I may have my doubts of both the Law and the Gospel; but when I observe how, to use our former expression, the two fit into each other, and how far this mutual adaptation overpasses all human sagacity, there is no resisting the conviction that the Gospel is from God: and then, forasmuch as the Gospel recognises the Law as divine, there is no resisting the inference, that the Law also is from God.

And thus, as we think, the argument employed by Christ in our text, is both stated and vindicated. We have, indeed, somewhat exceeded the limits of his argument; but we have included whatever is needful for its illustration. That Moses should be believed, and he himself disbelieved-this is what Christ denounces as impossible; and we prove the impossibility by shewing the superhuman skill in the precise adaptation of Christianity to Judaism. This adaptation, the wondrous fitting of one system into the other, shews (for this is a fair, though different view of the matter) that the two systems proceed from the same Author. The artist who made the first complicated machine, must have made the second which unites with it so wonderfully, and thus forms a perfect symmetry. And if these Jews really believed the Law to be from God, they must have entertained a like belief with regard to the Gospel; they could not overlook the argreement of the two. This agreement sufficiently demonstrated the sameness of authorship; and when, therefore, they rejected Christ, the necessary inference was, that they did not in reality believe Moses, however they might in profession and the Redeemer might address them in the language before us, "Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me."

We have yet, however, to allow, that there was something remarkable in the employment of this language; seeing that the system of Christianity was as yet, but imperfectly announced. It is easy for ourselves to trace the wonderful correspondence between the two dispensations, and to argue against the wilfulness of infidelity which is proof against the evidence thus furnished of both. But the Jews, when addressed by Jesus, were in a different position; they had not the same acquaintance with the yet unfinished redemption; and their power was therefore less of comparing Moses and Christ. It is certain, however, that Christ, in the early stages of his ministry, had given sufficient proof that he was "the prophet" whom Moses foretold: and the proof had already overcome the unbelief of the Samaritans. The Samaritans, you know, rejected all the Old Testament, except the five books of Moses: hence their Scriptural evidence, that Jesus was the Messiah, must have been derived exclusively from Moses. Yet in the chapter preceding that from which our text is taken, we find many of the Samaritans declaring, "We have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world." So that before Jesus died and before the system of Christianity was fully revealed, there must have been proof, in his miracles and conversations, to all who believed Moses, that he was the long promised Deliverer.

It would not, indeed, consist with the plan of our discourse, that we examine into the testimony given by Moses to Christ: but this reference to the case of the Samaritans is sufficient, because it peculiarly demonstrates that they who only believed Moses, and had only Moses, had evidence within reach that Jesus was the Messiah, and that consequently, there was full justice in the accusation,

that the Jews disbelieved Moses, seeing that they disbelieved Christ. It is far more for our profit, that we take the argument in its greatest extent; and we would, therefore, commend it again to your earnest attention. The argument is, that the correspondences between the Law and the Gospel, are so numerous and so accurate, that no one could have forged the Gospel, because no one, whatever his acquaintance with the types of the Law, could have invented an exact system of antetypes. We are sure, the more you ponder this statement, the more convincing will it seem to you. You have only to propose this question to yourselves, when asking proof of the divine origin of the Gospel: Is it supposable, that men with the Old Testament in their hands, could have forged a New, which should answer alike in every particular to that of the Old? For it is undeniable that the New explains all the types of the Old, and fulfils its main prophecies. Was not this impossible, whether by an enthusiast or an impostor? Who can believe, that the Old Testament-long imperfectly understood, because full of what seemed inexplicable enigma-should be suddenly interpreted, its figures turned into realities, its shadows into substances, its predictions into occurrences, and all by the skill of a few illiterate fishermen ? This is an opinion whose reception lays a greater demand on faith, than any or all the miracles which Christianity admits.. Be the Old Testament true or false, more than human skill was displayed in so forming the New, that it should correspond in the minutest particulars with the Old-solve its difficulties, satisfy its promises, perfect its sacrifices, and accomplish its visions: but, of course, so far as we ascertain the New Testament divine, we have witness in its pages that the Old Testament is divine: and thus, with no material of proof but what is furnished by the connexion between the Testaments, we may reach the conclusion, that the whole Bible is divine. It is then true of the men of every generation, that if they believe not the writings of Moses, neither can they believe the words of Christ.

