prophet foretells the event in question, and is inspired to give it a prominence in his annunciations, that the New Testament writers, who were Jews, never confirm the prediction. Supposing this discrepancy, or absence of harmony to exist, it surely is capable of being accounted for; and, in order to this, perhaps it will be said that the predictions of the Old Testament prophets having been addressed to the Jews as a nation, might very properly refer to future events, interesting to them as such, but not particularly so to any other people, and therefore unnecessary to be touched upon by those whose business it was to write and speak for the benefit and instruction of the universal Church.

This answer is very unsatisfactory; for, in the first place, provided the restoration of the Jews is to take place, the event is as important to the Jews now, and was as important to the Jews of apostolic times, as it was to the Jews of old; and if they are to form so considerable, so pre-eminent a portion of the Christian Church, as it is said by some they will, the New Testament will be their "sure word of prophecy," as

well as our's; and the predicted restoration was surely a direct subject for apostolic confirmation and comment, and claimed the general suffrage of the New Testament writers; while, on the other hand, if those prophecies referred to predict no other events than such as occurred previous to the Christian era, or only the general prosperity of the cause of Christ, the difficulty arising from an apparent want of harmony between the Old and New Testaments vanishes. Again, it is urged, that the predicted restoration lays the Christian body under certain obligations, and devolves upon it certain duties, in reference to the event; if so, Christians needed some specific instructions on the subject under the new dispensation, because without them they were liable, as facts prove, to question the existence of the prediction itself, and, consequently, of the obligations and duties involved. And we are reduced to the dilemma, if we admit the doctrine, of concluding, either that there are no duties thence arising to Christians, or that the New Testament is defective as a rule of Christian practice. The latter we shall

not allow, and therefore consistency dictates that no attempt should be made to establish that as a ground of duty which we admit is not so.

Secondly, In the Epistle to the Hebrews, written by a Jew, and displaying a most complete acquaintance with the old dispensation, and with the condition and views of their nation, and in which, as it was written to converted Jews while their nation was in a state of great temporal abasement, some reference to their future national prosperity might have been expected, and would certainly have been interesting, there is no encouragement given to the opinion. But in the 8th chapter, and also in the 9th and 10th, the nature of the "new covenant," made with "the house of Israel and the house of Judah," is explained as essentially different from the old, which is described as "ready to vanish;" and this "new covenant" obviously means the Gospel dispensation, and consequently cannot be considered as having an exclusive application to the Jews. We see then, that Christianity is set forth as the fulfilment of this prophecy respecting

the "new covenant," and the prophecies of which Christianity is thus affirmed to be the fulfilment are some of those very same upon which the opinion in question rests.-Jer. xxxi. xxxiii. &c. "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."-And chap. xxxii. 40," And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me," &c.-Ezek. xi. 19, "And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh," &c.—Chap. xxxvi. 26, “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh." Besides, the 11th of Hebrews, 10th, 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th verses, seem directly opposed to a literal interpretation, assuring us that the matters

of divine promise made to the fathers were objects of faith, and that by faith they saw them, and are now inheriting them above: "For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." "These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things, declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city."

Thirdly. The Aposle Paul, whose heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel was, that they might be saved, and who so often and so warmly expresses the solicitude of his soul for his "brethren according to the flesh," and who wrote to explain to them their ancient ritual, and to prove the