The "kings of the earth" had no hand in it, for they knew nothing about it.

And 3rdly, Those who were concerned did by no means "form vain designs," since they effected their cruel purposes.

And lastly, From that time to the present, God has not set Jesus as his king upon the "holy hill of Sion," as the Psalm imports, nor given him "the nations for his inheritance, nor the uttermost parts of the earth for a possession." The next prophecy usually adduced to prove that Jesus is the Messiah, is The passage quoted from Micah v.

2, in the 2d chapter of Mat.--"But from Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the chiefs of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is, to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from old, from the days of hidden ages." This passage probably refers to the Messiah, but by no means signifies that this Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem, as asserted by Matthew; but only, that he was to be derived from Bethlehem, the city of Jesse, the father of David of famous memory, whose family was venerable for its antiquity, " being of the days of hidden ages." And this interpretation is known, and acknowledged, by Hebrew scholars.

But in order to cut short the dispute, w will permit the passage to be interpreted as signifying that Bethlehem was to be the birth place of the Messiah.
What then?
Will a man's being born in Bethlehem be sufficient to make him to be the Messiah foretold by the Hebrew prophets?
Surely it has been made plain in the beginning of this work, that many more characteristic marks than this must meet in one person in order to constitute him the Messiah described by them! In Zechariah ix.