We think, then, we are safe in the inference, that the “greater glory" of which the prophet Haggai speaks, relates, not to Christ's appearance in the temple of Herod, but to that of a temple future to any which had preceded it. The comparison instituted by Haggai above, is that between the glory of one "house" and that of another "house"-of the temple of Ezekiel with those erected by Solomon, Zerubbabel, and Herod. This, we submit, will appear obvious to any one who will take the trouble to compare the ground-plan of Solomon's temple, as given by Calmet and Prideaux, with that of Ezekiel, as delineated by Poole. The difference is so great as scarcely to bear a resemblance. Solomon's temple was 60 cubits long, 30 broad and 30 high.' Zerubbabel's was ordered to be 60 cubits long, and 60 broad.' And Herod's was 100 cubits long. Solomon's temple was in a square of 60 cubits. Ezekiel's is to be in a square of 500 cubits. The proportion of Ezekiel's temple, therefore, to that of Solomon will be as 500 to 60, or as the glory of King Messiah will surpass the glory of king Solomon. In this sense, then, the "glory of this latter house" will exceed that of the former. Again:

Second. As to the Restoration of Sacrifices. The prophet was specially ordered to show to the house of Israel, provided they were ashamed of their iniquities, the whole pattern, and forms, and ordinances, and laws, of this house, with a charge to keep one and all of them. (Chap. xliii. 10, 11.) Now, that the Jews who returned with Zerubbabel [Nehemiah] were ashamed, appears from Neh. ix. 1-3; yet no reference or allusion seems to have been made to this revelation of Ezekiel, either in a literal or spiritual

sense.

So far from it, though Ezekiel himself was commanded to take of the seed of Zadok, and with them to officiate in the ordinances and sacrifices, yet we are nowhere informed that he did so. The conclusion, therefore, is, that the reason of their omission was that their observance was to be reserved for the future.

To this, however, it is objected that the offering of sacrifices appears incongruous with the deliverance of the animals from bondage during the millennial dispensation, etc. But to this it may be replied, that the law in regard to the brute creation, "the spirit of the beast goeth downward," is applicable alike to all

Josephus, book xv. chap. 14,

11 Kings vi. 3, 4; 2 Chron. iii. 3, 4. 4 Ezek. xlv. 2.

2 Ezra vi. 3.

Eccles. iii. 21.

2

time, as well before' as after the fall. We know of no scripture which teaches that they shall at any period, "the times of restitution of all things" not excepted, be rendered, like man, absolutely immortal. And, if it were befitting that the brute creation, though "made subject to vanity unwillingly," was nevertheless offered in sacrifice from the time of Abel as typical of the sacrifice of the woman's seed to come, we see not why they may not be used in the Divine purpose as a commemorative ordinance of that event during the millennial age.

It is also objected, that the future offering of sacrifices is incompatible with St. Paul's reasoning in the Epistles to the Galatians and Hebrews, where, having argued the inefficacy of the legal sacrifices to atone for sin, and the sufficiency to that end of the one offering of "Christ," who as our passover was slain for us;" such a revival of them would seem to be a return again to the "beggarly elements" from which the Church has been delivered. To this, however, we deem it sufficient to observe, that the facts of the case, in that the apostles themselves continued to offer sacrifices and to observe Jewish feasts for thirty-seven years subsequent to the death of Christ, furnish evidence that these things were not removed on account of the death of Christ. As institutions of the Church under the Christian dispensation, they, together with the polity of the Jewish commonwealth, were set aside after the fall of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the nation in A. D. 70, and were suspended "until the time come when they shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord."

And finally, on this subject, we think it sufficient to remove all doubt, in regard both to the future literal rebuilding of the temple and the revival of sacrifices as a commemorative ordinance during the millennial dispensation, to refer to the fact that no such events occurred, as preceding the visit of Christ to the temple, to which the prophet Haggai points in chap. ii. 6, 7, and verses 20-22; in addition to which, in verse 23, we have a clear and unequivocal prophecy of the future prosperity and glory of

1 This idea may somewhat startle the reader. Let him, however, reflect, that the very penalty annexed to a partaking of the fruit of the interdicted tree,-" in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," i. e., so far as it respected the matter of an organic death, implies that our first parents, even in innocence, must have had a knowledge of what death was. But, in regard to human beings, this knowledge could only have been derived from what they saw of the ravages of death among the lower orders of creation.

2 Acts iii. 21.

3 Rom. viii. 20.

Matt. xxiii. 39.

Christ's kingdom (a prophecy which can in no sense be applied to the Church during the present dispensation), under the name of Zerubbabel, as His ancestor and type. But,

Third. Should this and the preceding facts and evidences be deemed undecisive of the question in hand, of the numerous passages that might be adduced to the same end, we select that of Deut. xxx. 3-6, the following analysis of which will be found to place the matter beyond the reach of further controversy.

