In the Old Testament there are two Jehovahs—the One sending and the Other sent: the latter is the Jesus Christ of the New Testament, as the following two columns of passages prove beyond the reach of quibble. (See Hodge's "Theology, Vol. I, pp. 481 to 497):—

Part I.

The Identity of Jehovah and Jesus.

Part II.

The Identity of the Decalogue and the Gospel

The Old Testament is unfinished and leaves the reader in a [unclear: st] of expectancy (Mai. iv. 5, 6); hut the New is complete, and [unclear: not] syllable to be either added or subtracted (Rev. xxii. 18-21). [unclear: Th] New Testament is founded upon the Old, and dependent upon [unclear: it] its meaning. Without the New Testament the Old is only a [unclear: falsif] prophecy (Heb. xi. 40); and without the Old Testament the [unclear: Ne] destitute of authority (Luke iv. 17-21: Acts xvii. 1-3; Acts [unclear: xv] 24-28; Luke xxiv. 46). Are people likely to go "too much to the Old Testament for their religion"? Never! Because there [unclear: they] enjoined to pay more than ten per cent, for its support (Mal. iii. 8-10 Even Jesus Christ Himself went to the Old Testament for all His [unclear: region], and He sent others also there (John v. 39; Matt. xxii. 29; [unclear: L] xxiv. 25, 27. 32, 44; II. Timothy iii. 15-17; Matt. iv. 4, 7, 10). [unclear: W] may go too little to the New Testament, but we cannot go too [unclear: m] to the Old for anything (Psalm cxix. 18, 47, 48, 72, 97, 98, 136). [unclear: B] alas! preachers may go too much to novels and second-rate [unclear: poetry] their theology (Mark vii. 7, 13; 1 Cor. ii. 2; Col. ii. 8; 1 [unclear: Timothy] 3, 4; iv. 6, 7; vi. 3-5; II. Timothy iv. 1,2).

"People now go too much to the Old Testament for their [unclear: re] gion." Do they? My opinion is that they do not go half enough either the Old or the New. God be thanked for the grand Old Testament It was Jesus Christ's only Book (Matt. iv. 1-11). I have "filed"[unclear: (] you say in Now Zealand); I am insolvent; I have asked the [unclear: J] to declare me a "bankrupt," for I have "nothing to pay" ([unclear: L] vii. 42). Were I banished to an island, and allowed my [unclear: choice] only one verse from the Bible, I would be perplexed as to [unclear: which] two I should take. And (strange as it may seem to the Presbytery the two verses are in the Old Testament (Exodus xii. 13; [unclear: Isaiah] 6). "Peoplo now going too much to the Old Testament"? [unclear: L] open the eyes of such young men that they see (II. Kings vi. [unclear: 17;] cxix. 18).

To prevent the possibility of misrepresenting any person, I [unclear: qu] from the "Presbyterian" (July, 1887, page 13) the official [unclear: report] the "explanation" in question :—Looking at the lives of may orthodox people it was found that "their morality was the [unclear: ba] morality of the Ten Commandments, not as interpreted and illustrated by Christ, but bare compliance. The law of Christ was a higher [unclear: h] inasmuch as it embodied the old law and much more besides." [unclear: A] "the Presbytery accepted this explanation as perfectly [unclear: satisfactory] Now, worse theology I never heard from a backwoods local preaches (1) "The bare morality of the Ten Commandments"! Who before page 7 ever heard of such theological drivel! Why, the "morality of the Ten Commandments" is the highest "morality" in the universe—is the "morality" of Heaven—is an expression of Jehovah's Mind—is the Divine Nature translated into human speech (Mark xii. 31). Imagine, if you can, the Westminster divines, or Dr Hodge, depreciating the "bare morality of the Ten Commandments"! This "bare morality," "as interpreted and illustrated by Christ," is love—supreme love to God and man (Matt. xxii. 37-39); and Love is the sum total of God Himself (1 John iv. 8,16). (2) "Bare compliance." "Why, "compliance" with the Ten Commandments is absolute and sin-less perfection—is all God requires (Luke x. 25-28). (3) The sole object of Christ's mission and death is to produce in us the "bare morality of the Ten Commandments" (Rom. viii. 3, 4). (4) Instead of superseding the Decalogue, the Gospel perpetuates that Law (Rom. iii. 31; 1 John ii. 7; II. John 5; Lev. xix. 18). (5) "The law of Christ was a higher law." But the Law of the Ten Commandments is "the Law of Christ." And where, in the Now Testament, does He issue another? (6) "A higher law, inasmuch as it embodied the old law and much more besides." But the "old law"—the only one there is—means love. supremo love to God and man; and what can be "much more besides" that? "Much more besides" supreme love to God and man! What can this be, and where is it mentioned in the New Testament?

