was by birth the king of Israel, and yet a poor man; he was of most exalted rank and powers, and yet meek, lowly in his spirit and deportment; he conferred miraculous benefits on the people, as Isaiah had promised, though despised and rejected of men, as that prophet predicted. He was a Jew, condemned by Jews, though he was executed upon a cross, the Roman mode of punishment. They parted his garment among them, and for his vesture cast lots, as David predicted, though these two things seem contradictory; for if they divided the clothes into shares, why cast lots? But there was one seamless garment, which they thought a pity to rend and divide; for this, therefore, they east lots, to determine who should have the whole. They gave him vinegar and gall to drink; and as it was predicted that not a bone of him should be broken, when they gave the coup-de-grace to two others, who were crucified with him, Jesus was passed by, on the conviction that he was dead already; but to make this quite sure," one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and forthwith came thereout blood and water; and he that saw it bore witness, that you might believe.”

He made his grave with the wicked, being buried near Calvary, which was the place where criminals were executed; but he was deposited with the rich, in his death, as Joseph, an honourable counsellor, lent him his own new tomb. But, according to his own prediction, Jesus rose, on the third day; and his cause, far from being ruined by his crucifixion, derived from his cross its noblest triumphs: ac+

cording to the prediction of Isaiah," He shall divide the portion with the strong, because he poured out his soul unto death." His appearance, life, and death, have created a new era in the world. No person that ever appeared in it, has had so powerful an influence on its fortunes. This influence is still increasing; and, after the lapse of almost two thousand years, the name of Jesus is as fresh, as fragrant, as powerful, as victorious over barbarous and idolatrous nations, as when it was first uttered by the lips of man.

How do you account for the peculiarity of this one Jew, born in an obscure town, and executed as a criminal in a country on the borders of the Mediterranean, eighteen hundred years ago? The predictions concerning him are in the hands of his own nation, scattered over the face of the earth: but they do not believe on him. Then you cannot say they invented these prophecies, to honour him. The predictions that meet and find their fulfilment in him, are numerous, various, minute, and such as, previously to their fulfilment, would have been thought contradictory; so that if one part of them came true, the other could not. How do you account for this? For it becomes you, as honest thinking men, to have some solution for the enigma. If you say, the predictions were thrown out by accident, and found their fulfilment by chance; what has been done may be done again. Do you, then, throw out some prediction of a great personage that shall come into the world; let another tell when he shall be born; a third, where; let a fourth describe his person and

character; a fifth, tell the works he shall perform; a sixth, describe the death he shall die, with the dying words he shall utter, and the mockeries he shall endure; a seventh, tell the triumphs he shall afterwards enjoy, and the revolutions he shall create in the world. Then, leave it to chance to produce a person in whom all these predictions shall be fulfilled. But I see you decline my offer, and have no inclination to have your own solution of the difficulty brought to a test so severe; yet why not, if your solution be true?

You exclaim, " I see whither you are driving us, but we are not disposed to go so fast; for we have thought of a difficulty which perhaps may puzzle you. Christians say, the History of Jesus, this singular Jew, was written by his disciples, who were themselves Jews, and so was the rest of the New Testament. Then why was it not written in Hebrew, as the Old Testament was? Instead of this, the Christian scriptures were written in Greek. Is not that a sign that the whole story was false?" No; If the New Testament had been quite the reverse. written in the same language as the Old, then it would have created suspicion of falsehood; for the pure Hebrew, in which Moses and the prophets wrote, had become a dead language, ages before the apostles penned the gospels and epistles. When the Jews were, for their idolatry, driven captives to Babylon, seventy years spent there, broke the force and spoiled the purity of their tongue, by mingling it with a foreign dialect. And when the Syrian captains, who succeeded Alexander in the govern

ment of the neighbouring kingdoms, tyrannized over the Jews, the Syriac language forced its way among them, and at length superseded the Hebrew, as a living tongue.

You reply," If this was a good reason why the New Testament should not have been written in Hebrew, since that had become a dead language, it is no reason why it should have been written in Greek. Why was it not composed in the Syriac, which the Jews had adopted, just as books now published in Italy are written in Italian, which has superseded Latin, the ancient language of that country?" Because the New Testament was designed for universal use; and the Syriac was a language of very limited application. But the Greek was then what French is now, a tongue with which a man might travel over a great part of the world. The Jews themselves, who lived in the countries around Judea, spoke Greek, in which they had a version of their Scriptures, just mentioned under the title of the Septuagint. Greek was, in many important respects, the best language in which books intended for all nations and ages, could have been written.

"Now I have caught you!" the infidel exclaims. "You say the apostles, who were Jews, whose native tongue was oriental, a dialect of the Hebrew, wrote in Greek; how should those fishermen know Greek?" They declare that their master gave them, by miracle, the knowledge of all the languages of the nations among whom they were to go to preach his gospel. Among these, therefore, must be found

Greek, the most useful, because the most widely diffused speech.

"Well, if you have escaped us again," the infidel replies, we think we have now discovered an argument against the New Testament, which you will find it hard to answer. The apostles, then, wrote Greek as an Englishman would French, or a Frenchman, English. Now tell us, frankly, whether there are any marks of this in the Greek of the New Testament?" There are. This, which is one of the most difficult peculiarities to imitate, strongly marks the language of the Christian Scriptures. Here two persons are required as judges, one who knows the native tongue of the writer, and the other who can judge of the perfect purity of that in which the book is written. If an Englishman writes in French, another Englishman who knows something of French, will perceive the marks of a native Englishman; and a Frenchman who may not understand English, will discover that it is not the language of a native of France. Apply this test to the New Testament. Let a Greek scholar, familiar with none but pure Greek, read the New Testament, (for he will be able,) and he will immediately pronounce it not the production of a native Greek. Then let a Jew who understands Greek read it, and he will tell you, it must have been written by Jews. This then is exactly what the New Testament says of itself.

This, however, is a peculiarity most difficult to be counterfeited. If you doubt it, try the experiment, and attempt to speak English as a Frenchman would;