He did

fulfilment both of that and of prophecy in the person and Gospel of Christ; and who, in his Epistle to the Romans, expressly, and at considerable length, refers to their existing circumstances and future conversion, never once alludes to such an event as their literal restoration to Palestine and · national importance. Nor did even our Lord, who was also himself a Jew, and foretold the destruction of Jerusalem, and wept at the prospect of its woes. indeed limit the period of ruthless tyranny and reckless oppression, when he said, "Jerusalem shall be trodden under foot of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled;" but this language appears to me to bring strong presumptive evidence against the idea of a literal restoration; because if, by the word "until," he had intended to intimate that, when the times of the Gentiles arrived, Jerusalem would then not only cease to be trodden under the foot of tyranny, but be restored to its original circumstances; the intimation was extremely dark, and liable, as the present controversy proves, to another construction demanded by the general tenor of the

New Testament. Whereas, if He intended to say merely that Jerusalem should be trodden under foot until oppressors ceased from the earth, when, in common with other places, it should enjoy the blessings of universal peace and love, his words are free from all obscurity, and fully convey their intended sense, and are not liable to any other construction as demanded by the general tenor of the New Testament. For, observe, the expression is not "until the times of the Restoration," but "until the times of the Gentiles;" and, by recurrence to the Prophets, we find "the times" alluded to are those when the distinction of Gentile, as well as that of Jew, shall merge in the universal title of Christian; and, when that time shall arrive, let who may inhabit the land of Judea and Jerusalem, it would be obviously unsuitable to say, in reference to those pious inhabitants, that Jerusalem was still trodden under foot of the Gentiles. I take the passage to be fairly paraphrased as follows: "The day of Jerusalem's sorrows is approaching; the armies of its desolators draw nigh, and soon its destruction will

be accomplished, and it shall never cease to be desolate and oppressed until the - blessed period arrive when the Gentiles shall oppress no more, and when all lands shall rejoice and blossom as the rose." Compare the passage with Gen. xxviii. 15, 1 Sam. xv. 35, Rom. v. 13, Mal. xiv. 25, and Matt. v. 18, and I presume the correctness of this paraphrase will appear highly probable. The Lord says to Jacob, "I will not leave thee until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of." Did the Lord mean to say He would leave him then?" And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death." Did he come then?" Until the law, sin was in the world." Did sin leave the world when the law came?-Christ, at the last supper, said, "Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God." Did Christ mean, that in the kingdom of God He would literally drink of the fruit of the vine?-Jesus said, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Did He mean to say that

when heaven and earth passed, the holy law of God should be dishonoured? These quotations sufficiently prove that the word until does not always imply limitation, or alteration; much less the exact and literal recurrence of a former circumstance. The bringing in of the Gentiles is, doubtless, the event predicted in those reiterated announcements of prophecy, which, if taken literally, appear only to foretell the future restoration and prosperity of the Jews. But, surely, the former seems to be a subject more in consonance with the general tenor of Divine Truth, and more worthy the so frequent inspiration of the Holy Ghost,—not that "Israel and Judah” only, be one kingdom under David, but that the whole world be covered with the knowledge of the true God, and the ransomed flock of every kindred, tribe, and clime, be "all one" under Christ, the one Shepherd. Nor will it satisfactorily account for the silence of the New Testament writers, supposing the doctrine to be true, to say, that when the New Testament was penned, the Jews were not yet dispersed; and that, therefore, any allusion to their restoration,

before that event had taken place, would have been unnatural. The New Testament writers were fully aware that Jerusalem was to be destroyed, and the destruction of the city involved the dispersion of its inhabitants. Christ himself, as already noticed, had predicted that event, and the prophecies which are supposed to imply the future restoration of the Jews, speak quite as explicitly of the rebuilding of Jerusalem; and, with the information they possessed, and with the prophecies in mind, it would have been quite as natural, and in place, (provided they had regarded it as a matter of truth and importance,) if they had noticed and confirmed the testimony of the prophets to the rebuilding of Jerusalem, as it was to refer, as they did refer, to the abrogation of the Jewish polity, and to the prophetic testimony that, eventually, "all Israel shall be saved." Besides, the answer imagined, would suppose the silence of the New Testament writers to be maintained out of regard to what was natural in a certain degree, to the neglect of what was (according to those who may assign the answer) important in a much greater