Christ came to fulfil, interpret, unfold, and exemplify the old Law, not to reveal a new one (Matt. v. 17-19; James ii. 10, 11). Instead of relaxing, did Jesus Christ not intensify the interpretation of the Ten Commandments? Yes (Matt. v. 17-28; 1 John iii. 15). The beautiful story in John viii. 3-11, is not authorative (see Revised Version). But even if it were, it is not a modification of the Seventh Commandment. Jesus was the Redeemer and not the Roman Magistrate, who alone at that time had jurisdiction in a case of life and death. The object of the Scribes and Pharisees was to get Jesus into conflict with either the Law of God or the Roman authorities; and He (if the narrative be historic) escaped from both horns of the dilemma, and then entrapped his adversaries in a way which has commanded the admiration of the world. Christ's interpretation of the Seventh Commandment, therefore, stands intact (Matt. v. 28). And both Himself and His theological pupil, John, interpret the Sixth on the same principle (Matt. v. 22; 1 John iii. 15). Only deeds of necessity and mercy are permitted on the Sabbath (1 Samuel xxi. 1-6; Matt. xii. 1-13; Mark ii. 23-28; Mark iii. 1-4; Luke vi. 1-10; Luke xxiii. 56). The New Testament is Christ's interpretation of the Decalogue. He reduces it to the one great principle of love, and that is the basis, the sum, and soul of the whole Gospel (Mark xii. 30, 31; Lev. xix. 18, 34; James ii. 8). Even "the Sermon on the Mount" is only an exposition of the legal enactments of the Old Testament—bringing out their merciful design; and the New Testament is destitute of both meaning and authority without the Old. Hence even Christ and His page 8 Apostles quote from it constantly as the source whence they the selves derive their authority. But some people are so [unclear: wise] Disparaging portions of the Bible, pitting the New Testament [unclear: aga] the Old, and patronising Jesus at the expense of Jehovah [unclear: sh] be left to those who attend the Lyceum (an infidel [unclear: lec] hall in Dunedin), for the whole thing amounts to [unclear: put] Jesus versus Jesus. Let preachers disparage parts of the [unclear: B] and many young people, under such ministry, will [unclear: very] learn to disparage the whole. And why not? Why should [unclear: preach] have a monopoly in this business? Setting aside parts of [unclear: the] Testament is both preparatory and introductory to a rejection [unclear: of] Now : the whole will soon follow the parts. Reject Moses, and [unclear: b] logic and history show that you must gradually get rid of his [unclear: Di] Endorser, Jesus. Flippantly disparaging the opinions of real [unclear: th] logians, instead of sitting at their feet as learners, is [unclear: characterise] the theologically beardless. "Let not him that girdeth on his [unclear: ha] boast himself as he that putteth it off" (1 Kings xx. 11). But [unclear: t] this advice was given by a rude man in a rude age. Yes, and [unclear: it] given also to a very crude, raw, and self-conceited fool who, [unclear: togea] with his followers, paid dearly for having disregarded it!

