ERRATA.

Preface, page viii, line 25, read "works of Bishop Horsley, Mr. G. S. Faber, and Mr. Bickersteth."

Also, page 108, line 39, read › for ›: page 303, line 21, › for 1: page 231, line 8, and page 537, line 23, for . Places where Dagesh has been omitted in the initial letter, which the reader will readily supply; chiefly in Chap. II.

Also, page 348, line 33, omit the words "and Lactantius."

NOTES ON THE

RESTORATION

AND CONVERSION

OF THE JEWS.

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.

"WRITE THE VISION, AND MAKE IT PLAIN UPON TABLES.”— (HAB. II. 2.)

To form an opinion upon the question of a future national restoration and conversion of Israel, it is necessary we should be familiar with the circumstances of Judah's return from Babylon, and with his history between the time of that restoration and the ascendancy of Herod the Idumean. For that predictions exist of some recovery of captive Israelites is certain; but that all such predictions refer to the deliverance from Babylon is disputed. On the contrary, it is confidently maintained that many of such prophecies foretel a restoration of all Israel in such terms as can by no means find their accomplishment in the various arrivals of Israelites in Judea, which occurred under the decrees of the Persian monarchs. For instance, it is maintained that several prophecies foretel the settlement in Palestine of all the tribes; but that from Babylon came not more than two. It is asserted that some prophecies inseparably connect a change of religion with the repossession of the Holy Land; but that (as admitted) no such change of religion did or could occur at the Babylonian restoration. And it is evident that, if there be really prophecies which sustain these assertions, we have in such two facts, when proved, unanswerable reasons for believing in a re-gathering of all the tribes yet to be accomplished.

Besides the work of Josephus (whose use upon this subject is manifest), Holy Scripture itself contains four books especially calculated to impart correct information respecting the recovery of the tribes from Babylon. Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah were

B

personally engaged in offices of the first importance during that event. Is it not reasonable to expect that the historical and prophetical books of these inspired men would so coincide with the works of the prophets who preceded them, that, whenever predictions most momentous in the history of Israel were being fulfilled, they would take peculiar care to record their accomplishment? At least, such appears in the New Testament to have been the conduct of later contributors to Holy Writ. And was the recovery of the ten tribes, who had been so much longer in captivity than Judah, a fulfilment of prophecy so little singular or important that not one of these good inspired men judged it desirable specifically to announce the fact? Such are questions which may be well considered by those who assume that the ten formed part of the Babylonian restoration. And particularly as to the prophecy of Zechariah. If we find in it predictions of a restoration then yet to be accomplished after Zechariah's time, we are sure those predictions must refer to events even now future; for no other return of any part of Israel has taken place down to the present time since that in which Zechariah was himself engaged. It is true that about sixty-eight years after Zerubbabel's arrival in Judea, a small body of Israelites reached Jerusalem under Ezra; it is also true that a certain prediction contained in Zech. x. is by some supposed to have been fulfilled by a liberation of Jews in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus ; but in the proper place I shall show that Zechariah's predictions are of far too august a character to be interpreted of the first of these events, and that as to the other, it is referred to in support of an hypothesis not justified by facts.

[1.] It has been intimated that certain prophecies foretel undeniably a return from captivity of all the tribes; but, admitting this, some maintain that portions of all the tribes did return from Babylon, and that, therefore (so far as this type goes), those prophecies may be considered as fulfilled. To this it is replied, that no competent representation of the ten which once constituted the kingdom of Israel returned, but only a few private and detached individuals; so that the restoration from Babylon must be limited to the two, Judah and Benjamin, while the real tribal body of the ten remained captives in Media. This is an important point; for if there be prophecies promising a restoration either of all the tribes or of the ten alone, but only two came back from Babylon, it is clear such prophecies have yet to be fulfilled.

The Christian Church has ever appreciated the authority of Josephus, who, speaking of the supplementary return under Ezra, observes, "So Ezra read the epistle at Babylon to those Jews that were there; but he kept the epistle itself, and sent a copy of it to all those of his own nation that are in Media; and when these Jews had understood what piety the king had towards God, and what kindness he had for Esdras, they were all greatly pleased; nay, many of them took their effects with them and came to Babylon, as very desirous of going to Jerusalem; but then the entire body of the people Israel remained in that country (Media); wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers." (B. 11, c. 5, s. 2, Antiq.) Thus, even allowing for his national pride, Josephus' testimony is decisive as to the fact that the great body, the tribal mass, of the ten did not return to Judea with the two. And it should be particularly noticed that, while he admits many of the ten joined the two at Jerusalem, he denies they were so many as could be justly considered an adequate representation of the several tribes to which they belonged, but, on the contrary, expressly declares that those ten remained in Media.

Christians, however, may differ in the degree of credit they attach to Josephus. Let us examine the books of Scripture, and we shall find them singularly decisive to show that the ten have never returned from captivity. For, first, if we refer to the accounts of Ezra and Nehemiah, both these writers employ the names Judah and Benjamin in such a manner as to imply that they considered the restoration from Babylon was limited to those tribes. "Then rose up the chief of the fathers of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests, and the Levites." (Ezra i. 5.) "Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard." (Chap. iv. 1.) "And Judah said, The strength of the bearers of burdens is decayed." (Nehem. iv. 10.) "And the rulers were behind all the house of Judah." (Ibid. ver. 16) "Moreover, in those days the nobles of Judah sent many letters." (Chap. vi. 17.) It is, however, undeniable that Ezra and Nehemiah often employ the words Israel, children of Israel, as though more than the representatives of two tribes were present; but admitting (as every one does) that some persons from other tribes were with the two, an examination of such passages will soon convince us that the titles Israel, all Israel, children of Israel, were given by Ezra and Nehemiah to the people of