The Greek word aion which is translated 'world' in Matt. 28: 20, and elsewhere through the New Testament, according to all competent lexicographers and commentators, refers not to the earth, but to a division of time, and should be translated age, or dispensation. Robinson explains the matter thus :-

"The Jews were accustomed to dispute concerning the two ages of the world, the one of which they called the present age or world,' the other the age or world to come.' The former, in their opinion, was to comprehend the time from the creation to the advent of the Messiah, and was marked by imbecility, imperfection, ignorance, vice, and calamity. The latter they referred to the joyful time when the Messiah should come in majesty to establish his dominion: when he should subdue to himself all kingdoms, recall the dead to life, sit in judgment, &c. ; when, in short, he should introduce a new era, distinguished by liberty, knowledge, piety, and felicity."--Lexicon, article AION.

Bishop Newton, of the Episcopal church, (who ought to be good authority at Oxford,) commenting on Matt: 24: 3, says

"The end of the world, or the conclusion of the age, is the same period with the destruction of Jerusalem; for there being two ages among the Jews, the one under the law, the other under the Messiah; when the city and temple were destroyed, and the Jewish polity in church and state dissolved, the former must of course be concluded, and the age under the Messiah commenced."

The correctness of these expositions, and the utter absurdity of any other, is seen at a glance, by consulting even the English versions of 1 Cor. 10: 11,- All these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come ;and Heb. 9: 26,-Now once in the end of the world hath he [Christ] appeared, to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.' What world was that, the end of which had come upon the primitive church? What world was that, in the end of which Christ appeared? The only answer that can satisfy common sense, is, the world or age or dispensation of Mosaic Judaism, which came to an end at the destruction of Jerusalem. Christ clearly determined the meaning of the expression, 'the end of the world,' in the 24th of Matthew. His disciples asked him what should be the sign of the end of the world?'*

* This question, with its context, stands thus:-'When shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?' 'These things' in the first clause, refers to the destruction of the temple, predicted in the verse before. Notwithstanding the gross absurdity of supposing that the disciples asked in the same breath, one question about the destruction of the temple, and another about a subject as far removed from that, and from the whole subject of the previous conversation, as the east is from the west, yet some will have it that this question relates to two, or even three widely separate events, viz: 1, the destruction of the temple; 2, the coming of Christ, which is yet future; 3, the final conflagration of the universe. Now, there is one plain fact that ought to make an end of this outrage on common sense forever. Luke, in the parallel passage, (21: 7,) records the same question, in the same words, only he uses the expression these things,' in the last part of the question, as well as in the first, instead of specifying, as Matthew does, the coming of Christ and the end of the world :— When shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?' This form of the question plainly shows, that the coming of Christ and the end of the world were so identified as to their time, in Luke's mind, with the destruction of the temple, that he thought it proper to comprise them all under one term. The question has two parts, viz: first, as to the time; second, as to the tokens: but both parts evidently relate to one complex event; viz., the end of the Mosaic economy, with its concomitants, the destruction of the temple in the outward world, and the second coming of Christ in the spiritual world.

He answered, This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world, for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.' Ver. 3, 14. What goes before this answer, viz., predictions of events which actually preceded the final overthrow of Judaism; and what follows after it, viz., predictions of the invasion of the Roman army and the siege of Jerusalem; utterly forbid the application of it to any other event than the termination of the Mosaic economy. If it is objected that the sign of the end, viz., the universal preaching of the gospel, did not come to pass before the destruction of Jeru salem, we join issue with the objector on this point, and appeal to Mark 16: 20, Rom. 10: 18, Col. 1: 6, 23. If the objector is disposed to appeal from scripture to external history, we will go with him even there. Eusebius, the father of ecclesiastical historians, is almost the only authority that can be appealed to in relation to the early ages of Christianity. He says in the first chapter of the third book of his ecclesiastical history, that the holy apostles and disciples of our Savior, were scattered over the whole world' in the time of Nero, between A. D. 60 and 70; and again in the eighth chapter of the same book, that 'the sound of the holy apostles, went throughout all the earth, and their words to the end of the world,' at the 'very time' when Jerusalem was nigh its destruction.