Where do we find Jesus Christ disparaging any part of [unclear: the] Testament, or jibing people for going to it "too much for [unclear: th] religion"? Jehovah-Jesus is One and the same Divine [unclear: Revel] from the first of Genesis to the last of Revelation inclusive. [unclear: J] who preached "The Sermon on the Mount" is Jehovah who [unclear: iss] the Ten Commandments, but with this important difference: [unclear: On] "Mount" of the Old Testament, Jesus was robed in divine [unclear: lighti] but on the "Mount" of the New, Jehovah was veiled in [unclear: hu] flesh: that was exaltation, and this is humiliation; there His [unclear: p] gown was Divinity, but here it is Humanity. Owing to the [unclear: ciresstantial], kaleidoscopic, or many-sided and cumulative nature [unclear: of] evidence of Divine revelation, and how, too, the several parts [unclear: of] Bible overlap, dovetail, mutually support, fit into, and [unclear: corrob] each other, the Bible, though apparently a collection of [unclear: independed] pamphlets, is yet a marvellous unit, and, as a whole, must [unclear: eit] stand or fall together; and therefore this popular [unclear: patronising] certain portions and disparaging others, is the never-failing marks the smatterer. Jesus Christ endorsed the whole Old [unclear: Testament] of Divine origin, and therefore it is Divine, or Jesus [unclear: Christ] endorsed a cruel swindle (Luke xxiv. 27).

The Bible is either of Divine authority, or an unparalleled, [unclear: uni] and inexplicable imposture—the crowning problem of all [unclear: history-] a perpetual miracle of either Divine inspiration or human [unclear: deception-] a glorious and infinite verity, or a gigantic fraud, for which [unclear: Je] Christ is responsible.

