blessing. The new covenant fully meets this difficulty; it states the breach of the former covenant, promises the repentance required, and gives the graces requisite for the attainment of the full blessing. It has been objected, that the return of the children of Israel is predicted in connection with the destruction of Babylon (Jer. 1. 4, 17, 33); and as Babylon has been destroyed, we must conclude that THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL DID RETURN AT THAT TIME; and as we read no longer of two kingdoms, the union of the two nations of Israel and Judah then took place. We have before shewn why the name Israel was continued, and how very limited was any return of the ten tribes. Nor has there been such an union as Ezekiel predicts (xxxvii. 22); under one king upon the mountains of Israel, not to be divided into two kingdoms any more at all. It is not improbable that small remnants of the ten tribes were mingled with the Samaritans, as well as with the Jews, yet they were not one with Judea, as predicted Ezek. xxxvii. 19. Jer. 1. 4. Samaria and its cities were built upon the mountains of Israel; and Samaria and Judea were hostile to each other in the time of Nehemiah (iv. 1, 2); and, in the days of Christ, the Jews had no dealings with the Samaritans. John iv. 9. Observe the prophecy concerning Israel and Judah. Jer. xxx. xxxi. I will bring again the captivity of my people Israel and Judah, saith the Lord; and then observe the express promise, Jer. xxxi. 5, 6, Thou shalt yet plant vines upon the mountains of Samaria; the planter shall plant and eat them as common things; for there shall be a day that the watchman upon the mount Ephraim shall cry, Arise ye, and let us go up to Zion, to the Lord our God. And so afterwards, I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my first-born. The objection is, that the ten tribes were restored, and so the prophecies fulfilled literally. If they were restored, why was Samaria on the mountains of Israel possessed

with a mingled race, and yet made parallel with Ephraim? or why was Samaria hostile to Zion? The history, compared with the prophecies, shews that the supposition of a past literal fulfilment must be abandoned.

It is fully admitted some other of the prophecies directly refer to the return from Babylon, under the decree of Cyrus, foretold so long before by name, Isaiah xliv. xlv. But Babylon has also a larger meaning, even in the Old Testament prophecies, than the land of Chaldea. Let any one carefully read the prophecies concerning it, and he will find that, with the minute and exact fulfilment of a large part of the prophecies, there are other imstances, respecting the children of Israel and the destruction of Babylon, that are manifestly yet unfulfilled. There is the Babylon of Rome as well as of Chaldea; and if the prophecies of the Old Testament are compared with those in Revelation, we may see what has yet to be fulfilled.*

It has been objected, that Nehemiah applies the promises of the restoration given by Moses (Deut. xxx. 4), after the scattering of Israel (predicted Lev. xxvi. 33. Deut. iv. 27; xxviii. 64), to the restoration from Babylon (Neh. i. 8-10); and that Zechariah does the same. Zech. ii. 6, 7. Without giving other

*Mr. Scott has justly remarked, "In general all the prophecies relating to the destruction of Babylon have no doubt a typical reference to the destruction of Rome, and the Papal domination, as foretold by St. John, which will be followed by the restoration of both Judah and Israel, in great honour and prosperity." See Commentary on Isaiah xiv. 1, 2. The general expectation of the Jews is, that their redemption from their present captivity will be immediately upon the destruction of Rome, as their former was upon that of Babylon. The New Testament confirms this view, as the Jewish hallelujahs come in Rev. xix. immediately after the fall of Babylon. Rev. xviii. That by the Babylon of Revelation, Rome is intended, the author has proved in his sermon "Come out of Rome," on Rev. xviii. 4. This Protestant doctrine is too well grounded in the scriptures to be overthrown.

е

replies, the insufficiency of this objection may surely be evident from the consideration that a partial fulfilment of a prophecy or a promise, does not evacuate and empty the fulness of its blessing; the first fruits are not the whole harvest. The same answer meets

similar objections from the Luke i. 68-75.

prophecy of Zacharias.

But certain passages respecting Israel seem to assert an entire termination of the Jewish state, as Jer. xix. 11. So will I break this people and this city, as one breaketh a potter's vessel that cannot be made whole again. Expressions of a similar tendency occur, Hosea ix. 15. Amos v. 28, 14. Zech. xi. 6. But the same prophets shew us the restoration of the Jews, and their inheriting the land for ever (Isaiah Ix. 20; Ixii. 8. Jer. xxxi. 40. Amos ix. 15); and hence lead us to see that the apparently contradictory assertions of their utter destruction must be taken in a limited sense, both as to time, and the existing generations, and human means of restoration. In fact we have the key to such expressions in a passage expressly stating together both destruction and restoration. Deut. iv. 26-31.

