tree, to be cursed beyond this period, unless other fig trees bore fruit to all eternity? The forever here, was simply the period it was usual for fig trees to bear fruit. It is similar to the use of oulm in the texts, where the slave was to serve his master forever, which was during his life-time.

Luke i. 33, is the next, and is the only text in this essay, on which comment or reasoning appears to be employed. The whole of it is this. He (Jesus) shall reign over the house of David forever, eis tous aionas." There may be some difference of opinion here, as to the class of meanings to which the phrase, eis tous aionas, is to be assigned. The majority of interpreters give to it the sense of forever, and appeal to the nature of the Messiah's kingdom, and also to the corresponding assertion in the latter part of v. 33, "of his kingdom there shall be no end, ouk...telos." On the other hand, interpreters who construe eis tous aionas somewhat differently, appeal to 1 Cor. xv. 24-28, in order to show that the kingdom of the Messiah is to have an end, and that therefore the expression in question is to be regarded only as designating an indefinite period, a very long time. They add, too, that the passage in Luke plainly has a relation to the kingdom of Christ as Messiah; a kingdom which must cease, of course, when the office of Messiah ceases, which will be after the general judgment, 1 Cor. xv. 24—28. The reasoning of the latter seems to be weighty; and I should feel bound to accede to it, unless it might be said, with propriety, that there is a spiritual kingdom, one purely of a moral kind, and adapted to the heavenly world, that will continue after the appropriate reign of Jesus as Messiah shall cease. This is certainly favored by those passages in the New Testament, which ascribe endless dominion and power to the Son of God in the same manner as to the Father; e. g. Rev. v. 13. and xi. 15; Heb. i.

8.

On the whole, I am rather inclined to class eis tous aionas here, with those passages which designate an unlimited period; particularly because of the ouk...telos, which follows in the same verse. Yet I should not be very confident in maintaining this classification, for the reasons stated above. If I am correct, the passage might be classed under a above.' Such is your comment, and on which I beg leave to remark, 1st. It was very confi

dently asserted by you above, that eis tous aionas meant endless duration. But here you lower your tone, and allow it is doubtful if it has this meaning. You admit ( there may be some difference of opinion on this point. 2d. It appears Commentators were consulted, your declaration to the contrary notwithstanding. Indeed, commentators of an opposite opinion were consulted, for some of them half incline you to think, that eis tous aionas means only limited duration. You allow their reasons for this opinion to be weighty.' Concerning their view, you say

I should feel bound to accede to it, unless it might be said, with propriety, that there is a spiritual kingdom, one purely of a moral kind and adapted to the heavenly world, that will continue after the appropriate reign of Jesus as Messiah shall cease.' The texts you refer to in proof of this, are inadmissible, for this is just proving a thing by the one under discussion. But I may ask, Is not Jesus' present kingdom spiritual? Is not it of a purely moral kind? I may also ask-In what capacity shall Jesus be over a kingdom in 'the heavenly world,' that will continue after the appropriate reign of Jesus as Messiah shall

'cease ?'

6

3d. But your chief reason for dissenting from the views of some commentators is-' on the whole, I am rather inclined to class cis tous aionas here with those passages which designate an unlimited period; particularly because of the ouk...telos, which follows in the same verse.' It is admitted on all sides, that the kingdom of the Messiah is spoken of in this passage, and concerning it we find it said, ' of his kingdom there shall be no end, ouk.. telos.' But permit me to ask, Is it of your spiritual kingdom, one purely of a moral kind, adapted to the heavenly world, concerning which this passage speaks?' or, is it of the kingdom of the Messiah, which you admit, 'must cease, of course, when the office of the Messiah ceases?' Of the latter, surely, unless you can prove, that Christ is to reign over the house of David' in 'the heavenly world.'. Cannot you perceive, that the expression, of his kingdom there shall be no end, ouk...telos,' means, that his kingdom shall be succeeded by no other, but shall be continued throughout all the generations of this world? See Psalm 72d and 89th, with the end of his reign, cometh the period called to telos, the end, 1 Cor. xv,

24. Is not this view in agreement with all the facts stated in scripture respecting his kingdom; for where does it reveal another dispensation or kingdom, which is to succeed that of the Messiah? and yet, it is allowed his kingdom is to end. 1 Cor. xv. 24-28.

