author, not of peace, but confusion-to have set equivocal marks upon the most unerring truths, and the most pernicious falsehoods-and to have appointed extraordinary dispensations for purposes utterly irreconcileable. Far be it from me to limit the power of God in what he permits and ordains, and as far be it from me and from every rational believer to allow any such instances of permission, and appointment, as subject the righteous Judge of all the earth to the imputation of sporting with our unavoidable weakness, and mocking us even in his appeals to our noblest faculties.

The evidences of natural religion derive much of their lustre and their strength from the regularity of those operations in the physical world, from which we deduce the reality of his existence and the energies of his attributes. To the evidences of revealed religion stability and consistency are equally necessary. What has been said emphatically of our blessed Lord is substantially true of every teacher really employed by the Supreme Being-he is the same, yesterday, to-day, and for ever. His authority once confirmed by miracles remains unshaken ; and all subsequent appearances, however numerous, and however strong, which tend to invalidate it, will not produce even a momentary suspense of judgment upon a well-informed and well-disciplined mind.

The rites which any belief or religion institutes, may be of a temporary or local nature, and as they were at first obligatory only from direct appointment, of course they may be repealed by proofs

equally clear with those which were primarily exhibited at their institution. But antecedently to such declaration the obligation to obedience continues undiminished. Again, the facts which he affirms must ever be entitled to credit, because we cannot suppose the Deity to employ different agents for the purpose of announcing to his creatures, that the same thing has, and has not existed. Farther still, the moral duties which he has inculcated must ever be binding, because we cannot imagine it possible for the Deity to authorize their violation; and in point of fact, every successive stage of the revelations, which God has made to his creatures, from Moses to Christ, has served only to give a wider scope, and a fuller effect to those duties.

But there is room, doubtless, for accurate and interesting distinction in comparing one part of God's moral government with the other, whether it be of the ordinary and extraordinary kind. And though the existence of resemblance may constitute a strong presumption in favour of several parts, yet the want of such resemblance suggests no absolute proof against any one single part. We may so argue from our knowledge as to compare and admit, but from our ignorance we are not warranted in arguing so far as to reject, because we cannot compare. It must, however, be observed, that no direct contradiction ever can be expected, and that the differences which leave one portion of revelation compatible with another, if in smaller points, can only be circumstantial-if in greater, it must be looked for in addition or illustration. Indeed the very fact of

succession implies either that some new purpose is to be obtained, or that new means are employed for the attainment of some preceding purpose, and that one revelation thus superinduced upon another is itself the very mean which the Deity has appointed. For instance, to fix the Unity of the Godhead was the object of the Jewish revelation; to unfold the doctrine of a future state was the object of the Christian. But Christianity does not oppose what Judaism had made known. On the contrary, it teaches the very same truth; it enforces it by new sanctions, and with multiplied objects of faith, it communicates multiplied directions for practice. Hence Jesus professedly came not to destroy, but to fulfil what had been written by Moses and the prophets; and while he reprobates the traditions, and exposes the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, he bids his disciples remember that they sat in the seat of Moses. Thus the Jewish revelation was preparatory to the Christian, and the Christian is not contradictory, but auxiliary, to the Jewish. They both pursue the great end of moral improvement, and the means used for that end were accommodated to the different situations of the moral agents to whom they were proposed. The authority of Moses, as established by miracles, extended to every part of the law. Before the coming of Christ it was confirmed by a variety of prophets, who endeavoured to invigorate, not to relax the obedience of the people; and after the coming of Christ it was again confirmed in relation to all those duties which, from the essential properties of the things themselves,

and by the express testimony of the teachers, were of perpetual obligation. Here then we have a clear and easy rule to guide us in connecting the authority of a teacher with the qualities of the thing taught.

By a teacher, whom God has really sent forth, it has not been said, ye shall kill, but it has been said by Moses, that ye shall do no murder; and by Christ it has been further said, that he who indulges without cause the passion of anger, which leads to murder, is in danger of the council. It has not been said, ye shall go after Gods, but it has been said again and again, and the saying has been enforced by high degrees of authority in the last and most illustrious teacher, ye shall walk after the Lord your God, ye shall obey his voice, and ye shall love him with all your heart and all your soul. It has never been said, there is no future life; for Moses only omitted what Christ supplied, and as Christ has supplied it, no person who should affirm the contrary by a divine commission would deserve the slightest regard. But upon points which are of a subordinate nature, which derive their importance only from express injunction, and which are evidently subsidiary to higher purposes, we may conceive it possible for their obligation to cease. Thus we justly hold the Sacrament to be expressly ordained for Christians, and we professedly observe that ordinance in obedience to the authority of Christ. But it would be no impeachment of the truth, no affront to the dignity of his religion, if by any succeeding revelation we were permitted not to

observe it. State, however, a stronger case. The Lord is not our God. Thou shalt not love thy neighbour as thyself. The dead will not rise. If a prophet were to give us a sign or a wonder in confirmation of these hideous doctrines, and the sign should come to pass, we must not hearken unto the words of that prophet; we must cleave unto Christ close; we must keep his commandments, and obey his voice. Nothing short of a real miracle would justify us in neglecting even an external ceremony, clearly and explicitly appointed. Not a seeming miracle itself would vindicate us from the imputation of apostacy in admitting more gods than one, in hating our neighbour, in denying that the dead shall be raised up. But from these preliminary observations I shall proceed to a more direct consideration of the text itself, and of the important truths which result from it.

That text formed a part of the service for this day, and, no doubt, must have perplexed the ignorant and alarmed the pious. It contains an injunction which, at first sight, may be thought arduous, not only to the ignorant Jew, but even to a more enlightened Christian. It has supplied one of the most specious objections which the advocates of Deism have ever urged against the truth of Christianity. It has led many sincere believers, and many ingenuous inquirers into confused and dangerous opinions upon the evidence of miracles, and the powers

powers that may be permitted, or even employed to perform them. I mean, therefore, first to explain the text itself, and in the course of that