Now no man will contend that, on Israel's restoration to Canaan, all this will be accomplished literally. Some part of the representation is, by the admissson of all, to be understood figuratively. And here the question arises, Where shall the figurative interpretation stop, and the literal begin? How much of the language of scripture on this subject is figurative, and how much is literal?

Undoubtedly it must be admitted that this language is figurative, so far as it is founded on those peculiarities of the ancient worship which are done away by the Christian dispensation. Altars, and sacrifices, and purifications, and many other observances, will not literally

exist.

Let the inquiry then be made, whether, if a part of the language of scripture on this subject is to be interpreted figuratively, the whole may not be thus interpreted? If the promise that the Jews shall be restored to the observance of the Mosaic rites, is to be understood, not literally, but simply that they shall be restored to the enjoyment of religion, why may not the promise that they shall be restored to Palestine be understood, not literally, but as indicating their return to the divine favour?

A moment's consideration will show that this interpretation is very natural. In all their former dispersions they looked on a return to their own land, and to the enjoyment of their religious rites, as the richest of God's mercies. This was, in a very important sense, under the ancient dispensation, a restoration to the enjoyment of religion. Would it not hence be very natural, in predicting a future restoration to God's favour, to borrow language from the state of things then existing? And as a part of the language employed on this subject must be understood in this manner, why shall not the principle be car

ried through, and the whole of it be thus understood?

Let us see if there are any other passages which will help us to settle this question. God says, "I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel: and David my servant shall be king over them." (Ez. xxxvii. 22. 24.) We are certainly not here to understand that David, literally, will be Israel's king. The meaning is that Israel will submit, and be happy, under the government which God shall appoint for them, even as they formerly did under the government of David: they shall enjoy the blessings of the Messiah's reign, of which the reign of David was a faint emblem. Now, since the promise that David shall be their king, must be understood, not literally, but as a promise of spiritual blessings; why shall not the promise of planting them again on the mountains of Israel be understood, not literally, but as a promise of those high spiritual blessings and privileges which, once, the mountains of Israel alone afforded, but which now, under the Christian dispensation, may be equally enjoyed in any other part of the world? Do not the rules of interpretation allow, and, if there are no opposing considerations, do they not require, that we take this view of the subject?

There are one or two other passages which it may not be amiss to mention. "Thus saith the Lord of hosts, In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold, out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you." (Zech. viii. 23.) And "at that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem." (Jer. iii. 17.)

Now here are expressions which, understood literally, give the Jews, at their restoration and afterwards, a great pre-eminence above all other nations; and which, at their restoration, make all other nations follow them to Jerusalem, as the place where God has his seat, and is to be worshipped. But who believes that the Gentiles must go to Judea, and be gathered into Jerusalem, to worship God? Every man understands this representation of the prophet in a figurative sense, as signifying simply that the Gentiles will be converted to the true religion, and be brought to the worship of the true God, who, at the time when the prophet spoke, was worshipped chiefly at Jerusalem, but who is now worshipped, in spirit and in truth, in any part of the world. And the remark that other nations shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, and go with him, seems to signify the eagerness with which they will inquire on the subject of religion, and the readiness with which they will unite themselves to God's true worshippers, wherever found. The Jews, when the prophet wrote, were God's peculiar people. With them, and almost with them only, was the knowledge of the true God. To hear, therefore, and follow their instructions, was to embrace the true religion. Hence, in pointing out the future conversion of the Gentiles, the prophet very naturally used language accommodated to this subject; used language founded on the state of things then existing.

But if the prophet, when he tells us that the Gentiles are to be gathered into Jerusalem to worship God, means only that they will be converted to the true religion, why may we not, when he tells us that the Jews will be gathered there, understand him as meaning only that they will be converted to the true religion? If the language in the one case, is to be interpreted

figuratively, why shall it not be thus interpreted in the other?

Perhaps the New Testament will throw some light on the subject before us. We there find the conversion of the Jews to Christianity very frequently mentioned. The veil shall be taken away from their hearts: (2 Cor. iii. 16.) They shall be grafted into their own olive-tree: (Rom. xi. 24.) As touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. (Ibid. v. 28.) And if their return to Judea, and the re-organization of their national establishment, constitute a part of the promised blessing, we may certainly expect that the writers of the New Testament will speak of these things as clearly, at least, as the prophets did who lived several centuries before them, and under a darker dispensation. And since a part of what the prophets wrote must be understood figuratively; and since the whole, without violating any just rule of interpretation, may be thus understood; we shall do well to see whether the instructions of Christ and his apostles will help us towards a decision of what now remains doubtful.