"Thus far,' you say, ' all the examples which have been cited, refer to future time. But there is another small class of examples, in which aion refers to past time. I observe, then, (2) that aion sometimes means an indefinite or long period in time past, ancient days, times of old, long ago, always in time past, generations or ages long since, Of this tenor are the following passages; viz. Luke i. 70; Acts xv. 18; 1 Cor. ii. 7; Eph. iii. 9, and iii. 11; Col. i. 26; John ix. 32.' This class of texts, you allow, has no direct bearing on our subject. But I would merely ask, if aion in these texts means a long time past, why not, when it is applied to future time, give it the same or similar sense ?

ture

You say the cases which I shall next rank under No. 3, may not appear, at first view, to be very nearly related to those already exhibited. But the experienced interpreter will easily perceive, that there is in them a tacit reference to the idea of age, period of time, seculum; and also that this has particular reference to quantity of time as a whole, and may relate either to a past or a fuage. In accordance with this, then, we may say (3) that alo occasionally means age in the sense of dispensation, viz. age, (Jewish), age, (Christian). In this case, it is obviously employed as we employ the word age in English, when we speak of the patriarchal age, the antediluvian age, etc. Of this meaning may be found the following examples; viz. 1 Cor. x. 11, on whom the ends of the age (ages) have come, ton aionon, i. e. who live at the close of the Jewish age or dispensation.' But why not rather say, 'the ends of the ages,' refer to the end of the Mosaic, and commencement of the christian age. On the people, who lived in the Apostle's day, the ends of these ages came, as you will admit.

But you add Eph. ii. 7, that he might show in the ages to come, en tois aiosi tois eper homenois, the exceeding riches of his grace. This may be construed of the (Gospel) ages; or it may be taken in the geneal sense of secula. The former is, perhaps, consonant with New

Testament usage; but the latter is the more probable sense.' There again you admit, that aion means age, and expresses a limited period of time. The same is done, 'Heb. vi. 5, who have tasted the good promise of God, and the powers of the age to come, mellontos aionios, i. e. of the miraculous powers bestowed under the Gospel dispensation.' You say these are all the examples which occur, that require to be ranked under this head; and of these, Eph. ii. 7, might be ranked under another category, and considered merely as an example of the classical sense of aion, viz. seculum,aerum, age simply considered.' That these are not all the examples' where aion ought to be rendered age, is notorious from your own orthodox critics and commentators. You know much better than this.

You add-it will be perceived, that most of the meanings of aion under the preceding heads, are in accordance with those which the word not unfrequently has in the Greek classic writers. In this respect, however, the New Testament usage differs from the classical ones, viz. in that aion, in the New Testament, most usually means an indefinite, unlimited period of time; whereas, in the classics, the sense of aevum seculum, age, generation (in respect to time), appears to be its more usual meaning.' This was quoted above, and I would here observe on it, 1st. you seem determined that the New Testament writers shall not be very classical in their use of aion. Age, generation was 'its more usual meaning' in the classics; but in very few cases do you allow, that they used aion in this sense. Modern versions and orthodox critics are at war with you here; nor do you show that they are mistaken.

2d. But upon examination it may be found, that the more usual meaning of aion in the classics, and oulm in the Old Testament, did not so much differ in their meaning as you seem to imagine. You allow they are corresponding words, in the Septuagint, and also in the New Testament, in many cases. And if you had rendered aion, age, as often as many critics have done, the agreement would have been much more obvious.

3d. But if your own rules of interpretation had been observed, the usage of oulm ought to have been examined, and aion construed in the New, according to Jewish ideas on the subject to which it was applied. You call he New Testament, the Hebrew Greek,' and that,

'though the words of the New Testament are Greek, the idiom is Hebrew.' This, beyond all question, is the course you ought to have pursued.

4th. Does it not look very strange, that, contrary to your own rules of scripture interpretation, you should give a sense to aion and aionios suited to your doctrine of endless punishment from the Talmudic and Rabbinic writers? This we shall see you do. Ought you not then to tell us, on whose authority you do this? And add,—' though the words of the New Testament are Greek, the idiom is Talmudic and Rabbinic.'

Sect. 5. Meaning of aion. Second general class of meanings.' You say I come now to a secondary and peculiar use of the word in question; one altogether different from anything in the Greek classics; and derived, as it would seem, entirely from the Hebrew usage of the word oulm, which the Seventy have translated so uniformly by aion. In the ancient Hebrew scriptures the word oulm properly means eternity, as I shall have occasion by and by to show. Like aion also it is frequently applied to designate an indefinite period of time, which is spoken of in reference to a great variety of objects, and with shades of difference, like those which have been named in regard to the use of aion. But the sense of world, the present world, and the future world, (when connected with eze, this, and eba, that which is to come) is one which does not appear ever to have been attached to oulm by the most ancient Hebrew writers; nor is it found in the Hebrew scriptures, unless it be in Eccl. iii. 11, which is so doubtful, and so much disputed, that no philological conclusions can be safely deduced from it. In the later Hebrew, however, (i. e. the Talmudic and Rabbinic,) the word oulm is employed, in innumerable instances, in the sense of world; and this, either present world, or future world. From this usage in the later Hebrew, (yet not so late but that it preceded the time when the New Testament was written) it comes, that aion in the New Testament, is not unfrequently employed in a similar manner. No one, who is at all acquainted with the multitude of Hebrew meanings attached to Greek words, both in the Septuagint and in the New Testament, will feel any surprise at this, or hesitate a moment about admitting the possibility or the reality of it. Hence we