1. On the return of the Jews from their captivity, it is here predicted that they shall be "gathered from all the nations whither the Lord their God hath scattered them," reaching even unto the uttermost parts of heaven." (Verses 3, 4.) But their return under Cyrus was confined almost exclusively to those who came up from Babylon.

66

2. It was predicted of the Babylonish captivity, thus: Deut. xxviii. 36, "The Lord shall bring thee, and thy king which thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known." This was fulfilled, as recorded in Dan. i. 1, 2, when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Jerusalem, and carried Jehoiakim, king of Judah, a captive to Babylon. But in the prophecy, Deut. xxx. 3, 4, no mention is made of their having a king, the "sceptre," after Shiloh came, having "departed from Judah," since which they have been "without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim." But, after abiding thus for "many days," saith the Lord, "the children of Israel shall return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king: and shall fear the Lord and His goodness in the latter days."1

3. Compare the number of the captives who returned from Babylon with what is predicted of their increase at the time of their final restoration. At the exodus from Egypt there were about 600,000 on foot that were men, besides children, together with the mixed multitude." But in the return from Babylon the whole number, including the congregation proper, together, with men-servants, maid-servants, and singing-men, and singing-women, did not amount to the total of 50,000 persons. (See Neh. vii. 66.) Whereas, according to the prophecy of Hosea, chap. i. 10, 11, they are yet to be "multiplied above their fathers," for, saith he, "The number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the

sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered. . . . Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land for great shall be the day of Jezreel (or seed of God)." And,

4. The prophecy in verse 6, "and the Lord thy God shall circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God," etc. Whatever may be said of the revivals of religion among the Jews under Ezra and Nehemiah, and the time of the Maccabees; yet, when Stephen addressed them, Acts vii. 51, his language was, "Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears; ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." Now, here is the evidence of their having fallen away from their steadfastness in God, after their return from Babylon. Whereas, at their final ingathering "from all countries whither they have been driven," their covenant-God declares, “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. Yea, I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will plant them in this land assuredly, with my whole heart, and with my whole soul, for I will cause their captivity to return, saith the Lord."

1

As an aid to the student of prophecy, it will be well for him to consult, on this subject, the following passages, viz.: Lev. xxiv. 40-45. Deut. xxx. 3-6. Isa. i. 26, 27; x. 20-22; xi. 1114; lx.; lxi. 4–7. Jer. iii. 18-23; xvi. 14-18; xxiii. 3-8; xxx. 18-22; xxxi.-xxxiii. 19-22; 1. 4-20. Ezek. xi. 16-19; xx.34-40; xxviii. 24-26; xxxvi., xxxvii., xxxviii., xxxix., xl. Hosea iii. 5. Joel ii. 21-32. Amos ix. 9-15. Micah ii. 21; iv. 6-8. Zech. i. 18-21; viii.-xii. 6–14, and xiii. 1.

But, not to prolong this discussion, whatever may be thought of our exposition of the prophecy of Haggai, chap. ii. 9, of this we are certain: first, that it could not have been verified in the return of the Jews from Babylon, and of the worship then instituted; second, that it is equally obvious that Christ's presence in the temple did not meet the terms of the prophecy; and hence, third, that the latter chapters in Ezekiel's prophecy are to be taken, not in iritual, but in a literal sense.

1 Jer. xxxii. 36-44. See also chap. xxxi. 31-40.

SECTION IV.

We now pass to the argument against the future literal return of the Jews to their own land, as founded,

2. [2.] On the alleged silence of the New Testament on that subject. "Silence," indeed! We cannot but express our aston. ishment that devotion to a preconceived theory should so blind the minds even of good men, as to lead them to overlook all those passages which militate against it. "Not a word of comfort," it is said, "accompanied our Lord's prophecy of the destruction of the Holy City, etc., with its consequences!" It may not here be superfluous to remind the reader that Matt. xxiii. 34–39 forms the introductory part of the great prophecy of Christ, as continued through chapters xxiv. and xxv. Now, in chap. xxiii. 38, Christ had predicted of the Jews, "Behold, your house shall be left unto you desolate." But He immediately adds, verse 39, "For I say unto you, ye shall not see Me henceforth, till ye shali say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord." Was there no comfort in that? Again: As the dispersion of the Jews and the treading down of Jerusalem was to continue "until the times of the Gentiles should be fulfilled;" and they were told that when the things should "begin to come to pass," that were to foreshadow the close of that period, they were to "lift up their heads" at their approaching "redemption," was there no comfort in that? Nor can we understand verse 31, respecting the "gathering together of the elect from the four winds with a great sound of a trumpet," (not, mark, that "last trump," which is to awake "the dead in Christ," but that of which the great trumpet of jubilee was the type,) other than of the recovery from their captivity of those who, "as touching the election, are beloved for the fathers' sake." (Rom. xi. 28.) At least we are persuaded that believing Jews, having their eye on Isaiah xxvii. 13, would find "comfort" in this part of our Lord's prophecy.

SECTION V.

Fourth. We have at length reached the most important of all the objections urged by this theory against the future literal restoration of the Jews to their own land.'