6

Christ then had previously defined the meaning of the language he used in his last address to his disciples. He had expressly set the time of the ' end of the world.' His disciples knew that he referred to an event that should come to pass within the time of the generation then living. When he said, 'Go teach all nations &c., and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world," he placed in conjunction the very same two events that he joined in Matt. 24: 14, viz., the testimony to all nations, and the end of the world. His meaning plainly was, 'It is your business to proclaim the gospel to all nations, previous to the predicted end of the present order of things; and, lo, I am with you till your work is finished.' Or we may paraphrase his language again, thus: While I go to my Father, leaving you to publish my gospel to the world, and to encounter the turbulence of the last days ap parently alone, still go to your work with good cheer; for I will be with you in spirit through this whole period of my absence in person, even till I come again at the time of the end, according to my promise.' It is perfectly evident that the commission and the promise in Matt. 28: 20, were given to the apostles only. The expression, the end of the world,' instead of requiring or authorizing the interpolation of their successors,' as the tract-writers argue, absolutely forbids it; for according to the definition of Christ, that expression refers to an event that was to come to pass before they, as a body, could have any successors; i. e., within their own lifetime.

We do not deny that Christ is with those who believe on him, and preach his gospel, in all ages. This is plainly implied in such texts as John 17: 20, Acts 10: 35, and might be inferred from the character of God, without any explicit promise. But we do deny that Matt. 28: 20, furnishes one particle of proof of the continuance of the primitive organization, and apostolic authority, beyond the time of the destruction of Jerusalem; and we affirm that the writers of the Oxford Tracts, learned and devout as they may seem, in making

a false interpretation of that text their foundation, have based their whole gorgeous system of ecclesiastical domination on a piece of egregious folly and fraud.

§ 63. PURITAN PUSEYISM.

THERE has never been a time since the Reformation, when the struggle be tween Prelacy and Puritanism was so fierce as it is now. The periodicals of Congregationalists and Presbyterians teem constantly with argument and ridicule against the principles and pretensions of Episcopacy. The entire strength of the religious world seems to be gathering itself into the strife, and the whole war of the Reformation is evidently to be fought over again.

At such a time we think it behooves the opponents of Prelacy to consider their own ways, and see whether they have not in a measure prepared the ground in this country for that growth of formalism which now threatens to overrun their territories and supplant their institutions. We entirely sympathise with them in their aversion to the mummeries of Popes and Bishops; but we are in a better position than they are, to see how far they, in the times of their undisturbed possession of this country, have countenanced and imitated those mummeries; and we are disposed now to show them their sins in this respect, that they may repent of them, and go to the battle with clean hands.

Prelacy sets over the parochial clergy a superior order of ministers, called bishops, as in an army colonels are set over captains. Anti-prelacy has but one grade of ministers the parochial clergy-and insists that the institution of a higher order is anti-republican. Parity' of ministerial rank is the element of church government for which the Congregationalist and Presbyterian clergy are intensely jealous. We will not now go into the question whether one of these systems is more salutary and scriptural than the other. We choose rather to direct attention to some considerations which go to show that the essence of that very anti-republicanism' which is charged upon Prelacy, exists also in Congregationalism and Presbyterianism.

It should be noticed that the self-same jealousy for 'parity' and independence exists in the Episcopalian church as in the anti-prelatical churches; only its seat is a story higher in one case than in the other. The Congrega tionalist captains are jealous for their freedom from Episcopal colonels; and the Episcopal colonels are jealous for their freedom from Popish brigadier generals. Parity' of bishops is the palladium of Episcopal liberty, just as parity' of ministers is that of Puritan liberty. Popery, in setting one bishop over the rest as a universal overseer, offends the Episcopalian bishops, as much as Prelacy, in setting bishops over the lower clergy, offends the clergy

of the Presbyterians and Congregationalists. We see by this, that men may be jealous for parity' when they look up, and at the same time very wel pleased with distinctions of rank when they look down. This is human na ture. Let us see if Congregationalist and Presbyterian clergymen are free

from it.

