transgressions, smitten of God and afflicted. The Lord lays on him the iniquity of us all. He is unresisting like a lamb, and his life is cut off by a violent death, to which he submits, not for his own sin, but for that of the people. His soul is made a sin-offering; he bears the sins of many, and makes intercession for transgressors. As a reward for his sufferings voluntarily submitted to, he is not only assured of their triumphant issue, but that he himself would be satisfied with the result.

This is the most important Messianic prophecy in the Old Testament, not only on account of its length, but because the Servant of Jehovah is dramatized over a limited sphere of action. It is easy to perceive, now that the reality is come, that the Jesus of the New Testament is the perfect realization of these various shadowy delineations: but the question is, does it afford adequate materials, out of which a number of ideologists could have created the portraiture of the Christ of the Gospels?

The reader will at once perceive that the larger portion consists of doctrinal statements respecting the nature of the Messiah's work. The express delineations of his character are few. They are in fact assertions of what it was to consist of, rather than actual delineations.

Supposing a body of ideologists to have arrived at the conclusion that the Servant of Jehovah was intended to be a delineation of the Messiah, they might have learned from the fifty-second and fifty-third chapters the following facts : First: he was to be one of the greatest of sufferers.

Secondly he was to be despised and treated with contempt.

Thirdly that his sufferings were to terminate in death. Fourthly that they were to be undergone voluntarily. Fifthly that he was to exhibit in his sufferings the patience of a lamb.

:

Sixthly that his sufferings would terminate not only in a triumphant issue, but in a result satisfactory to himself.

Such are the materials which this prophetic delineation

would have afforded the ideologists, to enable them to portray the suffering Christ of the Gospels. It will be at once seen how imperfect a model they would have formed on which to construct the drama of the Passion. It is important to observe that they are confined to that portion of his Messianic character alone, and would have left them entirely in the dark as to how the diviner aspects were to be combined with the human, or how the other portions of the character portrayed in the Gospels were to be delineated. The suffering Christ constitutes only a portion, though a very important one of the great portraiture of the Gospels. The six points above referred to, would have only served as simple directions to construct a character in which these particular aspects were to be perfectly embodied: but they would have left the question unsolved as to how this was to be effected, and on the remaining portions of the delineation, as it appears in the Gospels, these two chapters would have afforded them not the smallest assistance; consequently each ideologist would have delineated his Christ according to his own imagination, which must have destroyed the unity of the conjoint work.

7. There are unquestionably other prophecies in Isaiah, which assign to the Messiah attributes of a far higher order than those attributed to him in the section which contains the description of the Servant of Jehovah. These however afford not the smallest hint as to the mode in which the divine aspects of his character were to be delineated in combination with the human. The combination of a divine with a human character is a rock on which all poets and ideologists have suffered shipwreck: and it need hardly be observed that the difficulty of effecting the union is greatly increased when it is necessary to delineate the human as a sufferer. But it is very unlikely that a number of ideologists who used Isaiah as their model would have arrived at the unanimous conclusion that the divine and human aspects of the prophetic delineation were to be combined in a single person. It is far more probable that at least some of them

would have considered that two Christs were intended by the prophet, one of whom was to exhibit the divine, and the other the human attributes of the Messianic delineation. On such a point disagreement would have been fatal. If, on the other hand they arrived at the conclusion that both were to be combined in a single person, this would have at once launched them, without rudder, compass, or star to direct their course, on the boundless ocean of conjecture as to how the union was to be effected. It is evident that the only possible result must have been the creation of as many ideal Christs as there were ideologists.

8. I need hardly pursue this subject further; for it is evident that if the Messianic delineations in Isaiah would have been incapable of furnishing the suitable materials for framing the portraiture of the Christ of the Gospels, this result could not have been accomplished by all the other Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. In fact, the larger their number, the greater would have been the embarrassment which they would have caused as to how the various scattered rudimentary delineations were to be combined into a harmonious whole, and exhibited in the actions and teachings of a living Christ. They would have formed little more than a body of directions to construct a character who was to exhibit a certain number of attributes; but artists of every kind are painfully aware that between an order to do a thing in this or that particular way, and its realization, the interval is wide. Such must have been the position of ideologists who had nothing else to aid them in the delineation of an ideal Christ than the Messianic elements in the Old Testament. Instead of the unity of the Jesus of the New resulting from their labours, they would have constructed Christs of a wide diversity of conception. The Christian typologist has a very different task before him. He is in possession of the substance which, after he has seen and contemplated, it is comparatively easy to discern in the shadowy outline.

If it be urged that if ideologists had accepted the twenty

second Psalm as Messianic, it would have aided them in the delineation of the Passion, I fully admit that its imagery would have suggested to them the idea that the Messiah was to die by crucifixion, and that several circumstances connected with the death of Our Lord are described with remarkable precision; as the staring and insulting crowd, the limbs almost dislocated, the piercing of the hands and feet, the effects of the thirst, the parting of the garments, the offer of vinegar to drink, and the triumphant issue to which these sufferings tended. These suggestions it would unquestionably have afforded; but when the drama of the Passion is contemplated as a whole, beginning with the anointing, and terminating with the Resurrection, including the calm composure and perfect self-surrender of the sufferer, it will be seen that although the materials afforded by the Psalm would have furnished them with these facts, they would have been wholly insufficient to have enabled them to construct the grand drama of the Gospels, of which they only form an inconsiderable portion. It is also evident that as to the rest of the portraiture of the Jesus of the Evangelists they would not have furnished a single hint.

Once more when historical characters, such as David, are idealized as typical representations of the Messiah, instead of aiding the ideologists, it would have led them astray in their delineation of the Christ of the Gospels. Now that the reality has come, we see plainly that the idealization was intended to be confined to David in his capacity of King of the theocracy. But it is hardly possible that this would have occurred to an ideologist. On the contrary, he would have been almost certain to have considered that the personal character of David was the thing intended; and consequently, instead of delineating a character who was mild and humble, he would have portrayed one of which the heroic qualities would have formed the leading characteristic. Above all, he would certainly have invested him with the character displayed by the Psalmist in the imprecatory Psalms. But between the

delineation of Him who prayed in the extremity of His agony, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," and the language of the Psalmist in these Psalms, such as: "Let there be none to extend mercy unto him, neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children;" "As he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garment, so let it come into his bowels like water, and like oil into his bones;" "Happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones," the contrast is striking.

These brief observations will I think be sufficient to show that the prophetical Scriptures of the Old Testament would have been utterly inadequate to furnish the materials out of which the ideologists could have constructed the Jesus of the New. The more closely the materials at their command are sifted, the more firmly will this conclusion be established. If it be an ideal creation, it is certain that they must have evolved it out of their own imaginations, without a model or outline to direct them. But this supposition I have shown not only to be in the highest degree improbable, but one which is absolutely impossible.