(1.) Can we believe the teaching of Jesus Christ without [unclear: accept] the writings of Moses? No (John v. 46, 47; Luke xxiv. 44; [unclear: He] page 9 xi. 26). (2.) Is the Law of the Ten Commandments a Law of Love? Yes (Deut. vi. 4-9; Matt. xxii. 34-40). (3.) Is the Law of the. Decalogue (the ten sayings) the Law of Love? Yes (Rom. xiii. 8-10). See Psalm cxix. for David's estimate of God's Law. (4.) Is there "a higher law" revealed by Christ to man than the Law of the Ten Commandments? No (Matt. xxii. 34-40; Mark xii.; 28-31; Luke x. 25-28). What can be "higher" than supreme love to God and man? The Old Testament is the source of the New, and water cannot rise above its source. What doctrine of the New Testament is not taught in the Old (John iii. 10)? Gen. iii. 15 is the Divine Text, and the rest of the Bible is God's great Sermon on that Text. As "a river went out of Eden to water the Garden," so the One thought which animates, pervades, fertilises, and unifies the whole Bible is—the redemption of man by a Divine-human Saviour. The first promise announced at the gates of Eden, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Ten Commandments, and the New Testament are substantially the same "Gospel" (Gal. iii. 8). Abel, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, and David were saved just in the same way as Paul, Bunyan, Wesley, John Newton, McCheyne, and Charles Hodge—by the same holiness-producing faith in the One Redeemer (Rom. iv. 1-8; Gal. iii. 6-29; Heb. xi. 1-40; xii. 1,2). Some people say that there is "a higher law" than the Law of the Ten Commandments or Decalogue. But Jesus Christ says expressly that there is no such Law—that there is no higher or "greater" Law than the Ten Commandments (Lev. xix. 18; Mark xii. 31; Rom. xiii. 10; James ii. 8). Now, whom are we to believe—whether Jesus Christ or the modern upstarts? But "the Ten Commandments were given to a rude people in a rude age." Certainly. And they are given now to us, a very rude people who live in a very rude age, as will doubtless be discovered and perhaps remarked in soiree-speeches three thousand years hence! But "the Ten Commandments were not intended to serve the Church of Christ to-day." Well, whatever they were "intended" for, one thing is obvious enough, and that is, that neither the "Church"' nor the "world" pays much attention to them now; and no wonder, when the exploded Antinomianism of the 16th century is paraded round as an evangelical discovery, and adopted with applause by a whole Presbytery! But have we not now "a higher law, more intense and searching"? Jesus Christ says No (Mark xii. 31). If there is "a higher law," state by whom it has been revealed, and also where it is recorded. And if "the Decalogue was not intended to serve the Church of to-day," name your authority for the assertion. To the Law and to the Testimony: What saith the Scripture? The Scripture cannot be broken (Is. viii. 20; Rom. iv. 3; John x. 35). What! A law "higher, more intense, and parching than the Ten Commandments"? Amoral impossibility! The theological ignorance of the person who could seriously make such a statement, and of those who could endorse such arrant page 10 nonsense, almost surpasses belief. Whatever else he may have studied, one thing is quite clear, and that is, that he has not studies either his own heart or the Word of God to any good purpose ([unclear: Ma] v. 28; Rom. iii. 19, 20; vii. 14; Heb. iv. 12). David and [unclear: Pa] found the Ten Commandments high, intense, and searching enough (Psalm i. 2; xix. 7-14; Rom. vii. 7-25). But what were [unclear: pio] pigmies—"weak brethren"—such as David and Paul, "rude [unclear: me] in a rude age"—compared with the polished, intellectual, [unclear: a] spiritual giants of to-day! That Christ by his death set aside [unclear: f] ever the burdensome ritual, as was indicated even at the momentbja rending of the veil (Matt, xxvii. 51), is a glorious truth, in which [unclear: a] Christians rejoice (Acts xv. 10; Eph. ii. 15; Col. ii. 14). But [unclear: Jes] Himself expressly declares that the Law of the Ten Commandment shall continue in full force, so long as there is a human [unclear: being] this earth in a state of probation (Matt. v. 17-19; xxiv. [unclear: 35).] more; the very nature of the things severally prohibited and enjoined in the Decalogue, necessarily demands the perpetuity of that [unclear: La] Can any person conceive of a place, time, condition, or [unclear: circumsta] that would suspend the first, second, third, fifth, sixth, seventh eighth, ninth, or tenth Commandment, and render the [unclear: spirit] design of the Law inoperative? Deeds of accident, [unclear: necessity,] mercy are not violations of the Law (Numb. xxxv. 22-25; [unclear: Prov.] 30). Can one conceive of a state of society in which polytheism or feticism, or profanity, or disobedience to parents, or [unclear: lying] stealing, &c., may become perfectly proper? Impossible! [unclear: Take] instance, the Fourth Commandment—the one usually supposed [unclear: by] certain class to have been modified, if not abrogated or set [unclear: as] altogether. Now, on the very face of this Commandment, [unclear: there] two reasons for its perpetuity :—(1.) Both physiology and the expedience of employers teach that the labouring man or beast request about the seventh part of time for physical rest; and (2) if man [unclear: is] worship his Creator at all, he must get time in which to do [unclear: s] Pharaoh might, but God cannot ask any person to make brick without straw. And thus, in the very nature of the things regulated [unclear: by] Ten Commandments, there is abundant proof of the perpetuity of the Law. The words "meat," "drink," "new moon," &c., in Col. [unclear: iii] show that the reference is to the ceremonial Sabbath; [unclear: and] xiv. 5,6, deals with ecclesiastical festivals, and has no bearing [unclear: on] Fourth Commandment at all, although it is often ignorantly [unclear: quot] as if it settled the question! In Gal. iii. 13, the Apostle [unclear: caref] distinguishes between the "curse" (or sentence) of the moral [unclear: La] and the Law itself. Christ has redeemed us from the former, [unclear: but] from the latter, as He Himself assures us, in the plainest [unclear: langa] common honesty can desire (Matt. v. 17-19).