But where are those declarations of Christ and his apostles, which show that the Jews shall be returned to Canaan, and be re-organized into a nation, and enjoy those peculiar distinctions which some suppose are in reserve for them? So far as I recollect, the whole New Testament is silent on this subject. And what inference shall this silence lead us to make? When so much is said about the conversion of the Jews to Christianity, and nothing is said about their return to Palestine, and the supposed distinctions connected with it, is it not reasonable to infer that that return, and those distinctions, constitute no part of the promised blessings; and that, when the Jews are brought to embrace Christ, and his religion, the whole import of the language of the prophets on this subject will be accomplished?

But not only is the New Testament silent as regards any thing which might favour the opinion that the Jews are hereafter to enjoy great and peculiar distinctions as a separate community: it contains some expressions which directly militate against that opinion. Christ, speaking with reference to the Jews, says, "Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." (John x. 16.) This seems to imply that all his people will be, essentially, placed on a level, and treated alike. The apostle says that the wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles, Christ hath broken down, to make, in himself, of the two, one new man. (Eph. ii. 14. 15.) And again he teaches us that, under the Christian dispensation, distinctions which had for merly existed were done away. Here "there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all." (Col. iii. 11.)

Such is the uniform representation of the New Testament, whenever it speaks on this subject. And does not this testimony furnish us with a safe guide in explaining the language of the prophets? Added to the silence of the New Testament on the other side of the question, is it not decisive that the Jews get the whole amount of their promised blessings, when they are brought to an interest in the gospel, on an equal standing with the Gentile world?

I know that the Jews have been the peculiar people of God, and have been peculiarly distinguished 25 the objects of the divine care and beneficence. And from this we may be ready to infer that it always will be thus with them.

But we should remember that their former distinction was for the

accomplishment of a great object; which object being accomplished, the necessity of the distinction ceases. God would make an experiment with the world, to let it be seen what human powers would accomplish on the subject of religion, when left to struggle alone. But whilst this experiment was going forward, lest all knowledge of himself and the true religion should be lost from the earth, he selected one people whom he would not give up to themselves entirely; with whom he would deposit such communications as he had made, and might wish to make, for the ultimate benefit of the world; and among whom should rise up, in due time, a Saviour for all nations. The Jews never were the peculiar people of God, in that sense in which they sometimes understood themselves to be. God frequently says to them, "Be it known unto you, not for your sakes do I these things unto you but for mine own sake."* It was for the accomplishment of his own purposes that these things were done.

was

But when the experiment with the rest of the world was completed; when the oracles of God were preserved through the period of darkness, for the benefit of subsequent ages; and when the great Deliverer had come; the accomplishment of these purposes effected. Then why need the distinction which previously existed be kept up? The whole New Testament, as we have seen, teaches us, when it speaks on the subject, that it ought not to be kept up. The object is accomplished-let the distinction cease.

It may be said, indeed, that the dispersion of the Jews from Palestine has been literal. And from this, it may be thought, an argument arises in favour of their literal return. But is it not probable

Deut. ix. 5, 6. Ps. cvi. 8. Ezek. xxxvi. 22. and other places.

that the divine purpose, in their dispersion, while it included the punishment of the nation for their unbelief and sin, was yet designed chiefly to effect a complete abolition of the old system of rites and ceremonies? Their literal dispersion seems to have been, in some sense, necessary, in order to the accomplishment of this object. But their literal return is not necessary in order to their enjoyment of the privileges of Christianity. Under the Christian dispensation, the whole arch of heaven is a temple, and the whole earth an altar, and every holy man a priest to offer spiritual sacrifices by Jesus Christ. In this temple let every believing Jew worship: on this altar let him offer his sacrifices: and be content to stand on a level with his brother converts from the Gentile nations.

This is an appointment, however, to which the Jews yield with great reluctance. It was one of the grand causes why they rejected Christ, that he would not allow them in that outward distinction and pre-eminence above other nations, which they claimed. If any thing of this distinction and preeminence had been promised them, why did not Christ grant them as much at least as the prophets intended, and so remove all needless difficulties to the acceptance of his religion? Even further, if this distinction and pre-eminence had been promised them, they had a right to dlaim it, and Christ must have been under obligations to allow it to them. Yet he allowed it not. And this shows that it was not promised.

