of the Psalm is avowed in the closing verse, viz. "The of DAVID the son of Jesse are ended."

prayers

Some one may now feel disposed to inquire, if I believe that Christ's coming was ever foretold in any sense whatever. In reply to a query like this, I should unhesitatingly say, that to my mind it appears reasonable to suppose that the wise and good, who had studied the law of mental and moral progress, by the operation of which all improvement is evolved, may have anticipated, sometime previous to Christ's advent, that a Teacher would arise, who should be in advance of themselves and all who had preceded them. I cannot doubt that there were then (as there have been since and are now) some pure and loving men,

"Whose souls, when struggling, like the moaning sea,
With the dim longings of humanity,"

felt a deep and abiding assurance that there would be some more lucid exhibition of truth, and some loftier exemplification of moral excellence, than they had witnessed. But I find nothing sufficient to convince me that any one knew, centuries beforehand, exactly when Jesus should come; under what peculiar circumstances he should be born; what sort of a person he would be, in all respects; what trials and sufferings he would undergo; or what death he should die.

It is true, that the Jews were expecting a "Christ," or Messiah, when Jesus came ;-such had been their anticipation for a long while. But he was not the expected one! He did not correspond, at all, with their

ideas. They were looking for a temporal King—a civil and military leader, who should conduct them forth in triumphant battle against their national enemies, and ultimately make Jerusalem the pride of the whole eartiɩ. They understood their prophets to foretell the coming of such a personage. And certainly they were as com petent judges as modern commentators can possibly be, of their own Scriptures! They were thorough-going Monarchists-they believed that kings ruled jure divino. Jesus, on the contrary, if he can be said to have favored any theory of human government, was an out-and-out Republican. They prided themselves on their lineal descent from Abraham: and they expected their Messiah or Anointed One to be born of David's royal line. He set no value upon hereditary greatness; but esteemed a royal child no higher than the offspring of a beggar, other circumstances being equal. He even associated with "publicans and sinners," the poor, the lowly, and the outcast, in preference to seeking the company of Pharisees and those who sat in Moses' seat. His course in this respect, as you well know, was often made the subject of reproach by the proud Theological doctors and expounders of his time. He honored no man merely for his pedigree. Character, mental and moral worth, was what he most respected. With him, truly,

"Rank was but the guinea's stamp."

He hesitated not to denounce the royal, ecclesiastic confederates and dignitaries, in his day, as "hypocrites," "serpents," a "generation of vipers," &c. He said to

them, "Ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness."*

If Jesus had claimed any peculiar glory on account of his descent, he would have shown that he indulged the old notion of kingly aristocracy, the superiority of royal over plebeian blood, and other kindred absurdities that flow from the same fountain whence have emanated all pretexts for tyrannical usurpation. The fact is, he never uttered a boast respecting his earthly origin: and he attached no importance to the mere accident of birth, in any way. Had he done so, he would have acted contrary to the spirit and genius of his religion and his character as portrayed in the New Testament.

Royal children are generally born in state, and surrounded by obsequious attendants. Jesus, we are told, was born in a stable.

"Cold on his cradle the dew-drops were shining,
Low lay his head with the beasts of the stall."

His entrance into the world was accompanied by no signs or trappings of human royalty. His father was an humble mechanic; both his parents were poor, as respects this world's goods; and, at his birth, he was wrapped in swaddling clothes. Every thing connected with his worldly origin was humble-entirely void of royal pomp and display. From this fact we may learn the useful and important lesson, that true greatness does not depend upon the circumstances of our birth: for, be our origin

* Matt. chap. xxiii. and elsewhere.

never so obscure and mean in the eyes of the world, we may nevertheless be really great and exalted, if we possess true excellence of soul. This valuable teaching we lose, if we consider Jesus as inheriting greatness from David! It may possibly be said, however, by those who advocate the idea of Christ's descent from the Royal Psalmist, that they never supposed him to have inherited thereby his superior excellence, or to have derived any species of glory from his ancestry. Then, of what advantage was it to be born of his lineage? What special significancy would there be in the circumstance of the Prince of Peace being lineally descended from a noted fighter, who killed a giant by slinging a stone at him, and then cut his head off! Nay, let me ask further, Of what moral advantage could it possibly have been for him to descend in a direct line from Solomon, who "loved many strange women;" having had "seven hundred wives and three hur dred concubines"?*

Some of the prominent particulars alleged, in the Gospels, concerning Christ, we will now briefly examine, under distinct heads; commencing with the story of

THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION.

This is recorded by only two of the Evangelists, Matthew and Luke.† The others say nothing about it, directly or indirectly. In neither of the Epistles, nor in any other part of the Bible, is there the slightest allu

* 1 Kings, xi. 1, 3. † Matt. i. 18-25. Luke, i. 26-33.

sion to it, direct or indirect. Jesus himself never made any mention of it; or if he did, no evangelist or apostle has given any intimation of the fact. If it were true that he was conceived by supernatural agency, is it not probable he would have referred to that circumstance, in some way, when asserting that he came to do the will of Him that sent him; that he was commissioned of the Father, &c.?

The account, if literally construed, involves some gross absurdities; and, as a whole, it bears the indelible stamp of fiction. It has no parallel, except in Heathen Mythology; and many eminent Christian believers have rejected it as fabulous. In the "Improved Version of the New Testament," published several years since under the editorial supervision of some very learned Eng lish Unitarians, those portions of Matthew and Luke which contain the narrative are printed in italics, to dis tinguish them from other parts of the gospel history; and to imply that they were considered, by the editors, as of exceeding doubtful authority. Many of the most learned and excellent men who have attentively studied the Bible, have come to the conclusion that the whole story is an interpolation-something invented after the several periods at which Matthew and Luke wrote, and foisted into the books which bear their names. Several preachers in both the Unitarian and Universalist denominations in this country, view the matter in this light. And some who thus take the liberty to go behind the present Canonical Record, withhold from others the