part kept the covenant. (See Judges ii. 20-23.) But the whole of the territory, pointed out originally by God, was given to the Jews. Nothing can be more decisive on this point than the testimony of the inspired historian: "And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which He sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein......There failed not aught of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass." (Josh. xxi. 43, 45. Consult also Josh. xxiii. 14; 2 Sam. viii. 3; 1 Kings iv. 21, and viii. 65; 2 Kings xiv. 25 ; 1 Chron. xviii. 3; Neh. ix. 8.)

And, further, the promise, as referring to the earthly Canaan, was part of that national covenant with the Jews, as the lineal descendants of Abraham, which, as the explicit declaration and constant tenor of the New Testament teach us, was abrogated by the establishment of Christianity as the new and better covenant. At subsequent periods, especially on the giving of the law at Mount Sinai,—it was ratified and confirmed. However enlarged, and whatever new elements were introduced, the original promise made to Abraham was incorporated in each successive publication of it; just as the English charter or national covenant, which was first given to the English people by Henry I., A.D. 1100, has been again and again renewed with the grant of additional privileges and rights. Mr. Ewbank correctly says, that, in the various passages of Scripture in which God's covenanting dealings with the Jews are spoken of, the Jewish national covenant is represented as carried on in one unbroken line from its starting-point in Abraham to its final vanishing away in Christianity. (See Deut. vi. 17—19; viii. 10—18; ix. 27, 28 ; &c., &c.)

It is true that the promise made to Abraham had a sublimer reference and a wider sweep. Canaan was referred to as typical and inclusive of a better, that is, a heavenly, country. (Heb. xi. 8-10, 13-16.) "Abraham received a promise of the land of Canaan; but he understood that the temporal promise was the inferior part of the covenant, and that with this was conveyed the promise of eternal life. And this was made apparent from his dwelling in Canaan by faith;' and that not merely a faith that God would give it to his seed, (though he believed that,) but a faith which 'looked for a city which hath foundations, whose Builder and Maker is God."" ""* Spiritual blessings, flowing to Abraham and his seed" which is of the faith of Abraham," through Christ, his greater Son, were embraced in the covenant, and formed its peculiar glory. It contained the germ of the "good things to come" which we inherit by virtue of our union with Christ the Lord. Thus was "the Gospel preached before unto Abraham.” (Gal. iii. 8.) Now this is the only part of the covenant which has not been annulled by the establishment of the dispensation of the fulness of times. These are the blessings, promised to the father of the faithful, which are the glorious and changeless realities of that "kingdom which cannot be moved." Hence Zacharias, filled with the Holy Ghost, and celebrating in lofty strains the advent of Jesus and the salvation which He should bring, represents all this as the fulfilment of God's "holy covenant, the oath which He sware to our father Abraham." (Luke i. 72, 73.) The covenant, regarded in this light, is not restricted to the seed of Abraham after the flesh, but embraces in its wide and blessed range all who are partakers of "like precious faith." This "promise is sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith

* Watson's Works, vol. iii., p. 442.

of Abraham, who is the father of us all." (Rom. iv. 16.) "They which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal. iii. 7, 29.) The passage last quoted demolishes the whole theory of Jewish restoration to Canaan by virtue of the Abrahamic covenant, inasmuch as it declares that "the promise" is inherited by believing Gentiles. How, then, can the promise be supposed to transfer the possession of the goodly and fruitful land to the Jews alone? "The promise, which (as St. Paul says) the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, could not make of none effect, cannot possibly be understood to be the promise of the land, as some have inconsiderately supposed; because, if that were the case, the Apostle would prove that the whole Christian church would possess Palestine."*

III. The stronghold of those who maintain the national restoration of the Jews is the argument from prophecy. It is alleged that the presumption arising from the preservation of the Jews grows into absolute certainty when we consult this " sure word."

1. Now there is a large class of these prophecies which referred to the bringing again of the Jews from the captivity in Babylon, and which have accordingly been fulfilled. Fuller, the quaint ecclesiastical historian, seems to include nearly all in this category. "As for the scriptures," says he, "alleged by the Jews for their temporal restoration to an illustrious condition in their own country, they have found their full accomplishment in the return of that nation to their own land from the captivity in Babylon; and, therefore, further performance of such promises is not to be expected."+

Let us refer to one or two examples, still quoted as awaiting a fulfilment. One is that of Moses in Deut. xxx. 1-6. It is said that, "as this promise refers to a return from a captivity in which they had been scattered among all nations, consequently, it is not the Babylonish captivity which is intended; and the repossession of their land must be different from that which was consequent on their return from Chaldea.” (Dr. A. Clarke, in loco.) The fact is, however, that we have the authority of Nehemiah for applying it to the banishment which was suffered by his compatriots. He does not think this language inapplicable to their then dispersion. (See Neh. i. 8, 9.) Language exactly similar to that of Moses is used by Zechariah : "I have spread you abroad as the four winds of heaven, saith the LORD." And the next verse distinctly states who were apostrophised: "Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon." (Zech. ii. 6, 7.)

