of a period unlimited or without bounds, i. e. ever and (with a negative) never. As Matt. 25: 19. Let there be no fruit of thee forever. And Mark 11: 14. the same. Mark 3:29. Whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness. Luke 1:33. He shall reign over the house of David forever. Luke 1: 55. John 4: 14. John 8:35. 12:34. 13:8. 14: 16. 1 Cor. 8: 13. Heb. 1: 8. 5: 6. 6:20. 7: 17. 7: 21. 7: 24. 7: 28. 13:8. 2 John 5: 2. Rev. 5: 12. 11: 15. Mr. B. here comments upon the word forever, in relation to the curse upon the fig-tree. But as he does not deny that it means unlimited time, his remarks are nothing in point; for he admits all that Stuart asserts. He also calls in question the propriety of classing the above passage, which speaks of Christ reigning over the house of David forever, under this head, and finds fault with Mr. Stuart's reasons for doing it. Though there is a sense in which Christ's mediatorial kingdom will come to an end, Mr. Stuart took the ground that there is also a more spiritual sense, in which it has no end— in which it will continue after the appropriate reign of the Messiah has ceased. Because other passages ascribe endless dominion to Christ, and because in this verse it is added, And of his kingdom there shall be no end. To this latter proof Mr. B. replies, that it must be a limited forever, because it is said, He shall reign over the house of David, which must be confined to this world. But he ought to know, that the house of David had become as much a name for the head of the church, as Israel had for the church itself. Besides, if Mr. B. insists upon a literal understanding of the phrase, house of David, he is involved in a difficulty. Christ never did reign over the literal house of David. In the same sense is it true that Christ will reign over the house of David, in the heavenly world, as that he reigned over it in this world. That the forever in this verse is synonymous with endless, is beyond question; inasmuch as it is added--And of his kingdom there shall be no end. And that it means endless, without end, or limit, is what is asserted in the classification.

Mr. Stuart's next class contains those passages, in which the word refers to past time, and that an indefinite or unlimited pe

riod. They are the following: Luke 1: 70. As he spoke by the mouth of all his holy prophets which have been since the world began. Acts 15: 18. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. And 1 Cor. 2: 7. Eph. 3: 9. 3: 11. Col. 1: 26. John 9: 32. To this class Mr. B. makes no objections.

The next class is of those passages wherein the word has a tacit reference to the idea of age, or period of time, and also a particular reference to quantity of time, as a whole, either past or future--as we speak in English of the patriarchal age or ante-diluvian age. Eph. 2: 7. That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace. Heb. 6: 5. Tasted the good word of God and powers of the world to come. And 1 Cor. 10: 11. Mr. B. gives no reasons why these texts may not be so arranged.

Mr. Stuart next introduces his second general class of meanings, in which the word has a secondary and peculiar sense, borrowed from the Hebrew, viz. that of world, as present world, or future world. The first subdivision is of those which imply world present, or future, with a special reference to time or duration. Matt. 12: 32. Shall not be forgiven, neither in this world nor in that which is to come. Mark 10: 30. Shall receive an hundred fold in the present time, and in the world to come, life everlasting. And Luke 18: 20.

In the next place, we have a class in which the word denotes the world, with its cares, business, temptations, &c. Matt. 13: 22. The cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word. Mark 4: 19. Luke 16: 8. 20: 34. Rom. 12: 2. 1 Cor. 1: 20. 2: 6. 2: 8. 2 Cor. 4: 4. Gal. 1: 4. 2 Tim. 4: 10. Titus 2: 12.

The next class is made of those, in which the word denotes the world itself as an object of actual existence, and this either present or future. Matt. 13: 40. So shall it be in the end of the world. Mark 13: 49. Matt. 24: 3. What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? Matt. 28: 20. I am with you always unto the end of the world. Luke 20: 35. I Cor. 3: 18. Eph. 2: 21. 1 Tim. 1: 17. 6: 17. Heb. I: 2. Heb. 2:

3. What Mr. B. has to say in respect to the above classes, being differently interpreted by some orthodox writers, and by Balfour's Second Inquiry—and being without examples of such usage, is welcome to pass for what it is worth. It is all an attempt to throw dust in the eyes of readers that do not understand the nature of philological inquiries. The design of exhibiting these passages, in such a form, without comment, except here and there an explanatory remark, is that every reader may see with his own eyes, untrammelled by comments, and judge by the connexion and subject, whether or not the writer is correct in his classification. If Mr. B. had employed himself in proving the incorrectness of the classification, instead of quoting some conceits of some orthodox writers, and calling for more comments, he would have labored more to the point.

