the law." 3. He makes a strict observance of the law of Moses a preparation for entering into the kingdom of heaven. "There is one God, and there is none other but he; and to love him with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." This was uttered by one of the scribes; to which the Saviour responds, "Thou art not far from the kingdom of God." "Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." The Saviour, being asked by a certain lawyer what he should do to inherit eternal life, refers him to certain precepts of the law of Moses, and requires him to obey them; adding, "Do this and thou shalt live." 4. He expressly calls the law of Moses, "the commandment of God," and "the word of God." He says, too, that "the Lord spake by the prophets." "Laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men." "Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition." "Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." "Now all this was done

that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet." "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet." The phrase "of the Lord by the prophet," means, that God spake through the prophet. 5. The reference to Moses and the prophets, in the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus, would hardly be proper, if that book were not regarded as divine. "They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them. If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither would they be persuaded though one rose from the dead." 6. He often refers to predictions in the Old Testament, as genuine announcements of future events. The coming of John the Baptist as the forerunner of the Messiah; the mission of Christ as one who should shew judgement to the Gentiles; the blindness and perversity of the Jews; the destruction of the Jews by the Romans; and many other events.

Some examples, where he makes the prophecies refer especially to himself, may deserve to be quoted in full. "Thinkest thou that I cannot pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be." That Christ regarded the Old Testament as containing veritable predictions concerning himself-not passages fulfilled by mere accommodation-there can be no doubt. The passage just quoted is evidence of this. It was necessary that certain things, connected with his death, should take place in the manner they did; for the Scriptures had so predicted. The Scriptures, then, in his view, were divine; at least so far as these predictions are concerned. Such is the testimony of Christ; and with Christians this must be sufficient to end all controversy. We will give a few more examples. "O, fools and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures, the things concerning himself.” "Then opened he their understanding that they might understand the Scriptures." "Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me." "These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." "Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he spake of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words."

I know that many attempts are made to disprove the divine inspiration of the Old Testament Scriptures; but how this can be successfully done, without rejecting also the authority of Christ, I am unable to perceive. Both seem to be so related that one must fall with the other.

Some objections deserve to be noticed. 1. Many portions of the Old Testament, said to be fulfilled in the New, are not really predictions, and are only fulfilled in an accommodated sense. The passage is verified by the event, but not fulfilled as a prediction. "In Ramah was there a voice heard," &c., Matt. ii. 18, can ap

ply to the weeping mothers in Bethlehem, only in an accommodated sense. "Out of Egypt have I called my Son," Matt. ii. 15, can apply to Christ only in the same way. "He shall be called a Nazarene," admits only of a similar construction. Instances of this kind are quite numerous in the New Testament. But in most of these cases, the fulfilment of the passage is so plainly a mere fitting of its words to the event, that no one can suppose that the Saviour or apostles had any other view of the subject. This principle, however, does not apply to all cases where the Old Testament is said to be fulfilled in the New. In many places real predictions must have been intended. They are spoken of in such ways, as to preclude the idea of mere accommodation. Besides, the Saviour expressly says, that Moses spoke of him—that the Scriptures testify of him-that he suffered in the manner he did, because the Scriptures must be fulfilled. He expounded to his disciples, all things in the Scriptures, concerning himself. He opened their understanding that they might understand the Scriptures. Such language as this can be explained only on the supposition, that, according to Christ, the Scriptures of the Old Testament are inspired productions. And if Christ is not good authority here, I know not how his authority is to be vindicated in regard to any other subject; for on no subject does he speak more plainly. 2. It has been maintained that the respect shown by Christ to the Scriptures, was only outward and apparent, a mere yielding to existing opinions which it was not deemed important to expose. This opinion is not in harmony with existing facts, saying nothing of the duplicity which it ascribes to the Son of God. It is not only to the Jews, that he speaks of the Scriptures with respect; but he addresses his disciples in the same manner, and on one occasion, while travelling in a private manner with two of them, when there could be no occasion for concealment or duplicity, he expounds to them all things in the Scriptures concerning himself. If he was not sincere, when he taught his disciples that the Jewish Bible was divine, and contained predictions of himself, I know not in what part of his teachings he is to be trusted as uttering his real sentiments. That he was understood by his disciples, as teaching what we have