The Bible, though its several parts were composed in different ages, and therefore by different writers, is an uniform book, presenting throughout the same truths, though with great variety of exhibition, and marked throughout by a surprising similarity of style. What does this prove, but that the Bible throughout must have had the same Author, however that Author may have employed various scribes? It is, we think, one of the most beautiful of contemplations, this of the sameness of authorship, which may be traced in Holy Writ that men, separated from each other by long intervals of time, should have taken up successively the lofty topic of our redemption, and, whether in the effusions of poetry, or the enactments of legislation, or the anticipations of prophecy, or the narrations of history, should have told the same truths, and announced the same measures; and this, too, in a manner so peculiarly their own, that you cannot meet with a page of their writings from the book of Genesis downward to Revelations; and not instantly recognise it as a page of the Bible. We say of this, it can be accounted for on no supposition, but that of each having been moved by the same Divine Spirit; so that to deny the inspiration of Scripture is to make its compositions more marvellous than when considered superhuman. In reading the Bible, I seem always to hear the same voice: whether the volume is informing me how the unshapen chaos resolved itself at the Creator's bidding into symmetry and life-or men, who, familiar with the

scenes, are gathering centuries into sentences; or the lawgiver is arranging the ceremonies of the mystic volume, or historians are discoursing of battles and captivities, or Evangelists describing the institutions, and Apostles unfolding the doctrines of Christianity-I seem always to hear the same voice, as though the words of John, the exile in Patmos, were the echo of those of Moses the leader of Israel. There is vast difference in the subjects successively touched on, but notwithstanding there is a tone, which I always recognise, and which always impresses the feeling that I am hearkening to the same speaker. There seems no change in the instrument, though continual change in the sound; as if at one time the whirlwind swept the chords, that I may be astonished with the utterance of wrath and devastation, and at another, they were touched by an angel's hand, that I might be soothed by the melody of mercy. And while the same voice is breathed from every page of Scripture, it never issues from any other composition. The commentator cannot speak in the same tone as the prophet or the evangelist. What poet can forge a psalm that shall pass for David's? What preacher can construct a sermon that might be received as delivered by Peter or Paul? Look at the Apocrypha; you perceive directly the Scripture style imitated, but that there is only imitation. We defy a man to write like the writers in the Bible; and yet all the writers in the Bible write alike. We say they write alike: their styles are very different; you have the gorgeous and the simple, the didactic and the argumentative; but still they write alike. Whenever you hear a Scriptural quotation, you know it to be Scriptural, though you are not acquainted with the passage. We again affirm there is an evidence in it which ought to be irresistible, in that sameness of authorship, which alone will account for what we observe in the Bible. You have no possible explanation, if you reject the inspiration of Scripture, of the fact to which we have referred—the fact that the same truths are delivered in the figures and predictions of the Old Testament, and the realities and occurrences of the New. There is the same scheme carried on by the wanderings of patriarchs, the sacrifices of priests, the ambition of kings, and the sufferings of martyrs. The same style is preserved by the poet in his hymns, by the prophet in his visions, the lawgiver in his codes, the historian in his annals; so that as though the Author never died, but appeared at one time in one character, and another in another, the Bible comes to me as the dictate of one mind, and the writing of one pen. Inspiration only accounts for this; but we cannot imagine any other solution. And if (for it is on this our text bids us fasten) if there be such a sameness between the Jewish and Christian dispensations, that all the types in the one, find exact antetypes in the other, and thus the two have such a relationship, that they compose one uniform system; we must receive both or reject both. If we believe Moses we must believe Christ, and if we believe Christ we must believe Moses: and this serves to vindicate what might otherwise seem difficult, that no Jew can truly believe his own religion, and yet deny the Christian religion: For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me."

But we have now, lastly, and very briefly, to inquire into THE Force of THE REASONING, THAT IF THE WRITINGS OF Moses were not believed, NEITHER WOULD THE WORDS OF CHRIST BE: "For if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"