To hear Christians—yea, even preachers—at this hour of the [unclear: d] confounding the ritual with the moral Law, is perfectly [unclear: startling,] not very creditable to our religious intelligence (1 Timothy i. 7; [unclear: H] page 11 v. 12). The Law of Exodus xxi. 24, 25, has been much condemned as "Mosaic," and unfavourably contrasted with the "milder teaching of Jesus." The following five observations may save some people from advertising their ignorance on the subject :—(1) The Law in question was given to the Civil Magistrate for the supression of crime, not to private individuals for personal revenge, as often supposed through inexcusable ignorance. (2) If A. wantonly and criminally destroyed the eye, tooth, or foot of B., the corresponding eye, tooth, or foot of A, should be similarly destroyed by the Magistrate (not by B.), as the only proper and adequate punishment for the crime. And what a statesmanlike procedure compared with our inadequate drivel! We put a premium on crime. (3) It was the very Jesus who preached "the Sermon on the Mount" and wept over Jerusalem, who also enacted the perfectly righteous Law—"An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." (4) In the course of centuries people perverted this Divine (not "Mosaic") Law from its original and salutary purpose, and made it an instrument for personal revenge. And (5) it was against this gross perversion and abuse of His own Law (not the Law itself) that Jehovah-Jesus protested (Matt. v. 38-48). That "Jehovah" and "Jesus" are only two different titles for One and the same Divine Revealer is a Scriptural fact, and absolutely necessary to the unity, inspiration, and authority of the Bible as a whole.

Without this one bond of unity, the Old and the New Testaments are of no more divine or binding authority than the first and the last volumes of Gibbon's History of the Roman Empire. This putting of Jesus versus Jesus ought to be left to infidels, amateur theologians, and minor men like Messrs. Ingersoll, Bradlaugh, and Stout (Sir Robert Stout, the high priest of infidelity in Dunedin). The person who does not know that Jehovah and Jesus are identical, should at once attend some good Sabbath school in order to get a firm grasp of the all-glorious truth that "Jehovah" is the Old Testament name for Jesus, and that "Jesus" is only the New Testament name for Jehovah. Let this fundamental fact be once mastered, and all Unitarianism, together with nine-tenths of infidel difficulties, will vanish, like ghosts and goblins before the rising sun.

Part III.

Brief Summary of Fundamental Principles

(B)

(1.) Beth-el, Kuriakon, Circ, Kirche. kirke. Kirk or Church (the Lord's dwelling), consists in fellowship between God and a human soul (Gen. xxviii. 16-19; 1 Chron. xxii. 1; Rom. xvi. 5; 1 Cor. xvi. 19; Col. iv. 15; Philemon 2); and therefore the "Church" began with Adam in Eden, and has been all along the ages one and the same "Olive Tree" (Rom. xi. 16-21). Each human being brought out of sin to commune with God, is a kletos, ckkletos, ekklesia (ek and kaleo, called out), and forms a part of the true Catholic Church Ekklesia) of Jesus Christ (Rom. i. 6). Believers (whether officials or not) constitute the Church, and the "bishop" is only an "elder," and the "elder" is "bishop"—elder (presbuteros) being the Jewish, (and bishop (episcopos) the Gentile term for one and the same official in the Scriptural Constitution of the Church (Acts xx. 17, 28).

(2.) Evidence of the Conversion of Adam and Eve :—(1.) God's continued love (Gen. iii. 9); (2) they are chastised, not cursed (v. 14); (3) the tempter is cursed, not chastised (v. 14); (4) the woman's, conversion assured (v. 15); (5) the name Adam gave to his wife—"Eve," life; not "Mooth," death—"mother of believers," as Abraham is the father (v. 20); (6) God's literal and symbolical provision (v. 21); (7) they know good and evil as God does (v. 22);. page 14 (8) removed from worse temptation (v. 22); (9) place of [unclear: wo] provided (v. 24); (10) the language of piety (iv. 1); (11) the [unclear: n] of her first-born implies faith (iv. 1); and (12) they taught [unclear: th] children to worship Jehovah (vs. 3 and 4).