Another such prophecy is Lev. xxvi. 40-45. A single circumstance, mentioned in the course of this prediction, shows that it has already received its accomplishment. Houbigant thus notes the literal fulfilment of verse 34: "From Saul to the Babylonish captivity are numbered about 490 years, during which period there were seventy Sabbaths of years. Now the Babylonish captivity lasted seventy years, and during that time the land of Israel rested. Therefore the land rested just as many years, in the Babylonish captivity, as it should have rested Sabbaths if the Jews had observed the law relative to the Sabbaths of the land."

Isai. xiv. 1—3 is sometimes quoted by restorationists, as favouring their views. But here again there is a chronological date which definitely fixes

* Ewbank.

A Pisgah Sight of Palestine. By Thomas Fuller, B.D. 1662.

the reference of this prediction; for the Prophet celebrates this "mercy on Jacob 99 by his matchless ode on the downfal of the King of Babylon. (Verse 4, et seq.)

Similar remarks might be made on many other prophecies, which are erroneously assumed to be hitherto unfulfilled. But, it is said, these cannot have received their accomplishment in the return from Babylon and the subsequent condition of the Jewish people, inasmuch as a state of great prosperity is described in them. To this it is justly replied, by Mr. Swaine, that we learn (from the testimony of Josephus) that the population of Judea, after the return from Babylon, became so overflowing, that the land was too confined for them, and they swarmed in all the contiguous countries. We also learn that, from the same period, almost uninterrupted peace and prosperity pervaded Palestine for full 300 years; and this, contrasted with their previous abject condition as captives in a strange land, was quite sufficient to justify the strong metaphorical language of the Prophets. Another consideration, urged against applying some of these prophecies to the return from Babylon, is found in the language used to describe their spiritual state; which, it is thought, has never yet had its counterpart in the actual religious condition of the Jews. No instance can be mentioned in which a higher religious state is depicted than in Jer. xxiv. 7: “And I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the LORD; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto me with their whole heart." Yet this is declared to ensue on the bringing back to their own country of those that were "carried away captive of Judah, and sent into the land of the Chaldeans, for their good." (Verse 5.) Another of Jeremiah's prophecies (chap. xxiii. 7, 8) is thought to be incapable of an interpretation which would restrict it to a deliverance from the Babylonish captivity, because it stands in juxta-position with one that refers to the glory of Messiah's kingdom in the latter days. (Verse 5, 6.) But the two predictions might be "uttered at once, under an impression that the two events would be co-evous; for that the Prophets were ignorant when Messiah would come is evident from 1 Peter i. 10, 11; or, the obscurity and appearance of concurrency might, as in other instances, have been expressly designed by the Holy Ghost. It is observable, besides, that the Prophet, in predicting the Jews' return, refers to their bondage in Egypt as the last remarkable captivity."

2. There are, however, other prophecies which (so far as can be ascertained) have not been as yet accomplished; and which describe, in glowing language, a state of great honour, peace, and temporal blessing, to be enjoyed by the Jews. These are eagerly adduced by the advocates of their future restoration to the Holy Land. It is believed, on the other hand, that such a conclusion is unwarrantable; and the following remarks are submitted in bar of it :

(1.) Even admitting, for argument's sake, that these predictions are to receive a strictly literal interpretation, it must not be forgotten that the Jews, by their heinous sin in the rejection of the true Messiah, have precluded their attainment of this future national glory. Prophecy, when referring to the temporal condition of communities, is not to be regarded as the irreversible decree of fate; but, rather, as an announcement of the general principles and procedure of God's moral government of the world. God, by Jeremiah, emphatically lays this down, and asserts that His predictions on these subjects are not unconditional. "At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down,

VOL. VI.-FOURTH SERIES.

3 G

and to destroy it: if that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them." (Jer. xviii. 7—10.) Hence the instances in which the foregoing prophecy has been reversed on the subsequent repentance, or otherwise, of the people concerned. (See Judges ii. 1-3; 2 Sam. vii. 10, compared with 2 Kings xxi. 7, 8, 14; Micah iii. 12, compared with Jer. xxvi. 17, 19; and Jonah iii. 4, 10.) The passages under consideration, so far as they may be supposed to refer to earthly blessings, must be interpreted according to this canon, laid down by God Himself. The Jews, as a nation, have by sin and unbelief forfeited their right to such temporal honour and prosperity, even if the God of their fathers had thought to do so unto them. They did not know the day of their visitation. They were heedless of God's warning voice. And therefore they now carry, wherever they go, the sign of God's displeasure against them as a people.

