SUPPLEMENT II.

It has frequently been asserted that the Messianic character of the Jesus of the Gospels has been evolved out of the Messianic delineations of the Old Testament, and the Apocalyptic literature current at the time of the Advent, of which the Book of Enoch, the Second Book of Esdras, certain collections of Sybilline verses and a few others are examples. This objection, which, if valid, would be fatal to the whole prophetic argument, has derived a certain amount of plausibility from the fact that the Messianic prophecies and the typology of the Old Testament have been frequently represented by Christian writers as being such distinct, full, and definite predictions of Christ, as to have made it comparatively easy to elaborate the Messiah of the New Testament out of the prophetic intimations of the Old. This being so, although the foregoing arguments are valid for the disproof of this particular form of the ideal theory, yet it will be desirable to offer a few additional observations for the purpose of showing that the data furnished by the Old Testament and the Apocalyptic literature in question are utterly inadequate to have afforded the materials for this grand delineation.

A large number of Christian writers in their eagerness to impart additional force to the prophetical argument, and a divine authority to doctrines which it is impossible to prove by the direct statements of the New Testament, but which they consider to be integral portions of Christianity, have represented the Old Testament as containing a veritable Gospel. In adopting this course they have not perceived that they were cutting away the ground from under their

own feet; for if the delineations of the Old Testament are thus clear and distinct, or in the language of the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, ɛikóves, and not σkiaì of Christianity, it would have been comparatively easy for mythologists and inventors of fictions, to have delineated the Jesus of the Evangelists. The truth however will be found to be, that the only way of finding in the Old Testament what it has been thus alleged to contain, is by practising on ourselves the fallacy of first putting into it what we imagine that we find there. This mode of procedure has greatly impaired the value of the Christian argument in the eyes of thoughtful men; and put a dangerous weapon into the hands of opponents. For all evidential purposes it is as valueless, as it would be foolish in common life, to act on the assumption that a purse which we ourselves had filled, was a present made to us by a considerate friend.

In estimating the amount of light communicated by the prophetic Scriptures of the Old Testament, it is necessary to consider, not what we think that we can see in them with the light of Christianity shining upon them, but what was the only thing which any one could have seen in them who lived before Jesus Christ appeared as the realization of the ideal, towards which they obscurely pointed. In determining the question whether the Messianic conceptions of the Old Testament and the Apocalypses can have served as the model for the Jesus of the Gospels, it is our duty to contemplate them, not with the light which has been thrown upon them by the New Testament, but in the plain obvious meaning which they must have presented to the delineators themselves. In discussing this question it will be only necessary to consider the chief Messianic prophecies; for the idea that the typology of the Old Testament could have formed any portion of the model employed in the delineation of the Jesus of the New, is too absurd to require serious refutation. It could only have served that purpose if it had been first put there by the delineator.

What then were the Messianic conceptions which the Old

Testament and the Apocalypses would have supplied; and how far would they have aided them in delineating the ideal Jesus of the Evangelists?

Let us suppose that such a delineator had in his hands the book of Enoch. I notice this Apocalypse first, because it contains the Messianic conception in its clearest and most distinctive form. It is very doubtful whether the Messianic delineations in this book have not been inserted at a period subsequent to the Advent, for the evidence that it is a composite work is strong. On this point, however, I will not insist, but suppose that the delineator of an ideal Christ may have been in possession of the entire book. What aid would it have afforded him in creating the great portraiture of the Gospels? He might have derived the following

hints that while the Messiah was to be divine, He was not to be invested with the attributes of absolute Deity: He is affirmed in it to have existed prior to all creation: His most usual designation is "the Elect One:" He is also repeatedly designated as the "Son of God," "the Son of Man," and once as "the Son of Woman: " He is invested with the titles of King and Judge of the world: He possesses righteousness, is gifted with wisdom, and knows all secret things: He possesses the Spirit in all its fulness, His kingdom is everlasting, and He stands highest in the acceptance of the Lord of Spirits. Although the book nowhere affirms the doctrine of an incarnation, it is unquestionably implied in the designations given to the Messiah, of" the Son of Man" and "the Son of Woman."