(3.) The Church became a visible Organisation with [unclear: Abraha] No organisation, constitution, or charter is to be found either [unclear: ear] or later. At Pentecost the Church was an old institution (Gen. [unclear: x] Matt, xviii. 17; Acts ii. 41, 47; vii. 38). The children of believed were members of the Church then: have they been excluded [unclear: sin] If they have, by whom and when excluded, and where is the exclusive recorded? (Gen. vii. 1; xvii. 12, 13; Numbers iii. 15, 22, 28, 34 40, 43; Deut. xxxi. 11-13; 1 Sam. ii. 11-18; Joel ii. 15-17; [unclear: E] vi. 1; Colos. iii. 20). In the ritual of the Church there was no [unclear: sa] "mode" as total submersion; and yet this ritual of [unclear: pouring] sprinkling is called "different baptisms" in the Greek of Heb. ix, [unclear: xvi] How can this Fact be reconciled with the assertion that total [unclear: submer] is the only meaning of the word "baptism," and absolutely [unclear: necesa] to constitute the ordinance? Was "the Church in the wilderness baptised by total submersion? (Neh. ix. 11; 1 Cor. x. 1, 2). [unclear: I] asking for Scriptural information. After the death of [unclear: Jesus,] the shedding of blood, as a religious act, became incongruous, [unclear: a] therefore circumcision gave place to the cleansing water, just [unclear: as] killing of the lamb was put aside for the bread and wine: the [unclear: cleaness] of the old rite being perpetuated in the new, as the "[unclear: blood] the grape" is in the Supper without shedding animal blood. [unclear: Th] the typical gives place to the anti-typical, without repeal, [unclear: just] naturally as ripe fruit falls off at the right season. But there [unclear: is] a single Old Testament Law repealed in the New. This will [unclear: sta] many. Repeal implies imperfection. But with God, [unclear: whether] Nature or Scripture, there is no such process as repeal, because [unclear: "] Law of Jehovah is perfect"—each enactment continuing in full [unclear: fo] until it has answered its end. The proper education of the boy [unclear: is] repealed (but sunk in and continued) by the further studies [unclear: of] man. The New Testament is to the Old what the fruit is to the [unclear: t]

(4.) David and his kingdom were the first groat typical [unclear: repres] tation of Messiah's Kingship and Kingdom (2 Sam. vii. [unclear: 16-2] 1 Chron. xvii. 7-27; Psalm lxxxix. 3,4-20-27; Luke i. 31-33; [unclear: A] ii. 29-31).

(5.) Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses with all Israel, and [unclear: Da] were the original "Covenanters."

(6.) Under the Davidic Covenant, Jehovah became fully [unclear: revea] as Prophet, Priest, and King—the Trinity of the Trinity.

(7.) Hitherto the language of the Church is only [unclear: prophetie] priestly, but henceforth it is prophetic, priestly, and kingly— full of King, His throne, crown, sceptre, palace, and government. (8.) The Old Testament closes and the New opens (and [unclear: abo] to the end) with the Kingship of Christ (Matt. ii. 2; Luke [unclear: i] Rev. xv. 3; xvii. 14; xxii. 16).

page 15

(9.) There is progress (evolution, development) in the Bible from Gen iii. 15 to Rev. xxii. 16.

(10.) Jehovah-Jesus revels and redeems that He may rule: He savingly teaches and redeems only those who accept Him as Ruler—Christ is not divided (1 Cor. i. 13).

(11.) To ignore any one of Christ's three R's (Revealer, Redeemer, and Ruler) is to ignore one-third of the Gospel, and that is subversive of all the rest (Gal. v. 4).

