Here, the partition wall between Jew and Gentile was cast down, and “all the families of the earth were to be blessed,” in this illustrious son of Abraham.

Nor was this commission an idle ceremony. It is true, that, even after the Apostles were endued with power from on high, they lingered in the city of Jerusalem. It is true, that, even in them, the appropriating spirit which confined the blessings of the Messiah to the Jews exclusively, with great difficulty yielded to the new commission. Still, however, God’s purpose prevailed. Peter is sent to Caesarea, by express revelation. Acts 10. A persecution disperses the brethren at Jerusalem, and they are sent abroad to publish the glad tidings. Acts 8. The preaching of Philip is made instrumental in the conversion of the Samaritans. Acts 8. An Ethiopian is brought in by the same means. Acts 8. But what hastened this result more than any thing else, was the conversion of Saul of Tarsus. His conversion was miraculous, and his character and history altogether extraordinary.

More than any other, he had persecuted the Church; more than any other, he was opposed to the new sect. But God, who had assigned him a special and important field of labor, at the predetermined moment, and in the prearranged manner, arrested the bold persecutor, and makes him not only a disciple of Jesus, but a publisher of his gospel.

Not long after his conversion, Saul was specially designated by the Holy Ghost, as a missionary to the Gentiles. He and Barnabas labored first in Asia Minor, but were afterwards directed to go into Europe. In a few years, they visited the principal cities of the two continents, and established churches at Ephesus, at Philippi, at Corinth, and in most of the cities of the then known world.

In reference to the labors of the other Apostles, and also of the very large and numerous ministry which existed in those days, we have but partial accounts. The hints, however, given us in the various epistles, together with the known fact, that very shortly afterwards, Christians were scattered throughout the Roman empire, prove, that the early preachers of the word must have been exceedingly diligent in the propagation of the new faith. Even the Roman capital became the seat of a Christian church; while Spain and other remote countries are spoken of as scenes of these benevolent efforts.

Upon the conversion of the Gentiles to the doctrines of Jesus, a new question arose, which for a time much agitated the Christian Church. This question referred to the necessity of circumcising the new converts, and thus making them Jews as well as Christians. The Synod assembled at Jerusalem, decided this question in the negative, and thus freed the Gentile Church from this painful, and unnecessary yoke. Acts 15.

About forty years after the resurrection of Jesus, an event took place, deeply painful in itself, yet of great advantage to the new faith. This was the overthrow of the Jews by the Romans, together with the destruction of their temple, and the practical abolition of their ritual services. These events had been most graphically and mournfully foretold by Jesus.

Matthew 24. Luke 21. Considered as judgments upon the nation, they were inflicted as a punishment for his crucifixion. Luke 19:44; 23:28-31.

But there was another design. It was in the temple-service chiefly, that the old and new systems clashed. In order, therefore, to the full development and general triumph of Christianity, it was necessary that the templeservice should cease. Indeed, the very existence of the temple, its canonical priesthood, its altar of incense, its holy of holies, its entire rites and ceremonies might all be pleaded, while they stood, especially by the Jews, as so many evidences, that that dispensation was still inoperation, and that Jesus was rather an impostor, than the Messiah. When, however, the providence of God concurred with the mission and doctrines of Jesus, to abolish the ceremonial law and priesthood; when the spires of the temple no longer glittered over the spiritual worship of the new economy, nor the sword of the temple was seen any more to shed the blood of unoffending Christians; when the strong walls of Jerusalem were crumbled, and her turrets were in the dust; when the Jew was a captive, and his holy of holies defiled and destroyed, then did Christianity arise upon the world as a new sun, and the unpretending mission of Jesus receive a sanction which incredulity itself could scarcely doubt.

This captivity of the Jewish nation still continues. Eighteen centuries have passed away. Generations have been born, and generations have died. Still, however, is the Jew an exile from the land of his fathers, and the home of his fathers’ sepulchres. Still too proud to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah; still raising the cry of his crucifiers, “away with him, away with him,” the child of Abraham even yet perpetuates the cause of his exile, and by rejecting Jesus, excludes himself from the richest blessings of the Abrahamic covenant! Other nations have bowed to his standard; even the most barbarous tribes have received him as their Hope. The Indian and the African, the Chinese and the Hottentot; nations the most polite, and nations the most savage, have all been rendering homage to the son of Mary, the Son of God. Still, however, the Jew disbelieves — disbelieves and wanders on in darkness and exile, the object of deep interest to the true Christian, the object of ridicule, it may be, to the infidel or scoffer, a living proof, however, of the truth, both of the Mosaic and Christian Scriptures. Still he wanders, and seems destined to wander, until the time shall come, that their Messianic captivity shall cease, and the sons of Jacob shall once more cluster around Sion, and there worship Him whom their fathers pierced, and there receive as their King, Him whom their fathers crucified as a malefactor.

This diffusion and triumph of the doctrines of Jesus in Gentile countries, besides being the fulfilment of prophecy, is proof of the Messiahship of Jesus, on two other grounds — in its cause, and in its results. Whatever importance we may attach to the zeal, or even to the alleged fanaticism of the early preachers of the gospel, whatever power we may ascribe to their principle of brotherly love; and whatever influence we may attribute to the performance of miracles by them; still, we must introduce another and a more efficient cause for the results which followed. Christianity is preeminently a spiritual system. And besides the war which it waged with kings and emperors, with priests and worshippers, with the customs and habits of men, it carried on a still fiercer conflict with the passions and prejudices of the human heart. It sought to revolutionize society by revolutionizing individual man. It called for a new heart, for a renovated character. And until this primary demand was granted, nothing was gained.

