after rightly explaining their abiding without a sacrifice, thus proceeds: "They have also remained without an image, ephod, or teraphim,-without any of those idolatrous observances and apparatus, to which they were so generally attached when this prophecy was uttered." Notwithstanding the opinion of that able commentator, the sense here attached to the words is manifestly inconsistent with scripture. For the prophecy regards, not Judah in particular, but Israel in the general; and it is declared of them, when they should be scattered among the nations-"There ye shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor smell. But if from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul." Deut. iv. 28, 29; see also Deut. xxviii. 36, 64, and Jer. xvi. 13. The termination of this affliction is evidently the same;-viz. their seeking the Lord: but the affliction itself is so manifestly contradictory to Mr. Scott's interpretation, that we are compelled to seek a meaning of the terms image, ephod, and teraphim more according with the description of their condition in Deuteronomy and Jeremiah. Jerome and Grotius render the word nay by altar, instead of image, and they contend that the word teraphim, (as does Calvin) is one of a middle nature, and may signify the cherubim from whence came the answer of God. The Septuagint version renders the passage-ουδε οντος θυσιαστηρίου, ουδε ιερατείας, ουδε δηλων or, in some copies, news-which is literally, without an altar, without a priesthood, and without manifestations. This consists with their being without a sacrifice; all which is spoken of in scripture as a judicial infliction; whereas to be without idolatrous worship is no affliction, but on the contrary, to be given up to it, is the mark of God's great anger. See Rom. i. But

the house of Israel was not, strictly speaking, in this plight during the Babylonish captivity. They were indeed removed from their temple and altar; but they had prophets among them, as Daniel, Ezekiel, Obadiah, and Jeremiah into a considerable part of it; and very extraordinary manifestations of God in visions to the two former of these prophets; as also of his power and mercy toward them shewed by his dealings with Esther, Mordecai, Daniel, &c. by whose means he protected them and caused them to enjoy much favour, and their religion greatly to increase. It was not till after the return from Babylon that those who remained in captivity lost entirely those advantages here named; so that the best of them, who practise not idolatry, are without any manifestation of God's being among them; and the generality of the ten

tribes have fallen into the idolatrous practices of the heathen round about them.*

But, secondly, the time when they shall return and seek the Lord and fear him is the latter days. Now there is no commentator of note who considers that the latter days can apply to any period earlier than the commencement of the Christian Dispensation: whereas the return from the captivity was upwards of five hundred years prior to that period: and when the period did arrive, instead of its being marked by the national conversion of the Jews, they cast off their fear in their national capacity, and were again cast out of their land by the Lord. Many learned commentators, however, conceive that by latter days is to be understood the period of the end of the Gentile dispensation; and the context of scripture and connection of events bears them out in most instances.

(2.) I shall only at present add to the specimen now given from the Old Testament, of prophecies which concern a future literal restoration of Israel; that the New Testament is not silent on this important and interesting matter.

In Matthew xxiii., where the Lord foretels the wrath which should come upon the Jews for the righteous blood they had shed, (v. 35) he is evidently speaking of them in their national character; and he adds-"Behold your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." Their house is here used to designate them in their national character, even as they are often called "the house of Judah," and "the house of Israel," &c. Some say the Lord merely alludes in the threat here instanced to his providential coming to destroy Jerusalem: but how did this fulfil his word? If this were the coming he meant, the house of Judah did indeed feel him at this time; but what discernment had they of him? When did they nationally recognise him, and declare him blessed? These things have therefore to be fulfilled at his second advent.

In Acts i. 6, 7, the disciples of the Lord inquire of him: "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" The Rev. A. M'Caul, Missionary to the Jews, has, in a work

*It can hardly be said that they were without a prince during that time; for Jehoiakim was raised to a throne whilst in that captivity. 2 Kings xxv. 27. And of Jechonias came Salathiel, a prince; and of him came Zorobabel, another prince. See Matthew i. 12.

† Mr. Scott says on this place-"Let it be recollected that this prediction follows that of the calling of the Gentiles. (Note ii. 18-20)." I cannot find however anything in chapter ii., or his note on it, referred to above, to justify the remark.

recently published,* fully established the fact, that the term Israel and Gentiles are in the New Testament commonly used in the same distinctive sense as they are employed in the Old Testament; though I do not agree with the excellent author in the extent to which he endeavours to apply his principle of arguing. It is sufficient however here to assert, that our Lord could have understood his disciples at this time in no other than in a literal sense, and that his reply is calculated to confirm their expectation of the national supremacy of the literal Israel at some future period; though he does not gratify their curiosity as to the time.

