drawn however inimitably, yet drawn to amuse the unrestrained imagination. We ask pardon for thus speaking of schools of tragedy which possess such mighty names as Corneille, Racine, and Shakspeare. We wish it understood that we are not venturing a condemnation of their poetry, which the unanimous verdict of all critics extols; the modes of that poetry-the faults of the tragedy, as such, require an unfavorable comparison with classic models. In Shakspeare, and the great mass of English writers who follow him, the lack of unity, intricacy of plot, and multiplicity of characters, while they give greater scope to versatile genius, destroy the severe outline which wer so much praise as the excellency of the Attic drama.

In Corneille and Racine, different as they are, we are staggered by conceits, and in the extravagances of expression see the Frenchman everywhere with his classic drapery cut into coat, vest and pantaloons. There is unity, but no force, or rather the force exaggerated loses its effect, letting us down into the burlesque. All this, we aver, is seen side by side with the noblest flights of true poesy. Simplicity is thus sacrificed, but in a different way from its sacrifice in the English tragedy, and the moral, on analysis, is resolvable into a bit of aesthetic sentimentality. The rapidity and frequency of movement and the absence of chorus and choric intervals are additional faults in the French drama, tending, like the rest, to bring down tragedy from the symbolic to the imitative, which we consider the destruction of its high character, through which it stands at the head of all poetic expression. We urge, therefore, the creation of a modern written tragedy, on a thorougly Attic basis, keeping in view the two essential elements of the Greek drama, symbolism and moral instruction. Let the pure light of Christianity be poured upon these elements, and we shall have a school of high Christian art which shall improve the taste and correct the life of many, who withdrew themselves from the direct influences of a preached Gospel and an open Bible. The written tragedy may live, when the acted tragedy would perish. The acted tragedy, in its highest form, we have seen, cannot last long. We shall probably never see it revived. Its revival is not to be desired by the Church, for its associations would defile it. The Christian author of high

tragedy must write for the parlor and not for the stage. We believe Christianity should use all the materials which Art furnishes for the adornment of its teachings. Christianity is not an aesthetic religion, as many seem to regard it. Not beauty, but the mighty truth of atonement for sin by a Divine crucified Saviour, is its essential centre. This central truth sends forth rays of matchless loveliness, and it is but reasonable that all we know of beauty in expression should be used to disseminate these emanations of the focal verity. The mistake is in looking at aesthetics as the essence, where they should be the mere external ornament. It is in this view we commend to all the study of the Attic drama, and desire its resuscitation in a Christian garb.

ARTICLE III.

WILL THE JEWS, AS A NATION, BE RESTORED TO THEIR OWN LAND?*

THREE thousand seven hundred and seventy years ago, the Lord said unto Abraham, "Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will show thee. And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse

*Note by the Author of this Article.-One only of the editors is responsible for the following Article. He is aware that while in maintaining the affirmative of this question he has the general sentiment of the Church in former days with him, and an increasing number in our immediate times, that many sound and judicious divines are quite averse from the idea, and can see no foundation for it in Scripture. The author supposes that his theory is in one important respect new; at least he has never seen or heard it stated exactly as he puts it, and he presents it as worthy of consideration and discussion. It is proper for him to state emphatically that he has no sympathy whatever with any Millenarian theory, and that he considers all such ideas, and especially such as involve the personal reign of our Saviour, as merely carnal and Judaizing.

him that curseth thee; and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."

Justly has it been remarked that all family claims and patents of nobility sink into perfect insignificance beside the high blazon of the Jews' heraldry. What nation can go so far back into antiquity, what people can urge such an origin, who ever accomplished so lofty purposes, who ever put forth such claims upon the sympathy and deepest feelings of mankind? A standing miracle, an ever-existing monument of the truth of prophecy, the blood of Abraham, after nearly four thousand years, runs unmixed in the veins of the Jew who lives quietly among us.

Our nation rose into being, and the Jew had then been driven from his home seventeen hundred years. When our mother country arose, the sun of Jerusalem had set a thousand years. Century after century of the dark ages roll back, and when Horace and Virgil were basking in the smiles of the Augustan court, the cup of God's people was but filling up for their overthrow. The full glory of Grecian philosophy and art arose after the golden age of Hebrew literature had passed away, and Plato and Phidias were modern compared with Moses. Rome was cradled when Tadmor in the desert had been flourishing two hundred years, and when the infancy of Greece is lost in fable, ten centuries had risen and set over Abraham and his seed. Yet even in Italy no man can certainly trace his origin to the ancient Roman families. And what are the proudest families of England, but descendants of petty robber chieftains of a few centuries ago? For an ancient and pure lineage we must go to the children of Isaac and of Ishmael!