It was to triumph, not over the bodies, but over the souls of men. It sought a recognition, not in the decrees of senates, but in the inward approval of the human will. Its temple was to be a temple of regenerated hearts; its dominion, the subjection of converted men to its authority.

Now, to accomplish this, a divine agency was necessary. Zeal might spread the message to the ends of the earth; miracle might attract attention to the message thus diffused; eloquence and argument might convince the judgment and sway the passions in its favor; but to effect a conversion, to seat that message permanently in the soul, to make it the oracle of sound doctrine, and the umpire of pure morals, was a work which Omnipotence alone could accomplish.

To send forth, therefore, the fishermen of Galilee on the high mission of converting the world, unaccompanied with the aid of a higher power, would have been a vain and futile undertaking. This, however, was not done. “And lo says Jesus, I send the promise of my Father upon you.”

Luke 24. In these words the necessary divine help is both promised and pledged. The Holy Ghost was to accompany these humble instruments; he was to enlighten their minds; he was to work in them and by them, and they were to suspend the entire success of their mission upon his accompanying power.

Now, if the truths delivered by the Apostles of Jesus, were thus attended by the Spirit of God; if he so far approved their work, as to render it effectual to the conversion of men, then is there in this very fact the most convincing proof, that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. Can we believe, that the Holy Ghost would give his sanction to imposture? Carl we imagine, that God would cooperate with deluded enthusiasts?

Certainly not.

Consider also the moral results of this new faith. The Jew is withdrawn by it from his traditionary forms and ceremonies. The Gentile relinquishes the religion of his ancestors, and the temple of his gods. The disciples of Plato, of Aristotle, and of Zeno, lay aside their metaphysical jargon. The proud and the revengeful are made humble and forgiving. All these unite in the maintenance of a pure and simple faith; in the exhibition of a holy and blameless life. No matter what had been the previous character of men, the result of the new system was always the same. It allied men to God through the mediation of a common Savior; it bound them together as a holy brotherhood; it filled them with compassion and goodwill toward the rest of mankind; and it produced in them all, a morality before unknown; a holiness to which, previously, they were utter strangers.

The same effects, too, produced by this new faith on individuals, extended to nations. National character, national laws, national feelings, national destinies, were all changed by it. It revolutionized senates, it changed the decrees of emperors and kings, it impressed a new character upon the face of society.

The history of the world, too, proves, that in proportion as nations have been under the legitimate influence of these new doctrines, have they been exalted and happy. New securities have been furnished by them to governments; new motives of obedience to subjects; new bands applied to all the domestic and social relations of life. The spread of the new system has also been favorable to mental improvement and science. It has especially been a protective to youth against innumerable dangers and evils. It has diffused a spirit of peace and forbearance among mankind. It has referred the nations to a common origin, to a common humanity, to a common Savior. Its tendency is to destroy war, to establish peace, and to make of all mankind one great and loving family.

Now, can it be true, that results like these are the fruits of imposture? Can a system, founded in error, promoted by fraud, and accompanied by the Divine abhorrence, thus exalt the soul of man — thus elevate the social condition of the species? Can holiness result from falsehood, or benevolence be the fruit of fanatical ambition? Has the world received its greatest blessings from the greatest of impostures, or society its highest elevation from the worst of causes? Surely, the judgment of mankind must be in the negative. So much of good could not arise from so much of evil; so much of elevation from a system of mere fraud and delusion.

The doctrines of Jesus then are proved to be divine, by their fruits. Their results are such, as can only spring from a system founded in truth and approved by God. The fact, too, that they are accompanied by a Divine agency, and thus rendered effectual to salvation, also demonstrates their Divine origin. God can have no copartnership with error, nor would the Holy Ghost cooperate with wicked men.

The point, however, on which we desire here chiefly to fix the attention is, that these doctrines have so completely revolutionized the face of the Gentile world. Idolatry, with its long train of superstitions, has been swept away. The dogmatism of ancient philosophers has been destroyed.

The mythological harm of the poets has been broken. The customs, and rites and ceremonies of ages have been supplanted. All these things have passed away, while the gospel of the great Nazarene is now enshrined, where pagan temples, and altars, and rites once stood! What magic wand, what mysterious cause has effected all this? At the very time, too, when the Gentiles are enjoying such rich blessings, the Jews are without a king, without a scepter, without a throne! Why such a change, such a transfer of blessings? Evidently, because the seed of Israel, stumbling at the humility of a crucified Messiah, have been the occasion of extending the blessings of his kingdom to the other nations of the earth. “I say, then,” says an Apostle, “have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid; but through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles.”

How strongly then does the existing state of things prove the Messiahship of Jesus! According to the prophecy of Jacob, the scepter was not to depart from Judah till Shiloh had come. But this scepter has long since forsaken that tribe. Must not Shiloh then, already have appeared. There is also another proof of this — to this Shiloh the nations were to be gathered.

They were to receive him as their King and Redeemer. Has not this been fulfilled in Jesus? Let the last eighteen centuries answer; let the existing state of the world reply.

Thus have we sought to prove, from his ancestry, from his miraculous birth, from the place of his nativity, from the epoch of his appearance, from the testimony of inspired witnesses, from his own testimony, by testimony from Heaven, by miracles, by his character, by his teachings, by his sacrifice and priesthood, by his kingly authority, by his resurrection, and by the blessings he has conferred upon the Gentiles, that Jesus is THE CHRIST. More proof is unnecessary — further demonstration useless.