the Lord, and evil hath not been found in thee, all thy days.

of

"Yet a man is risen to pursue thee, and to seek thy soul: but the soul my lord shall be bound in the bundle of life with the Lord thy God: and the souls of thine enemies, them shall he sling out, as out of the middle of

a 'sling.

"And it shall come to pass, when the Lord shall have done to my lord according to all the good he hath spoken concerning thee, and shall have appointed thee ruler over Israel.

"That this shall be no grief unto thee, nor offence of heart unto my lord, either that thou hast shed blood causeless, or that my lord hath avenged himself: but when the Lord shall have dealt well with my lord, then remember thy handmaid."

There needs no comment upon this; a child can see the similarity and make the application. As a last argument to prove that this song was addressed to David by some flatterer about his court, knowing that it would please him and hence become a popular song; I will refer the reader to the 5th chapt., 1st Kings, 3d verse:

"And thou knowest how. that David my father could not build a house unto the name of the Lord his God, for the wars which were about him on every side, until the Lord had put them under the soles of his feet."

Solomon here tells us, that the Lord performed to his father, what in this Psalm he is said to have promised. The phraseology of Solomon, "put them under the soles of his feet," shows that he had reference to this very popular song, whose language is, "make thy enemies thy footstool."

I consider this question as now settled in my favor, namely, that the author of this Psalm was not David, but one of his parasites-that it was not intended by its author to be understood as a report of a conversation between God and his son.

I am aware that the christian will struggle hard before he will yield the point. I care not how bigoted he is, if he be only intelligent, he will be compelled to agree with me. He will with great reluctance abandon his favorite theories and particularly the ingenious system of Paul built upon this Psalm and so fully elaborated in his letter to the Hebrews. But all must go by the board, Melchisidec, tythes and all.

Since we are upon the subject of tythes we will despatch it at once.How Paul could say that Abraham gave tythes to Melchisidec, I cannot conceive, for if the writer of the book of Genesis does not say to the contrary, viz: that Melchisidec gave tythes to Abraham, there is not an assertion in the book. It appears that some marauders had come from the north and taken off the people of a few hamlets in the neighborhood of Salem (now Jerusalem,) and all their goods. Among the captives was Lot the neph

ew of Abraham. Abraham with his retainers, pursued after the robbers and retook the captives and all the plunder. On his return he halted near Salem to refresh himself and his men. Melchisidec who was then the chief man and priest of this village, feeling under obligations to Abraham for having chastised these land pirates, went out to pay him his respects and carry him some refreshments. The language of the book is:

"And Melchisidec king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and he was the priest of the most high God.

"And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth.

"And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

"And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.

"And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lifted up my hand unto the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth.

"That I will not take from a thread even to a shoe-latchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldst say, I have made Abram rich.

"Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eschol, Mamre, let them take their portion."

This is all that is said of Melchisidec. Out of this small scrap has grown the tythe system. And upon a perversion of the 110th Psalm, in which mention is made of Melchisidec, Paul has founded an argument which goes to the destruction of the Jewish priesthood, but the tythes still maintain their ground.

But who gave the tythes, Abraham or Melchisidec? Read it over again. "And he blessed him." Who was he? Here there can be uo doubt.The pronoun has relation to, and stands for Melchisidec. "And he blessed him and said, blessed be Abraham of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth, and blessed be the most high which hath delivered thine enemies into thine hand, and he gave him tythes of all." Can you say that this last he does not represent the same person that the first he did.

If you contend that here must be a change of persons and that the pronoun he in the last clause of the sentence is used for Abraham, because priests do not give but receive tythes; I reply that you must prove that at the time of this transaction there was a priesthood who received tythes—— that the tythe system was then perfectly understood. If you can do this, I will cheerfully surrender the point. I do not say that you cannot, though I do not know that you can. Until you do I shall understand this passage

according to the plain import of its words, its grammatical construction and the circumstances of the case. Who had conferred a favor? Abraham. Who felt and expressed his obligations? Melchisidec. Who ought to have received tythes or tribute money? Abraham most certainly. David, before he was king, demanded tribute not merely for protecting the rich farmers and graziers that dwelt near his strong holds or lurking places, but for not plundering them himself. The same system has existed in our own day in Scotland, under the name of black mail. And is it unreasonable to suppose that Melchisidec made Abraham a handsome present for signally chastising these marauders and thus securing him against future onslaughts? What could have induced Abraham to give away the tenth part of the goods that he declared did not belong to him--of goods not one shoe-latchet of which he would retain from the former owners? What right had Melchisidec to them? Werc these persons who had been plundered within his Dioces? Would he have received a tenth part of these same goods from their owners, if they had not been taken from them by these banditti? As Abram is particular in mentioning what he reserved of the goods and for what purpose he kept some of them back, he certainly would have included this tenth part among these reservations, had he given it to this priest.