supposed, does not admit of doubt, since they uniformly represent the subject in the same way, as may be shown by abundance of quotations. But on the principle of accommodation to existing opinions among the Jews, how does it happen that the Saviour is not more lenient towards the existing practices of the same people? He tells them plainly, that though they had the law, they did not keep the law. They showed practically to the world, that they did not believe Moses' writings; and how could they believe him? They said, but did not. And many of the most pungent rebukes are administered to them, for non-compliance with their divine guide. Add to the foregoing considerations, that the Jews had the an oral law, which, on the principle we are discussing, had the same claims to indulgence with the written law. Yet, while the one is uniformly spoken of as divine, the other is reprehended. The spurious law had perverted the true. The one was the "commandment of God," the other taught only "the doctrines and commandments of men." The Jews had made void the former by the latter. With the views we have put forth, the one was divine and worthy of all confidence, the other was a mere human device and very corrupt. The Saviour treats them both, as if this were his opinion. The principle of accommodation does not explain the difference. 3. The Saviour did not conform to the law of Moses, nor did he require it of his disciples. Our reply is, that in some instances, the Saviour and his disciples did comply with the law of Moses, and enjoined the same upon others. The explanation of the matter is as follows:-, -Judaism was not binding on Christ or his disciples. Jesus was greater than the temple, and was Lord of the Sabbath day. It was not necessary that he should observe the requirements of the law. It was not necessary that his disciples should do it. This will explain all instances of non-compliance. On the other hand, it must be remembered that Jesus and his followers were Jews, as well as Christians, and entitled to all the privileges of that people. Of these they availed themselves, when the occasion and circumstances seemed to require. In some instances, the conformity was prompted by the desire to avoid Jewish hostility; more generally to accommodate the very natural preju

4

dices of the Jewish converts, and thereby more effectually to advance the interests of the gospel. The intercourse of the Christians with the Gentiles, was, to some extent, guided by the same principle. This principle is defended and illustrated by the apostle Paul, and acted on by him and others, both with the Jews and Gentiles ;5 yet in no manner, I apprehend, that can justly be considered a compromise of conscience. The extent to which the principle might be carried, was a matter about which honest, or even inspired men, might differ. Hence Peter carried the principle too far, according to Paul; though the principle itself is one that Paul had defended, and on which he professes to have acted in his intercourse with all men. Nor is his consistency entirely obvious from what is recorded of the circumstances; though things, not recorded, may have been a sufficient defence. This matter, however, is one on which we do not propose to offer extended remarks.

Two or three examples, having some apparent connexion with the objection now under consideration, may deserve a separate notice. The washing of hands, and frequent fasting, were not required by the law of Moses, but by the tradition of the elders; and though the Jews observed these forms, and reproached Christ and his disciples for not doing it, yet they could, in no sense, be considered binding on the latter, since they everywhere reject these traditions as uninspired. The lepers, on whom Christ enjoined that they should present themselves to the priests, and offer the gifts that Moses commanded,7 were required to observe a civil, rather than a religious regulation, which was necessary to restore them to their friends and to the enjoyment of society. Jesus said to the adulteress, "Hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no more." The condemnation here referred to was legal, and not moral; and it was no part of the Saviour's mission to be judge in such matters. That he did not condemn the woman's conduct, in a moral sense, must not be inferred. The injunction, "Go and sin no more," excludes this idea.

4 See Acts xv. 5; xvi. 3; xxi. 18-26. 6 Gal. ii. 11-14.

51 Cor. ix. 19-23. 7 Matt. viii. 4; Mark i. 44; Luke v. 14.