We believe that it is not denied by any considerable number of Christians, or by any respectable class of interpreters, that the Jews, as a nation, will be converted to Christianity, and that this event is immediately connected with stupendous events in the future, even with the ushering in of the millennial glory. This is so clearly taught in the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans that one could scarcely deny it and retain his Christian character. When the "fullness of the Gentiles is come in," the blindness shall be removed from Israel.

They "shall all be saved," and their reception into the Church shall be "life from the dead" to the world.

In regard to the question of the literal restoration of the Jews, as a nation, to their own land, the following preliminary remarks are offered.

It is not the question whether certain Jewish gentlemen may choose to have country seats overlooking the Mediterranean, or in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, or among the roses of Damascus. Nothing vexes us more when discussing this subject than to have some wise man say that some of the Jews may settle in Palestine, just as some of them live on the North River. This may be or it may not be, but it has nothing to do with the question. That question is, Will the Jews, as a nation, return and occupy the land of Palestine, just as the English occupy England, and we as a nation occupy America? Will they be a recognized power in the earth with every attribute of a nation? To argue about anything less than this is mere child's play.

We have not the slightest disposition to dogmatize on the subject. We are very thoroughly aware that difficulties environ it, and that, in parts of it, there is no clear path, but only a choice of difficulties. We do not pretend, therefore, to settle the question so as to leave no doubt. Indeed, we can hardly be too cautious in regard to unfulfilled prophecy, except when the statements are designedly unequivocal.

We reject, on the one hand, what is called the literal interpretation of Scripture, and, on the other hand, for the most part, what is called the double sense of prophecy, and the plans for, what is called, allegorizing or spiritualizing it. We know of no rules for interpreting prophecy, except those which would be used by any sensible man, properly instructed, in interpreting any document or book. That is, the principles of sound reasoning and common sense are to be applied to the passages, with all the assistance which can be derived from studying the originals, from comparing Scripture with Scripture, and from the light which is thrown upon them by the results of the learning and research of past and present ages. A figure of speech is to be understood as such, a literal statement as such, a symbol as a symbol, poetry as poetry, and narrative

as narrative. Where we cannot, by such assistance, clearly make out the meaning, we are patiently to await the developments of God's Providence.

An objection to the methods of interpretation of the literalists is that it is entirely uncertain. No man can tell where to find them. They insist that the orthodox method of interpretation, indicated above, spiritualizes everything away, and that the Bible must be taken literally. Let us see. The psalmist declares, "I am a worm and no man." Our Saviour says, "I am the door;" "I am the vine." If it be said that only prophecies are to be taken literally, we remark that precisely the same difficulties occur in a hundred places: ex. gra: "Thou shalt suck the breasts of kings;" "The Lord shall make bare His arm;" "I have trodden the wine press alone." On the literalist system, there is no intelligible meaning in such passages and multitudes of others. We must take the commonsense system of trying to ascertain just what the writer meant, as if we were reading the History of England, or the Pilgrim's Progress, or Paradise Lost.

It is so with the system of the double sense or allegorizing prophecy away. That, for example, the passover, the brazen serpent, and many other things in the Old Testament, had a typical meaning, besides their obvious one, no sensible man will question, and that there are cases of a double fulfillment of prophecy, we must admit on the authority of Scripture itself; but in all such cases, there must be the clearest proof of such double meaning, and fancy must be kept within strict bounds.

On the other hand, the mere improbability of the fulfillment of a prophecy is not to be taken as conclusive against an interpretation. We do not know much about the future, and it is very unsafe to say what is or what is not probable in view of the discoveries of these times, and of the grandeur of the scale of the Almighty's workings. We will enter upon this point more fully in connection with the Restoration of the Jews, after we shall have discussed the Scripture argument.

We are well aware that it is easier to lay down canons than to follow them. Yet, though no man is infallible, it is a great advantage to lay down, primarily, the grand landmarks of

VOL. VI.-4