It is a remarkable fact, that as far as this book contains anything which may be called a portraiture of the Messiah, the character which it attributes to Him is one altogether divine. Although He is repeatedly called the Son of Man, no one trait of character strictly human is ascribed to Him. Further, it does not contain one single intimation that the Messiah was to be a sufferer; and that through His sufferings He would enter His glory, which constitutes one of the most striking features in the delineation of the Jesus of the New Testament.

The form of the book is that of a vision and its Messianic portions are not portraitures or obscure typical outlines, but affirmations respecting Him in the most strictly dogmatic form. It is very remarkable that although He is repeatedly called the Son of Man, He is nowhere represented as exhibiting simply human characteristics.

It will be at once seen that the Messianic portions of this book are greatly in advance of anything contained in the Old Testament. Whatever view we may take of its authorship, its characteristics are very striking; and this is rendered the more so, because the reader is led by the occurrence of certain words and phrases used in common by its author and the writers of the New Testament, to the almost inevitable conclusion, either that he must have been acquainted with some of the books of the New Testament, and derived his phraseology from them, or vice versâ. If we adopt the former hypothesis it is difficult to account for the absence of any delineation of the Messiah in a purely human, above all, in a suffering character. If on the contrary the Messianic portions of the work are assumed to have been in existence prior to the advent, it becomes equally difficult to account for the extremely advanced form of its dogmatical assertions, for which the remnants of Jewish literature which bear on the ideas of the times, afford no adequate vindication. The balance of probability in favour of their post-Christian date greatly preponderates; and therefore in allowing that they might have been used by some supposed delineator of the ideal of the Gospels, I give him every advantage. The question therefore arises, how far would the dogmatic assertions of this book have aided an idealist in his portraiture of the Jesus of the Evangelists?

It will immediately strike the reader, that while this book contains a number of dogmatic statements respecting the Messiah, it makes not a single attempt to give us a dramatized portraiture of Him; by which I mean, that it never embodies the attributes which it ascribes to Him in a living character. This, on the contrary, forms the very essence of

our Gospels, in which Jesus not only possesses certain qualities, but actually exhibits them over a wide sphere of action, and in every variety of circumstances. It will be seen at once that between merely affirming that the Messiah was both Son of God and Son of man, and delineating Him in a career in which He is made to act both these characters with exquisite propriety, the difference is vast. In a similar manner it is easy to ascribe to such a person wisdom, holiness, benevolence, or any other virtues, or even to affirm that he will be the future judge of the world; but it is a very different thing to dramatize him as exhibiting these characteristics over an extensive sphere of action. This is what has been effected in the New Testament; but of the mode in which the Messiah was to be delineated as uniting the divine and human characters, or as exhibiting in action a number of virtues, the perfect combination of which in any single person is a matter of the greatest difficulty, the book of Enoch would not have furnished a single hint. The difference between this book and the Gospels may be summed up in the following sentence: the book of Enoch declares what attributes the Messiah, in conformity with the ideas of its author, ought to possess; the Gospels set before us a delineation of what, contrary to the ideas of their authors, He actually was. The one utters a number of dogmatical assertions respecting Him, the other presents us with an actual portraiture of a living Christ, exhibiting in perfect harmony the holiness of man, and the holiness of God. The one resembles a person who says to an artist, paint a magnificent picture, exhibiting certain principles; the other resembles the artist with the picture in his hands exhibiting the highest conceptions of genius, and finished in the highest style of art.

It follows therefore that although he might have learnt from this book that the Messiah was to be a person who would possess high, but not the highest form of divine attributes; that He was to be the Son of man, Son of woman, and the Son of God; that He was to be the revelation of the Lord