(12.) The Ruling Function is the last and crowning manifestation of Messiah: He is neither the Prophet nor the Priest "eternal," but He is the "King Eternal" (1 Timothy i. 17); and therefore to disparage the Decalogue (King Messiah's "Royal Law," James ii. 8) is to disparage this last and crowning manifestation!

(13.) Jesus Christ (in the flesh) enacted no Law—John xiii. 34 is only a re-affirmation of His own Decalogue (Lev. xix. 18). He came to vindicate, expound, fulfil, and show both the purpose and the perpetuity of the Law He had already enacted for all time (Matt. v. 17, 18).

(14.) Each development of the Plan of Redemption was a New Testament and the Gospel in the form best suited for that age: the Gospel was preached to Adam, and Eve, and Abraham (Gen. iii. 15; Gal. iii. 8; II. Peter ii. 5; Jude 14, 15).

(15.) We understand the future only by the present, and hence those who looked forward to Messiah's first coming were taught by Symbolism founded on the present, just as we are taught the second coming by the Similitudes of His own Parables and the visions of John.

(16.) Each successive development of God's purpose of mercy, while including all that went before it, added much that was new, widened the people's mental horizon, extended their language, clarified their views, enlarged their hopes, increased their religious knowledge, and enriched the theology of the Church, until Jehovah Himself in our nature appeared on earth as Revealer, Redeemer, and Ruler.

(17) To ignore Church organisation, or "Government" of a more or less Scriptural character, is to ignore the Royal appointment and Kingship of Jesus Christ (John xv. 16; Acts xiv. 23; xv. 2; xvi. 4; ii. 17-28; Eph. iv. 11-16).

And (18) the Bible is neither a divine nor a human Solo, but the Divine-human Dialogue of ages—man speaking on earth and God responding from Heaven. Hence the Bible is the most human, and also the most Divine Book in the world.

"The Jehovah of the Old Testament is our Lord." "This Jehovah, who led His people under the Old Testament economy, is the Son of God." "Christ is the manifested Jehovah of the Old Testament"

Charles Hodge, D.D., Systematic Theology.

page 16

"In short, there and then (in Eden) began the Church of God [unclear: on] earth." "The entire Gospel of God was in that germinal promise' (Gen. iii. 15). "The Gospel according to Moses differs neither in creed nor practical religion from the Gospel according to Jesus." [unclear: "] Moses and the prophets are not divine utterances, then neither [unclear: ca] Jesus and the Apostles be, who claim to be simply the full development of Moses and the prophets, and fully endorse them." "It is the Gospel according to Moses, just as truly as it is the Gospel according to Matthew." "Nothing that Moses ever enacted has been repealed any more than the things enacted by Jesus or Paul."

Stuart Robinson, D.D., Discourses of Redemption

(To the Editor 'Dunedin Herald.')

Sir,—In your supplement of Saturday last there appears a production from the pen of the Rev. A. C. Gillies. It seems to be the outline of two sermons preached by him to his congregation. The [unclear: the] treated of is one of the highest importance to the Church's faith [unclear: i] the Bible, and it seems to me to be handled in a masterly manner Every intelligent reader must peruse its statements with profound admiration of the ability and scholarship displayed in it. If I mistake not, it is the very thing needed at the present day. There seems to be a widespread or general feeling that the Old Testament's teaching is superseded and a thing of the past. Statements to this effect come sometimes from the pulpit even; but one would suppose [unclear: th] when so made there must be considerable confusion in the thinking behind them. Were these two outlines filled out by Mr Gillies [unclear: (] doubtless he did to his congregation) and scattered broadcast among congregations, they would be of vast importance to faith in the Scriptures, and serve as a check to that sort of ignorant or confused [unclear: ta] so often heard or met with in print. We had very recently a specimen of it even in this town, when the Old Testament was but feebly supported by a Presbytery. At present, then, these productions of Mr Gillies are most opportune, and are, it seems to me, a magnificent vindication of the Old Testament's place and use in the Christian Church, and in the faith of Christian people.—I am, &c.,

A Reader.