The next class contains a peculiar meaning of this word,— that of a generation of men considered either as to the time in which they live or as to the persons themselves. Eph. 2: 2. Ye walked according to the course of this world.

Next, under a distinct head, are arranged all the cases in which the word is used in reference to the punishment of the wicked. 2 Pet. 2: 17. To whom the mist of darkness is reserved forever. Jude 13. For whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever. Rev. 14: 11. The smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever. 19: 3. The smoke of her torment ascendeth up forever and ever. 20: 10. And they shall be tormented continually, forever and ever.

The above embrace all, except a few instances in which the genuineness of the text has been disputed. Here again we have one of Mr. B.'s calls for comments. But Mr. Stuart as

:

yet draws no conclusion from the texts. But he only says they relate to the punishment of the wicked, which Mr. B. will not deny whether that punishment be endless, is the question to be settled, when all the evidence is brought together. The mere throwing of these texts together, in this connexion, with a special request that the reader would suspend his judgment, seems to throw the man into a panic, and sets him invoking the aid of his Second Inquiry, as if he were conscious that eve

ry reader would find it impossible to suspend his judgment. Having laid out these passages according to their classes, with an appeal to the common sense of the reader, for the correctness of the classifications, Mr. S. proceeds to sum up the result, and he finds the whole number of instances of the use of the word to be ninety-five. In sixteen of these, it is used in ascriptions of praise to God and Christ. In five, it is applied to God or Christ, who liveth forever. In four, it is employed to designate the dominion of Christ. In one, it is said the Word of God abideth forever. In nine, it is applied to the future happiness of the saints. In eighteen, it designates the sense of ever, with the negative never. In seven, indefinite time past. In three, age in the sense of dispensation. In three, the world, present or future, with reference to a period of duration. In twelve, the world as a scene of trials. In eleven, the world as a place of residence for men. In one, generation of men. By comparing these together, he finds that those which have a simple respect to future time, forty-nine out of the whole, besides those which relate to punishment, are all employed in the sense of unlimited duration. The seven which relate to time past, designate either past eternity, or a long and unlimited duration. And the four which relate to the dominion of Christ, understood either way, must designate at least a future indefinite period, if not a proper eternity. And the remaining

thirty cases designate world in our sense of that word. From these premises he brings the conclusion, that there are fifty-five in which the word certainly means unlimited duration, either future or past, besides those which relate to punishment. And there is no case in which it is employed to designate a definite period. Hence he concludes, that when it simply marks time, in the New Testament, it marks indefinite unlimited time. All the other instances wherein the word signifies world, except those which speak of the future world as a state of retribution, are foreign to the question about future punishment.

Mr. B.'s reply to this summing up of the matter, is, in the first place, that Mr. S. spends more pages in summing up, than in explaining the texts. Secondly, that he differs from other Or

thodox writers with regard to a number of the texts. Thirdly, that this way of proof is that of mere assertion. Fourthly, that aion is oftener used in the sense of world, than in application to future punishment. Fifthly, that he knows of no critic or commentator who agrees with Mr. S., that "in three cases it is applied to designate age or dispensation." Sixthly, that the Talmudic and Rabbinic writers are called in to explain about one third of the ninety-five texts. Of the force, fairness, and relevancy of such suggestions, in this place, the reader will judge.

The meaning of Aionios. By the same method of classification, the steps of which I will not detail in this place, Mr. Stuart gets the result, that there are sixty-six cases in which the word is employed in the New Testament; of these fifty-one are used in relation to the happiness of the righteous—two in relation to God or his glory-six are of a miscellaneous nature— and seven relate to the subject of future punishment. That in all instances in which it relates to future time, it is certain that they designate unlimited duration, (excepting, of course, those which relate to punishment.) That if they have not that meaning, the Scriptures do not decide that God is eternal, nor that the happiness of the righteous is without end, nor that the covenant of grace will always remain.

Here Mr. B. raises a hue and cry, about Talmudic and Rabbinic writers being mentioned. Though they were mentioned by Mr. S. only by way of explaining a fact, which fact was to be proved from other sources. Mr S. tells us that the ancient Hebrews had no adjective, derived from Olim; but that the Talmudic writers formed one, and that this was equivalent to the Greek aionios. But he makes no reliance on this assertion, as proving what is the meaning of aionios. He proves that meaning, by quoting the passages wherein it is used. But here Mr. B. suffers his indignation to kindle; calls for divine authority, which the Talmudic writers had to make such an adjective, as if lexicons were inspired books: and he intimates the sinfulness of the thought, that Christ and his apostles would use words in the same sense, that the Talmudic writers did.