Now we are wont to attach great worth to the privilege that those enjoyed, who were with Christ when on earth, and heard from his own lips the tidings of salvation: we imagine to ourselves the extraordinary power with which the message would come home to the conscience and the heart, if in place of being delivered by one of our brethren, Christ himself should announce it, and discourse on the great things of atonement and intercession. We cannot think that there would be an inattentive listener in the most crowded assembly, if the Saviour were to re-appear as the minister of the sanctuary, and bid the weary and heavy laden to come to him for rest; and we might be inclined to suppose, that the amount of real conversions would be greatly increased, and that, as men departed from the scene of ministration, they would, for the most part, carry away the words in their heart, and not, as is now too generally the case, leave equally behind them, the church and the sermon. But there seems every likelihood that these opinions are erroneous. There would unquestionably be a greater increase of attention, and men would hearken with more excited and elevated feelings, if the Redeemer were visible amongst us, filling the office of teacher of the nations. We can be quite persuaded that there would be banished from our religious assemblies, every appearance of listlessness and languor, and that as the rich and expressive oratory was poured forth, which compelled even his enemies to exclaim, "Never man spake like this man," there would be a spell over the entranced and enraptured audience, and, it might be, a high feeling of devotion towards the celestial speaker, with somewhat of a rising determination, that he should not plead in vain for God and truth. But it is evident from the passage now under review, that we should not be warranted in expecting deeper and more permanent results? If the fact, that the Jews had resisted the writings of Moses, proved that there was no hope of him being overcome by the words of Christ, we might infer, that those who withstand the preaching of Christ's ministers would withstand the preaching of Christ himself; that the infidelity which was proof against the Scriptures of the Old Testament, might be expected (thus he argues) to resist the discourses of Messiah: "If ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" And assuredly, if the amount of resistance, which would suffice for the rejecting Christ's words, was not greater than that displayed in rejecting the writings of Moses, it must be a vain idea, that those who disbelieve Christianity, as it is now published to the world, would yield themselves to his disciples, if they had heard it pronounced by the Founder himself. We cannot doubt that he who has the whole Bible in his hands, the New Testament as well as the Old, has more to overcome ere he can be an infidel, than he who had only the writings of Moses. The Bible is evidently a progressive book, and as its contents have grown, so also has the demonstration of its divinity. If then we refuse the Scriptures, we manifest greater obduracy than the Jews, who resisted only a portion of the Scriptures; and hence if it followed from their not believing the writings of Moses, that the Jews could not believe the words of Christ, it must yet more necessarily follow, that if we are not convinced by the study of the Bible, neither should we be by the preaching of Jesus.

Now this conclusion, to which our text unavoidably leads, deserves, on every account, your attentive consideration. There was no likelihood, you observe, that the Jews would believe the words of Christ. But why not? Because they

disbelieved the writings of Moses. This was, in fact, saying that that infidelity which was too staunch for the writings of Moses, must also be too staunch for the words of Christ; but we have more in our possession than the writings of Moses-we have the whole canon of Scripture; and to disbelieve this argues for stauncher infidelity than to disbelieve the Pentateuch; so that there would be less likelihood than in the case of the Jews, that those of us on whom the Bible makes no practical impression, would be converted to righteousness if privileged to hear the Gospel from the Redeemer himself. And why is this? Can it be denied, that if I were to see Christ work miracles, and to hearken to him explaining, with divine eloquence, the mysteries of redemption, there would be brought to bear on me a more powerful instrument than is put forth by the written word, whatever its internal and external evidence? We reply, at once, there would be a greater appeal to the senses, and a strong excitement of the feelings, but there is no reason to suppose that the heart would be necessarily more affected. The main thing to be observed is, that whatever the instrument employed, the result of conversion is brought round by the Holy Ghost. It is not the instrument which converts, but the Divine Agent who makes use of that instrument. Paul may plant, and Apollos water, but it is God who giveth the increase. If I saw a miracle, or if I heard Christ preach, and became, in consequence, a believer, it would not be the miracle or the preaching that converted me; it would be the Holy Ghost employing the miracle or the preaching as his engine, and therewith assaulting the strong hold of unbelief. In like manner, if I am converted in studying the written word, it is not a certain chapter or a certain verse which effects the moral change, it is that celestial Agent who indited the word, and who now applies it with power to the work of renovation. We are sure that there is no respect of persons with God, and that consequently, one generation is dealt with by the same laws as another. We must believe, that whether it be by the miracle or the Scripture that the Holy Spirit operates, the amount of influence is the same; so that he who could resist in the one case, would equally resist in the other.

We wish you to be clear in this, for we think it a matter of the first-rate importance. One man is converted by seeing a miracle, another by reading a chapter; the Holy Spirit is in both instances the converting agent, working in the first case by the miracle, in the second by the chapter; but we have no right to think, that in handling the miracle, the Spirit applied a greater effort than in handling the chapter. The miracle in itself seems a mightier engine than the chapter; but the arm which is to wield the engine, so to speak, may so adjust the strength which it puts forth on different occasions, that the blow struck by the chapter shall be of precisely the same weight as the blow struck by the miracle. It is on this principle that we account for the argument employed by Christ in the text. The Jews had heretofore been attacked by the writings of Moses; now they were attacked by the words of Jesus. They had withstood the first attack, that of the writing, and therefore (thus Christ reasons) there was little or no hope of their being overcome by the second attack, that of the word. Why not? Were not the words more powerful than the writing? Doubtless they were; on all human calculation the words would be successful when the writings were ineffective. Now observe; in resisting the writings of Moses, the Jews had resisted the Holy Spirit speaking in those writings;