of the many quotations from the earlier Scriptures, which are found in the later half of the One inspired Volume. 5. And thus we are led naturally to notice the extraordinary connexion which subsists between the two Testaments. "For what is the Law," (asks Justin, A.D. 140,) "but the Gospel foretold? or what is the Gospel, but the Law fulfilled[176]?" "The contents of the Old and New Testament are the same," remarks Augustine: "_there_ foreshadowed, _here_ revealed: _there_ prefigured, _here_ made plain." "In the Old Testament there is a concealing of the New: in the New Testament there is a revealing of the Old[177]."--Mr. Jowett's inquiry,--"If we assume the New Testament as _a tradition running parallel with the Old_, may not the Roman Catholic assume with equal reason a tradition parallel with the New?" (p. 81.)--shews a truly childish misapprehension of the entire question. The New Testament is not a "parallel tradition" at all; but a _subsequent Revelation from Heaven_. 6. Now I might pursue these remarks much further: for it would be well worth while to exhibit what an extraordinary sameness of imagery, similarity of allusion, and unity of purpose, runs through the writings of either Covenant;--phenomena which can only be accounted for in one way. This subject will be found dwelt upon elsewhere; and to what has been already delivered, I must be content here to refer the reader[178]. (Mr. Jowett himself has been struck by the phenomenon thus alluded to: but after hinting at "some natural association" as having suggested the language of the Prophets, he proceeds: "We are not therefore justified in supposing any hidden connexion in the prophecies where [the prophetic symbols] occur. _Neither is there any other ground for assuming design of any other kind in Scripture; any more than in Plato or Homer._" (p. 381.) ... And thus our philosopher, assuming at the outset that the Bible is an uninspired book, is for ever coming back to the lie with which he set out. But to proceed.)