Hence there is a class of prophecies which seem to be receiving their fulfilment in the present state of the "peeled and scattered" nation. "All these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed, because thou hearkenedst not unto the voice of the LORD thy God.........And they shall be upon thee for a sign and for a wonder, and upon thy seed for ever." "Therefore, behold, I, even I, will utterly forget you, and I will forsake you, and the city that I gave you and your fathers, and cast you out of my presence; and I will bring an everlasting reproach upon you, and a perpetual shame, which shall not be forgotten." "For I will no more pity the inhabitants of the land, saith the LORD but, lo, I will deliver the men every one into his neighbour's hand, and into the hand of his King; and they shall smite the land, and out of their hand I will not deliver them." (Deut. xxviii. 45, 46; Jer. xxiii. 39, 40; Zech. xi. 6.-See also Jer. vii. 20; xvii. 1-4; xix. 11; and xxv. 9.) How do these declarations dash to the ground all expectation that the Jews shall again be incorporated as a nation in their own land! How do they dispel all visions of future earthly glory, to be enjoyed by that people, which an ardent imagination or a mistaken philanthropy may have conjured up! "So long as, in Jewish garden, the dragon of vengeance guards this tree of prophecy-so long as no hero can be found to silence that dread voice, and quench those burning eyes of eternal anger-no Jew may ever dare to touch the forbidden fruit of national restoration." *

(2.) But, further, it will be found that we cannot give a consistent literal interpretation to these prophecies of temporal good, which remain unfulfilled. Such a course is encumbered with difficulties on every hand. A few samples shall be given.

Isai. xi. 10-16.-It is impossible to interpret this literally. The alienation of Judah and Ephraim does not now exist; having ceased, according to prediction, on the return of the Jews from Babylon, when the Ten Tribes were amalgamated with the loyal tribes of Judah and Benjamin. All, since that period, have passed under the common name of "Jews." And how can a literal fulfilment be anticipated, when the nations that are represented (verse 14) as favouring Israel's return have long since perished?

* Ewbank.

Where is Ammon or Moab? Edom has been made "perpetual desolations." "The remnant of the Philistines" has passed into oblivion. No: the whole passage refers to something more truly glorious than a National Restoration. Its scope is well stated by Mr. Swaine to be, “that all obstacles to the conversion of the Jews will be removed; that, by being gathered into the fold of Christ, they shall lose their character of vagrants among the nations, and their interests be facilitated by the most unlikely agents,― Philistines;' and that they shall participate in the general harmony and peace of the Gospel kingdom, and in the general triumph over Edom, Moab, and Ammon, when all iniquity shall stop her mouth, and all Messiah's enemies be subdued under Him."

Isai. Ix. The application of this sublime chapter to a future return to Palestine, as is maintained by those who expect this event, would oblige us to believe that then bloody sacrifices will again be offered; and not only offered, but also received with acceptance by God! "The flocks of Kedar,” and "the rams of Nebaioth" would come up with acceptance on God's altar! The same thing-even the slaughter of animals as sin-offerings-is predicted by Ezekiel in a chapter which is claimed by the advocates of a restoration. (Ezek. xliii. 19-22.) What, then, becomes of the argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews? Either St. Paul was wrong in asserting that, as Christ now once in the end of the world" has "put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself," there needs no other atonement; or we must abandon the low and literal interpretation of these prophecies.

66

Micah iii. 12; iv. 1, 2.-These, though quoted together as foretelling a future restoration, are two distinct prophecies. That in the third chapter was never fulfilled, God having "repented" of His purpose. Jeremial declares this, (chap. xxvi. 17—19,) after having quoted the prophecy word for word. The latter prediction (almost the same as that in Isai. ii. 2—4) simply declares the future glory of the Christian church, which is "represented as being central and accessible to the entire race, and as capable of receiving and accommodating a worshipping world, as the temple of Zion had been to the tribes of Israel."

Ezek. xxxvii. 21-25.-If this be interpreted literally, we shall be obliged to admit that Christ will reign over the restored nation in His own proper person. Of course, this would not be felt as a difficulty by those who expect the pre-millennial advent and personal reign of the Lord Jesus. But, believing that there are no good grounds for such an opinion, but many grave reasons against it, (especially as being repugnant to the word of God, and alien to the spiritual nature of the last dispensation-" the kingdom which cannot be moved,") we cannot but hesitate before receiving any notion which seems to involve its admission. Such passages as the one now under reference, furnish the answer to a plea put in by some restorationists who are not, in the ordinary sense, Millenarians. "The one," it is said, "does not involve the other. If the return of the Jews to their own land be assumed, we are not compelled to decide on the personal reign. The questions appear to be different in their character." * Granted,-SO far as logical connexion is concerned. But when we find both bound up in the same prophecy, if interpreted according to the hypothesis against which we reclaim, then one does involve the other; and we may well ask, By what authority, or according to what just rule, are we called upon to admit a literal interpretation in the one case and to reject it in the other?

* Lectures on the Conversion of the Jews.