greater discernment than that which would result from the legitimate and vigorous exercise of their own natural powers of mind? Is it essential for an honest man, even if he possess but a common share of intelligence, to receive supernatural aid from the Almighty, before he can become qualified to write an accurate history of what he has seen with his own eyes and heard with his own ears, or of that which he has learned from what seems to him an authentic source?

In regard to this, as well as other subjects, I think we have sometimes been misled by our education. In whatever light this matter may appear to any one else, I freely confess myself unable to find any support for the idea, that the Evangelists, as they are termed, (or any of the Bible writers) were inspired in such a way, or to such an extent, as to preclude all liability of their exposure to the commission of mistake. Common as is the impression to the contrary, it is worthy of note that they never claim to be so inspired! They make no pretensions to infallibility. If they did, their pretensions would be falsified by their own records by the dim-sightedness which they sometimes manifest.

Luke, whose writings are the most methodical, and whose mind was evidently the most thoroughly disciplined, does not speak as if he thought himself better qualified or more authoritative, as a Gospel historian, than many others. Certainly, he does not prefer a claim to any supernatural wisdom or discernment. He precedes his gospel narrative with these words: "Foras

much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eye-witnesses, and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed."* It is not herein pretended by Luke that he considered himself more divinely assisted than any of the other authors, of his time, who had undertaken to write gospel histories; and who, it seems, were not few, but "many." He merely claims an equal privilege with the rest, and asserts an equal degree of authenticity in behalf of his own writings. "Forasmuch," says he, "as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,.....it seemed good to me ALSO,.....to write," &c. He, it is true, speaks of himself as "having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first:" but he does not deny, either directly or by implication, that the numerous other writers had an equally correct knowledge of the events which they recorded; nor does he seek, in any way, to invalidate their testimony. It is probable that he has reference to some of the books which were among the many Gospels, Epistles, &c., frequently alluded to by various writers during the first four centuries after the Christian * Luke, i. 1—4.

era; which were, in all, according to Rev. Jeremiah Jones, no less than sixty-nine or seventy in number; and several of which were, as late as during the middle of the second century, regarded as of equal authority with Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.

We will now devote a little time to the consideration of those passages in the Old Testament, which are quoted or referred to in the Gospels and in the book of Acts; and which are generally considered as having relation to CHRIST,-being supposed, for the most part, to have been originally uttered, with express reference to him, centuries before he was born.

It can hardly be expected that I shall notice particularly all the passages which have been viewed in this light, as a variety of opinion is found to exist among eminent critics respecting the real number of instances wherein the language employed may be fairly construed as a prophecy concerning Jesus. Some enthusiasts, in whose mental composition marvellousness preponderated to such an extent as to hold almost entire sway over the power of impartial discrimination, have imagined that Christ was predicted in a multitude of instances through out the Old Testament, not only in the so-called prophetic books, but in various parts of the poetical writings, and even in the Pentateuch. They have fancied that they have been able to discern types of Jesus in many of the noted personages of early time, whose biographies are contained in the Jewish Scriptures-particularly the

law-giver, Moses, and King Solomon. But other writers, of less credulity and more judgment, have endeavored to show that many of the scriptural predictions interpreted in the way I have just now described, had no allusion, not the most remote even, to the person of Jesus or to his career, but were fulfilled a long while previous to his coming.

Let us examine this whole matter calmly, and in the spirit of the utmost impartiality,-neither desiring to make it appear that Christ was foretold wherein he was not, nor wishing to represent it as absurd to believe that the wise and good, for a long period before his birth, had cherished a strong and reasonable expectation that some Teacher, corresponding to him in character, would arise and bless the nations.

We will attend first to the examination of some of those prophetic quotations which we find in the writings of the four Evangelists, and which are generally accompanied with an intimation that they were, in some sense, fulfilled in Jesus and in the main incidents of his life. It will be my aim to demonstrate, by comparing scripture with scripture, that many of these passages are erroneously interpreted. I will introduce them in the order in which they occur in the evangelical writings.

In the first chapter of Matthew, the writer, after giving an account of the birth of Christ and the peculiar circumstances attending it, says: "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled wnich was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold a virgin shall

be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emanuel; which being interpreted, is, God with us."*

The passage herein cited may be found in Isaiah vii. 14. Any person, with an unprejudiced mind, will at once perceive, on reading the whole chapter, that the verse in question had no more reference to the birth of Christ than to the birth of Napoleon, or General Washington. It is stated that a conspiracy was on foot to overcome and vanquish Ahaz, king of Judah; who, in consequence, despaired greatly,-but was assured by the prophet that the Almighty would befriend and assist him, whereof he would first give him a sign :-"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings." The land alluded to was really thus forsaken, a very few years afterwards. According to the prediction, the birth of the child spoken of must have taken place before this event transpired. This was many hundred years before the appearance of Christ: so this prophecy could not have referred to him.

The second chapter of Matthew contains allusions to no less than three alleged predictions concerning Jesus. It is said that when the tidings of his birth reached the *Matt. i. 22, 23. † Isa. vii. 14—16.