Romans xi. is very clear and decisive on both points. It begins by declaring, that "God hath not cast away his people;" and the fact to which Paul appeals, as proof that all are not cast off, viz.—that he himself is an Israelite of the seed of Abraham of the tribe of Benjamin, shews, that he is speaking of Israel, not in any mystical sense, but in the literal national sense. And after proceeding to shew, that even at that time there was still an "election of grace" from among them, (v. 5) and that the rest were "blinded," and had "fallen" and were "cast away;" (v. 7, 12, 15) he goes on to insist that they should be graffed into the vine again; speaking of them still in their distinct national character, as the "natural branches," (v. 2124) and admonishing the Gentiles, as Gentiles (v. 13,) not to boast against them; intimating that there was also to come a time of rejection to the Gentiles, if they should cease to walk by faith; (v. 20, 22) and that when the election or "fulness" from among the Gentiles should be complete, then "there should come out of Zion the Deliverer, and turn away ungodliness from Jacob." (v. 26, 27.) On this passage we will hear Mr. M'Caul. "In Rom. xi. 26, 27, the apostle proves the future national conversion of Israel by a citation from the 59th chapter of Isaiah-"And so all Israel shall be saved; as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: for this is my covenant unto them when I shall take away their sins." Now the manner and object of this citation proves two things-First, that this passage of the prophet refers to the literal Israel. Second, that it refers to a time yet to come. But what is the immediate context?-"Arise, shine; for thy light is come, &c. Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and gold with them, unto the name of the Lord thy God, and to the Holy

* "New Testament evidence to prove that the Jews are to be restored to the Land of Israel." Lond. Wertheim. 12mo. pp. 26.

One of Israel, because he hath glorified thee, &c. Violence shall no more be heard within thy land, wasting nor destruction within thy borders." To separate this whole 60th chapter from the preceding verses [quoted from it] is impossible; but if it be connected with them, then it refers, according to the apostles, to some future period of the literal Israel's history, and predicts their restoration to their own land." p. 17.

Some have thought, especially Mr. Joseph Mede, that 1 Tim. i. 16. also proves this point: "Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show forth all long-suffering for a pattern (or type, únoruwow) to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting;" and they endeavour to show, that the sudden conversion of the apostle on his way to Damascus, and his subsequently becoming a most successful minister of the gospel to the Gentiles, is the type of the manner in which all Israel shall hereafter be converted,-viz. by the shining forth of the Lord from heaven,and of their afterwards becoming a great blessing to the Gentile world. I am desirous, however, not to mix up doubtful matter in an argument of such great importance; and therefore I leave this, and some other passages of the New Testament: otherwise, much more might be said upon this subject.

2. Much of the weight of the argument, or rather evidence, for the future literal restoration of Israel, depends upon the two-fold fact, that the ten tribes of Israel were not restored at the time of the return of Judah from captivity; and that they continue in existence in some portion of the globe, under such circumstances as that they can again, in the providence of God, be recognized and approved in their national character. This portion of the subject will therefore require separate consideration.

(1.) The fact that the restoration of the whole house of Israel, -including both Ephraim and Judah, or the ten tribes and the two tribes, is foretold in the prophets, has already come before the reader in some of the prophecies already adduced, and therefore needs no farther evidence in this place.* I proceed, therefore, to the objections, the strength of all which may be found in two or three articles by a very able writer in vol. iv, of the Investigator of Prophecy, under the signature T. K.

The first that I shall notice is derived from the prophecy contained in the 50th and 51st chapters of Jeremiah. He observes, that the return of the ten tribes is foretold in chapter 1. 4, 17, and 33; and that it is in connection with the capture of

The reader however may, if he please, refer in addition to Jer. iii. 18— 23; xxx. 3; Ezekiel xxxix. 25, 40. and Hosea i. 11; and there are a few other texts which will require to be noticed in the argument which follows.

the literal Babylon by Cyrus. He maintains, therefore, that the prediction was then fully accomplished, and that the reconciliation between the two houses, which it is then declared should take place, was also then fulfilled, so that we hear not afterwards of any schism.

In answer to this, two or three things may be briefly but decisively urged. First, the prophecy concerning Babylon is not to be limited to the Babylon existing in the time of Cyrus; various circumstances connected with the prophecy manifest the contrary, among which one connected with Israel will be sufficient for our present purpose: viz. that at verses 19-24, there is a reference to Israel, as the Lord's "battle-axe and weapons of war," which is made instrumental in the vengeance on Babylon; and it may be asked, Was Israel made a weapon of war in the Lord's hand in the time of Cyrus, or in any way instrumental in inflicting that vengeance? It may further be asked, Were the Lord's people called out of Babylon, and afforded an opportunity of escape, previous to the attack by the Medes,—as it is distinctly intimated in both chapters they should be at the overthrow of Babylon, which is there principally intended? (1. 8; li. 45.) Besides, this Babylon was not destroyed by Cyrus, in the manner stated in verses 13 and 26; for the conquest and change of dynasty cannot be considered as "an end" of that city. And as to the Israelites who were of the ten tribes, the main body of them would not be affected by the conquest of Babylon by the kings of the Medes, (li. 11.) seeing that they were actually in previous captivity to the Medes themselves; for they were placed in "Halah and Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes." Kings xvii. 6; xviii. 11.)

(2.) But there is historical evidence brought forward by this writer from Josephus and Philo to show that there actually were, between the period of the return from Babylon and the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, vast numbers of the ten tribes in Judea, and large colonies of them in other places; and that Jerusalem was continually visited by deputies from them with offerings. Other writers contend that a sufficiency of individuals of the ten tribes returned with the Jews under Zorobabel, to constitute it virtually a return of the captivity of the nation. Whilst T. K. observes, in regard to the previous jealousy between the tribes: "So entirely do these feelings appear to have ceased, that the writer of the Maccabees gives to the united population the name of Israel-a name which I suppose would be the very last he would have employed, if any portion of the former jealousy remained," p. 32.

This latter circumstance would be anything but satisfactory,