Of all what? You answer of all

But the language is "tythes of all.” the goods that Abraham had brought back. Can I not answer with equal confidence, "of all the goods of Melchisidec's village."

For what purpose and on what oocasion Jesus introduced the first verse of this 110th Psalm I have not particularly brought to your notice. It appears that some Sadducees had been discussing with him the doctrine of the resurrection, whom he put to silence by a most singular argument, which I will presently notice. The Pharisees then took him in hand. And after some little sparring between him and a lawyer, he puts them this question: "What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he?" That is, from whom descended. They answer "the son of David." That is, he is to descend from David. He denies it. And asks "how then in spirit doth David call him Lord, saying; The Lord said unto my lord, sit thou on my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool." He continues, "If David then call him Lord how is he his son?" And the Pharisees, we are told, were nonplussed, and dared not ask him any more questions. This is a specimen of Jewish argumentation-a sample of the fairness, and candor, and great logical acumen of Jesus, or rather of the hero of these evangelists. To confuse and embarrass an opponent by a mere verbal puzzle, was in the opinion of these writers, as it is yet of all low and vulgar minds, the perfection of logic. He, who could with the most ingenuity pervert the scriptures

and torture them to suit his purposes or support his side of any question was declared the victor. But why did Jesus wish to support the position that Christ was not to descend from David? I cannot, for my life, discover any motive, other than the vain desire of appearing victorious on the wrong side of the question. None is given. That christ was to descend from David, all Jews as well as christians contend. Matthew and Luke have given two long genealogies to prove that this same Jesus did descend from David, and might, therefore, be the Christ. I know that you will say that Jesus was here speaking of himself in his divine character, or alluding to his divinity.

If he was, why did he not say so? Why say one thing and mean another? Was it becoming a son of God, sent down from heaven to instruct mankind, to deal in dark hints and inuendoes. If these Pharisees were convinced by his argument, of the truth of his position, they left him under the false impression, false, according to your own creed, that Christ as a human being, was not to descend from David. How can you reconcile the deliberate making of false impressions with sound morality?

But this argument in point of vulgarity and disingenuousness is not to be compared to the one said to have been advanced by him against the Sadducees. He wished to convince them that the dead would rise; and the method he adopted was to prove, that some men who had died, had also risen, to wit: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The argument he advanced in support of this position, is enough to raise a smile on the cheek of gravity itself. We are informed when God met Moses in Midian, in order to identify himself as the same God whom Abraham, Isaac and Jacob worhipped, he exclaimed: Iam (Jehovah,) the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob. Therefore says Jesus, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, are alive, for God is not a God of the dead, but of the living, This present tense argument when reduced to proper form must run thus: I am (at the present time,) the God of Abraham, therefore Abraham is (at this present time.)— Little did Moses suspect, when this declaration was made to him, that it contained the doctrine of a future state or announced to him the resurrection of his progenitors. Little did the Israelites and Jews when speaking of the God of their fathers and of David, dream that they were at the same time preaching the great and leading doctrine of the Pharisees. Little did they imagine that from the simple expression, "Jehovah, God of Abraham," life and immortality would be brought to light.

If the present tense will bring to life, the past will certainly put to death. God spake these words to Moses, as found in the 6th Exodus: "I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, (some time ago,) therefore, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were (some time ago,) not now.

You see they are dead, by the mere force of the past tense. The one is as powerful to kill, as the other to bring to life.

The truth is, that this argument cannot be considered as an ingenious school boy quibble, for the reason that the word Jehovah means I am. In order to have kept Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in their graves, God should, according to this sifter of words, have said to Mosęs: “I AM was the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob.”

That the reader may be satisfied I am not misrepresenting this argument to the Sadducees, I will quote Matthew, xxii. 31, 32, and Mark xii, 26, 27.

"But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying.

"I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?—

God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

"And as touching the dead, that they rise; have ye not read in the book

of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

"He is not the God of the dead, but the God of living: ye therefore do greatly err.”

The other argument put into the mouth of Jesus to prove a resurrection, (for there are but two,) is found in John, xii. 24, in these words: "Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die it abideth alone, but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.” Now we know that if a grain be dead either before or after it is put into the ground, it will not grow or bring forth fruit. Old Mr. Stump knew that when he boiled the seed rye, that he was to present to his neighbor in return for the splayed sow presented to him for a breeder. I am not about to discuss the doctrine of the resurrection. It is out of my range. But if it be as you all contend impossible to prove it, or conceive of it by the light of nature,—if our faith in this matter is to depend on revelation from which we can only be assured of it; why did Jesus undertake to prove it—why undertake to do what he could not accomplish except by a puerile perversion of Moses' writings and false physics. A son of God sent to reveal it would not have done so.

There is one prophecy quoted by Matthew, having the usual introduction, that I believe has not yet been placed on the list of panglossisms. I allude to that taken from xlii. Isaiah, found in xii. Matthew.

"Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased; I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall show judgment to the Gentiles.

"He shall not strive nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.