or less extent. And since we ought not to depart, without necessity, from the most simple interpretation, we are bound, in justice, to construe this phrase thus, the end of the age or dispensation, in every case where the context naturally admits such a sense. At the same time, it is not denied that, did the circumstances plainly appear to require, the original term might possibly bear the other translation, according to an ancient usage, which, however, was extremely rare, if indeed it ever existed. Let it be remembered, then, that 'the end of the world,' mentioned in the New Testament, is, without a solitary exception, the end of the age, or dispensation, according to the literal and most natural rendering.

This fact certainly throws important light upon our subject; still, it does not remove all its obscurity. It does not account for St. Peter's assertion, that the end of all things' was then at hand; nor for the circumstance, that the apostles habitually called their age the last days,' or 'the last time.' All these are terms which, according to our modern usage at least, do by no means belong to the end of a mere dispensation.

seems no necessity for resorting to so unusual a definition, if we except the two last texts he has quoted. These are Heb. i, 2. By whom also he made the worlds [tous aionas] ;' and Heb. xi, 3. By faith we perceive that the worlds [tous aionas] were created by the word of God.' And even in these two passages, some critics have concluded, perhaps incorrectly, that, not the material worlds, but the Mosaic and Christian dispensations were meant. Should this interpretation be admitted, we venture to assert, that not an instance in the New Testament could be found, in which the term plainly denotes the material world; and we are not aware that any examples are alleged from other books.

'

To a cautious examiner, there may also remain some perplexity in the manner in which even the expression, end of the age,' as we here translate it, is employed in the New Testament. In itself, it is altogether indefinite, since it might refer to the end of any considerable portion of time whatever; but nevertheless, we find it always introduced as a term, the peculiar application of

which could not then be mistaken.

It would

seem, that there must have been some prevailing expectations, not expressly stated, and some generally received forms of speech, now passed away, which at that time rendered the phrase in question, perfectly familiar and definite. Else, why was that in particular denominated the age, in distinction from all others, as though every body would of course understand what one was referred to? Or, what led the disciples to suspect, as their question on the mount of Olives intimated, that some remarkable signs were to precede the end of that age, rather than that of any other? Or again, why did St. Paul use language otherwise so insignificant, and even unintelligible, as the remarks, that Christ appeared in the end of the age, and that the ends of the age had come upon him and his contemporary brethren? It may not, indeed, be difficult, after some examination, to apply these expressions; but the question still arises, can we make them appear to fall readily into the natural current of speaking and writing, unless we suppose that they were dictated by certain circumstances not familiar to people at this day?

III. It is our object to show that there really

were such circumstances; such, too, as satisfactorily account for the scriptural usage of all the phrases which we have mentioned. Let the reader, then, consider that all the Christians maintained, of course, that their time was the long expected time of the Messiah; whose kingdom or reign, they unanimously declared to be already begun in spirit, and about to 'come with pow er.' This fact was well understood, upon every hand, that they contended that this grand epoch, the most distinguished of all in the Jewish faith, had actually commenced that the Messiah had already appeared, and that his kingdom was, in a short time, to be fully established upon earth.

:

Now, let the following fact be considered, in connection with the foregoing. This interesting period, which had begun, but which the Jews in their blindness, still looked for, was commonly designated, in the current phraseology of that nation, by these very appellations, or by similar terms, viz. the last days, the latter days, the end of the age or dispensation, the time of the end, &c. So at least it seems from a multitude of facts, part of which we will soon lay before the reader. Should it appear that such was indeed the style in which that expected period was then generally spoken of in Judea, this circumstance will, of itself, explain the usage in question, and dispel all remaining darkness from the subject. For, in that case, our Saviour and his apostles but spoke in the common religious language of their day and country, employing, as was natural, such terms as custom had appropriated to the

topic of which they treated. If those terms strike us, at this remote time, as improper or as too vague, it is owing merely to the fact, that the circumstances and practice, which then fixed and sanctioned their application, have now passed away. To the Jews, and to those who lived among Jews, they were intelligible and familiar; while, perhaps, the terms which we should prefer, would either have been without meaning, or have appeared extremely awkward.

IV. Before we proceed to exhibit our evidence that such was the common usage, we would say a few words concerning the sources whence we must derive the principal part of our light, on all similar points, as well as on this in particular. Authentic testimony, relating directly to the religious manners, opinions and language of the Jews in Judea, during the ministry of Christ and of his apostles, is very scanty, if we except what is contained in the New Testament. That this is the case, may be judged from a list of those works on which we must chiefly depend for information.

1. The volumes of Josephus, a learned Jew of Palestine, were indeed written only a few years after the period referred to; but, then, they are almost exclusively historical; and his ambition to rank with the classic scholars of Greece and Rome, led him to avoid as much as possible, the peculiar idioms of the synagogue, which were justly stigmatized as barbarisms. 2. There are also the numerous writings of Philo Judæus, another

learned Jew, and a contemporary with our Saviour; but although mostly of a religious character, and belonging to the very time under consideration, they throw little light on the customs and forms of expression prevalent in Judea. Brought up and always residing at Alexandria, the author's notions and phraseology, are of that peculiar kind, which characterized his countrymen in Egypt; where Judaism has assumed a dress very different from that which it wore in other parts of the world.' 3. Next in order of time, if they ought not to be placed before the preceding, are two Jewish translations, or more properly, paraphrases, of part of the Old Testament, called the Targum of Onkelos on the five books of Moses, and the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Prophets. Of these the dates are uncertain many critics judging them to have been composed during the early part of our Saviour's life; and some assigning that of Onkelos to the second century, and that of Jonathan to the third or fourth, after the Christian era. Wherever these translations run into the freedom of a paraphrase, which with the latter is frequently the case, they afford specimens, as pure perhaps as we can now obtain, of the religious language and opinions of the Jews, at, or near the time of the apostles. 4. There is another work,

1 Bruckeri Historia Crit. Philosophiæ, vol. ii, p. 690, &c. Hist. of Philosophy, Book iv. ch. 1, vol. ii. p. 152, 153. Bertholdt Christologia Judæorum, § 5, 6, 8. The difference between the Judaism of Egypt, and that of Palestine, is not sufficiently considered By most writers.

2 See Horne's Introduction to the Scriptures, vol. ii. pp. 159, 160.