If it should be said that it was promised on their repentance and faith, it may then be asked why Christ did not thus explain the matter to them? And it may be asked, still further, why the apostles did not allow those Jews who had ac

tually become converts, this distinction and pre-eminence among their Gentile brethren? There was no point in which the Jewish converts were more strenuous than in this, that they might be considered as holding a more distinguished place in the church than their Gentile brethren. And there was no point in which the apostles declared themselves more fully and decidedly than in this, that under Christ's dispensation there was neither Gentile nor Jew, but all were on a level-all were one. Now, what reason is there to believe that, when the whole Jewish nation are converted, they will be admitted to any better standing than the first converts after our Saviour's ascension?

Perhaps the Jews, when the way is open, will many of them resort to Palestine. It would not be strange that this should be the case. Yet probably as they become real converts to Christianity, they will think more of the heavenly Canaan than of that on earth. And it may be doubted whether their usefulness in the world, after their conversion, would be so great, if they were enclosed in a separate community by themselves, as if they were still living in the four quarters of the earth. Be this, however, as it may, it has but little bearing on the present question. Many things may yet take place respecting the Jews, of which the scriptures give us no information; and which we cannot now, therefore, make a part of our belief, without going beyond what is written. But it is important for us to know how far the scriptures do go; what they do teach; both as the truth itself is valuable, and also as it might throw some light on the best methods of benefiting that interesting, but long neglected and much abused, portion of our race. ALEPH.

SERMON.

Philippians ii. 21.

graduated to a high exercise of benevolence, they would, with the exception of the few, be found

which are Jesus Christ's.

CHRISTIANS are commanded to grow in knowledge as well as in grace, because knowledge of duty must precede the performance of duty; knowledge of what is acceptable to God must be prior to acceptable obedience. Deficiency in knowledge, therefore, will be accompanied with deficiency in practice; hence the same consistency, and an entire uniformity, are not to be expected in all the professed followers of Christ. There is a great diversity in the manner and ability of perception, and in previous advantages; which diversity is not inconsistent with the existence of true religion, but furnishes a reason why the strong should bear the infirmities of the weak. In spiritual as well as natural life, there are different stages: maturity is not expected at the moral, more than at the natural birth. Each stage from infancy to advanced age has its duties; nor are we to consider him as destitute of holiness who has not reached its highest attainments. What would be regarded with tenderness, and overlooked as a weakness, in one member of Christ's family, would be noticed with severity and marked with censure, in another. In nothing perhaps is this inequality among Christians discoverable, more than in the efforts made for the enlargement of the Redeemer's kingdom. Some make an occasional prayer for the salvation of souls and the conversion of the world; others appropriate a very small portion of their substance to the furtherance of these objects; while others add aremnant of time; and a few make great sacrifices and laudable exertions. Now these would all desire to be accounted Christians; but if they were to be judged by a scale

of some great and good men, that they have resolved the whole of Christian character into an illustration of one individual principle, which has led them to set aside true evidences of grace, which were not considered as springing from that root. To generalize and classify the different graces as though they were the branches of a different stock, has occasioned much uneasiness and darkness among profess d Christians, and been the ground of much disputation in the church.

Although great allowances are to be made in judging of the evidence and degrees of piety, still there are certain prominent and radical characteristics, which enter into its very nature, and absolutely decide the fact of its existence. No man, for instance, can he pronounced a Christian, who does not love God supremely; yet he may not in every case give indubitable proof that he acts under the influence of this love. The diversity among professors of religion, arising from constitution, habit, education, and prejudice, renders it extremely difficult to decide upon satisfactory claims to Christian character. It would be an improper judgment, no doubt, to say that all the teachers and Christians alluded to by the apostle in the text, with the exceptions of Timothy and Epaphroditus, were destitute of a principle of piety; although he makes the general assertion that they all sought their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's. Now if it were a fact that, in every instance, they consulted their own interest to the neglect of the welfare of Christ's kingdom; that they always preferred their own benefit to any claim which the great Hend of the church asserted, they gave very conclusive evidence that the love of God