The Epistle to the Hebrews, it is farther said, in its general character, seems to indicate an entire abrogation of the Jewish dispensation. The first covenant is found fault with. It decays and waxes old, and is ready to vanish away. It is removed, Heb. viii. 8; xiii. 12-28. The sacrifices are superseded by one infinitely higher. All this clearly shews that the Jewish dispensation, as a middle wall of partition, is broken down for ever (Eph. ii. 14); and as a shadowy one, foretelling good things to come, and preparatory of them, it is annulled: but a Jewish restoration, in the fulness of glory and of spiritual blessedness to the whole earth, so far from being excluded, is especially included in the new cove

nant.

This is the covenant that I will make with the

house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts. In this new covenant there may be a revival of past services in their spiritual import, to an extent of which we are now ignorant. To this view we seem led by those passages which speak of the Jewish ordinances as the pattern of things in the heavens. In the carnal and merely external use, they may cease, while in the higher and spiritual service they may be retained. The law may no longer be engraven on tables of stone, but on fleshly tables of the heart; the atonements no longer removing ceremonial uncleanness, but shewing the removal of all pollution; the sacrifices, if retained,* making every meal a sacrament, and a memorial of the death and merits of our Redeemer, and really bringing us to that state, whether we eat or drink, or whatsoever we do, doing all to the glory of God; and whatsoever we do, in word or deed, doing all in the name of the Lord Jesus. What part the kings and priests unto God and the Father (Rev. i. 6), or the glorified church, may have on the sovereignty over the world to come (Heb. ii. 5), is as yet very much hidden from us. There is really nothing in the epistle to the Hebrews contrary to the literal restoration; and it is absolutely included in

*The renewal of sacrifices is an acknowledged difficulty. They are literally predicted, (Ezek. xliii. 18—27,) and yet the apostle speaks of their being taken away, that the great sacrifice of Christ may remain for ever the one all sufficient sacrifice and atonement for sin. Heb. x. Let us remember, however, that though the sacrifices of the old law really removed ceremonial uncleanness, admitting the worshipper to the services of the law, they did not remove sin, but by their reference to the coming sacrifice of Christ; (Heb. x. 4-14.) and if any contend that animal sacrifices are to be revived under the new covenant, it is in the idea that they can only be so, like the Lord's Supper now, as memorials of the completed sacrifice of Christ, he being all and in all. We have reason to think that there will be death during the millennium, (Isa. lxv. 20,) and if men in the flesh are sustained as they now are, each meal may thus be made a daily sacrament; there is evidently to be an intensity of holiness in common things (Zech. xiv. 21,) far beyond what has yet been seen on our earth.

the renewed assurance of the blessing sealed to Abraham. Heb. vi. 13-20. Gen. xiii. 15, 16; xxii. 16, 17. There seems, however, a special emphasis in the apostle's words (Heb. ix. 5), of which we cannot now speak particularly, περι ων ουκ εστι νυν λεγειν κατα μερος, of which things it is not now (the time) to speak particularly, seeming to imply that the time to speak particularly will come; not at their being cast away as when the epistle was written, but at their revival, and the rebuilding of David's tabernacle. Our minds are also led on, in the epistle itself, to that world to come which is under subjection to Christ (Heb. ii. 5—10); and to that heavenly kingdom, which, after the removing of the present dispensation, shall remain for ever immoveable. Heb. xi. 26-29. We must take care not to confound the covenant with Abraham and the covenant at Sinai. The Abrahamic covenant had both the land of Canaan, and the posterity of Abraham, as well as Christ our Lord, for its promises; and the apostle expressly assures us that the covenant which was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. Gal. iv. 17. The SINAI Covenant, full of shadows of the Saviour, passed away when he came, and can therefore no longer be re-established as the shadow of good things to come, seeing we have the very substance in Christ Jesus. But it is undoubtedly still full of instruction to us, as to what is to be hereafter brought out and fulfilled. Matt. v. 18. The ABRAHAMIC Covenant is confirmed again and again, notwithstanding all the sins of Israel (Micah vii. 18–20. Luke i. 70-75), and can never be disannulled. Heb. vi. 13-19.*

* There is generally a measure of truth even in opposite difficulties. In objection to efforts for the conversion of the Jew, it is said they are cast away and broken off. Rom. xi. 15, 17. It is true, while they remain in unbelief; but it is not true as regards the elect remnant now (xi. 1, 2, 5,) or their restoration hereafter, (v. 26.) In objection to the