truth. Nor need we be very careful whether our views for a brief space seem to coincide with those of a literalist or a spiritualist. What we want to know is, not whether we agree with one man or another, but whether we understand the Scriptures. At the same time, as the wise and good are generally right, it is a great comfort and buttress to our faith to find ourselves in coincidence with them. We confess that we depart very slowly and hesitatingly from the great body of learned and good men. And we regard it as a great advantage in this discussion, that while many learned and sensible men now doubt the literal Restoration, yet that the current of opinion in the Church, in every age, has been in favor of it.

It will be perceived, however, as we progress, that our investigation tends to deprive this question of its importance as an ecclesiastical one, and to reduce it simply to one which may be called political. It has, it will be seen, two interesting relations, but instead of being, as the Millenarians make it, the question of questions in eschatology, it is really, in itself, of no religious consequence whatever. It is interesting and important always to ascertain the meaning of prophecy, and in this sense the Restoration of the Jews is like the question of the destruction of Petra. But it has another relation that is of deep interest. If our view be correct, the Conversion of the Jews is accompanied by their Restoration, and that conversion is the day-star that heralds Millennial glory. The connections of this subject, then, are interesting, though, in itself, it is a mere question of politics and finance. It is important to the Jews to know whether that fine property belongs to them, but Gentiles, like ourselves, have no special interest in it.

It seems to us that the Jews are spoken of, throughout the entire Scriptures, in two relations which are kept entirely distinct-the one, national, and the other, ecclesiastical-and that this prime distinction runs through the entire subject. A vast amount-so it appears to us-of that confusion of idea which has "radiated darkness" on this subject, has arisen from not regarding this distinction.

After the Church had existed in an inchoate state before the flood, and in the family of Noah, it was first regularly organ

Circumcision was then

ized in the family of Abraham. established as the initiatory rite of admission into the Church, and the promise of a Messiah was renewed to the Church in the line of Abraham. "In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed." Thus the Apostle Paul, Gal. iii. 7, sq.: "They which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." This is the Apostle's argument. So in the epistle to the Romans, iv. 11, sq.: "And he" (Abraham) "received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all them that believe. For the promise that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith."

All this is ecclesiastical. Abraham was the father of all the faithful, both of Jews and Gentiles, and these promises are fulfilled in Christ. The visible Church, in other words, was set up in Abraham's family. Afterwards, the limits of the visible Church and of the Jewish nation were the same until the coming of our Saviour. But still, the nation was not the Church, nor the Church the nation. This appears evident from the diverse civil and ecclesiastical arrangements. Church and State were united, indeed, but they were not identical. Officers, such as judges and kings, were civil rulers; priests and prophets were ecclesiastical. Saul was severely punished for offering sacrifice, though in a civil point of view he was the Lord's anointed. So Uzzah was punished for touching the ark. David, though possessing the power of life and death, bowed before the prophet Nathan when he said, "Thou art the man!" The sacrifices, the tabernacle service, &c., were all parts of the service of the Jewish Church, as the hierarchy, surplices, and cathedrals, belong to the English National Church, which is distinct from, yet united with the State, as churches, ministers, and manses in the Church of Scotland.

But when the Saviour came, the middle wall of partition

between Jew and Gentile, ecclesiastically considered, was broken down, the veil of the temple was rent in twain, and the Church was directed to expand itself until it should fill the world; and every convert to its swelling ranks, from whatever nation he should come, was still a child of Abraham. The initiatory rite was changed to baptism. In this sense, he is not a Jew who is one outwardly. Yet the whole is the same Church, and sustains the same relation to Abraham as did true believers under the ancient dispensation.

But our readers will observe one vital point in this discussion. Palestine, the Holy Land, is never among the promises made to the Church. Christians are indeed heirs of the world, heirs of all things, because they are one with Christ-nay, sharers of his Mediatorial Throne-but this Heirship of Christ over the Universe is never narrowed to the poor little land of Palestine. Here is one of the fundamental errors of the Millenarians, and, it seems to us, the point, at the same time, where those who deny the literal Restoration, fail to distinguish, and fall into error. Both mingle the temporal and the spiritual, and so confuse the whole subject.

How, then, was Palestine given to Abraham and the Jews? Clearly, as a nation, and not as a Church. We Americans hope we are Christians, and as such, heirs of all things, even the Universe, with Christ. But how do we own houses and lands in common with our fellow-countrymen who have entered into the labors and sufferings of our Revolutionary fathers? Clearly, as Americans, and not as Christians. So we understand Abraham's Charter to Palestine. In the epistle to the Hebrews, third and fourth chapters, the Apostle argues that the "rest" which peculiarly belongs to the people of God, was not Palestine, but heaven. "For if Joshua"-as it should be translated "had given them rest, then could he not have spoken of another day." So in the eleventh of Hebrews, the patriarchs, even in the possession of Canaan, are represented as strangers and pilgrims, and as seeking a city that hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. It seems clear, therefore, that the Church, as such, has nothing whatever to do with Palestine. It was a national and not an ecclesiastical promise and gift to Abraham.

One of the sources of difficulty in making a proper distinction between the national and the ecclesiastical among the Jews, arises from the fact that the Almighty was their political ruler; their government was a Theocracy. But let the reader examine his laws given to the Jews. They are threefold:

1. Moral and of universal obligation.-These are ecclesiastical.

2. Ceremonial or belonging to that dispensation of the Church. These are also ecclesiastical.

3. Municipal or political, belonging only to the Jewish people, and of no force for us, except as we may ascertain from them principles of political wisdom.

And

Now let us look at Abraham's Charter: Gen. xv. 5. "And He brought him forth abroad and said, Look now toward heaven and tell the stars if thou be able to number them. He said unto him, So shall thy seed be." Here is the natural seed-the Jews. We have already given the apostle's argument from the spiritual seed, which he says is one, even Christ. But here the "seed" is like the stars in heaven for multitude. This is the Jewish people as such, evidently. The Almighty then made a covenant with Abraham and said: "Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs and shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years. And also that nation whom they shall serve, will I judge; and afterwards shall they come out. with great substance. In the fourth generation they shall come hither again; for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full." No one will doubt that the Jews, the natural seed of Abraham, are here meant. The narrative proceeds: "In the same day, the Lord made a covenant with Abraham, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates; the Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites."

From which it appears,

1. That the Church have nothing whatever to do with the land of Palestine as a possession.

2. To this land of Palestine the Jews, as a nation, have a good title from its Creator and theirs, unless they have done something to forfeit that title, since there can be no doubt of the identity of the nation.

The question to be settled is, Have the Jews forfeited as a nation, their title to Palestine? To answer this question "there is no other guide" than the same Book which contains this grant of title and sovereignty.

In Genesis, xxvi. 3-19, we find the grant confirmed to Isaac, the son of Abraham. As Isaac is never called the father of the faithful, we must understand that the natural seed is meant: "Unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will confirm the oath which I sware to Abraham thy father." In Genesis, xxviii. 13 sq., the land is confirmed to Jacob, the grandson of Abraham, in similar terms. Under Joshua, the Jews were put into actual possession of a part of the land, and continued in possession until under Solomon they occupied the whole territory, or nearly all, from the Nile to the Euphrates.

We must now look to the tenure by which they held the country.

In Leviticus, chap. xxvi., awful curses are denounced against the Jews if they should commit certain crimes, which they did commit, and these curses were fulfilled and are probably still fulfilling, yet it is remarkable that it is added at the close, verses 40, sq.: "If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me, and that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity; then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham, will I remember, and I will remember the land. When they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them, for I am the Lord their God."

The most awful denunciations probably of the Jews in the