The principle of 'parity,' when carried out into pure republicanism, not only pulls popes down among the bishops, and bishops down among the par ish ministers, but parish ministers down among the people. Is this kind of 'parity' cherished in our Puritan churches? We are very sure it was not a few years ago, if it is now. The people used to be taught, and probably have a strong impression to this day, that a parish minister is a commissioned officer of Christ, taking rank above them as a special servant of the Lord,' and entrusted with exclusive power of dispensing the sacraments. Indeed, within our own remembrance, Congregational ministers have claimed the 'power of the keys,' or something very much like it, by asserting against those who opposed them, the prerogative given in the text- Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven,' &c. Who can doubt that the Congregational and Presbyterian clergy would resist and cry down any attempts of the common people to establish practical 'parity' by doing their own preaching and administering the ordinances for themselves? As long as it is the prelatical bull that gores their ox, they stand firm for their rights; but if it should be found that their own parish bull is goring the people's ox, we imagine they would say That alters the case.'

It is urged on behalf of the anti-prelatical churches, that their clergy are elected by the people, and that in this respect their system is more republi can than that of their opponents. But is it so? Do the people really elect their ministers in the Congregational churches according to republican principles In the free State governments, all citizens are elgible to office. Are all church members eligible to the ministry? Churches may indeed choose their own ministers, but they must choose them from a limited number of persons previously licensed by the associate clergy. The clerical body has the prerogative of primary nomination, and the churches only confirm their appointments and employ their nominees.

The bare fact that one man in each church is empowered either for a term of years or for life, to superintend or direct its business, to shape its opinions, to perform its public praying and preaching, and to administer its ordinances, gives a decidedly monarchical aspect to the Congregational and Presbyterian systems. Their churches stand as anomalies in the midst of our secular parish-machineries. If the Pope is guilty of anti-republicanism in the first degree, and Episcopal bishops in the second degree, all our village clergymen are guilty of the same crime in the third degree. It matters not whether a man presides as a priest over all Christendom like the Pope, or over a provincial diocese like a bishop, or over a little parish like a Congregational

The bishop of the diocese of South Carolina, concluded his judgment on the trial of bishop Onderdonk with the following observation :-' The occasion reminds us to cling with tenacity to, and to be thankful for, the divinely-ordered, the essential indepen dence of each diocese.'

minister. If the distinction of rank and power is substantially the same in the several cases, the anti-republicanism is the same.

We would not be understood as taking ground with the anti-prelatists on the value of republicanism in church government. In our view it is not neces sarily a censure of a religious institution, to say that it is anti-republican. The kingdom of heaven is certainly a monarchy. God is the autocrat of creation, omnipotent and irresponsible. And the church, so far as it is a part of the kingdom of heaven, is governed by authorities which proceed from God downward, and not from the people upward. The mischief of arbitrary government lies not in the nature of things, but in the proneness of corrupt men to abuse power. We object not to the parish-monarchies of our clergymen, nor even to the larger monarchies of the bishops, or the universal monarchy of the Pope, on the ground that they are anti-republican. If these functionaries were fit for the offices they claim, and were really ordained of God, we would submit to them cheerfully without finding any fault with the forms of their government. Our difficulty with them all, is, that we have no evidence that they are commissioned from above, but much to the contrary. Their sin is, that they have set themselves up as priests over the people, without authority; and the Congregational and Presbyterian clergy are as really guilty of this as the bishops and the Pope.

We ask them to consider whether their small assumptions of priestly power have not prepared the way for the larger pretensions of those who are now seeking to supplant them ;-whether the distinction which they have kept up between themselves and the people, and the monopoly of church-teaching and administration of ordinances which they have claimed, has not predisposed the public mind to receive the monstrous impostures of the Episcopal and Romish clergy. At all events, so long as they claim and exercise the authority of priests, on however small a scale, the charge of anti-republicanism, brought against the bishops and Pope for exercising the same authority on a larger scale, comes from them with an ill grace.

Let us see if the anti-prelatists are not implicated on some other points in the impostures which they condemn in their adversaries. They complain loudly of the arrogance and bigotry of the prelates, in claiming for the Episcopal churches a monopoly of God's covenanted mercies,' and denying the safety of any out of their fold. But have not the complainants themselves labored in times past, to produce the impression that salvation is not to be had without joining their church or some other visible body of professors? If so, the only difference between them and the prelates, is, that the former extend the tremendous prerogative of dispensing salvation to several sects, while the latter confine it to one. Are the Congregationalists ready even now, when the storm of Puseyism is upon them, to throw overboard their assumptions on this point, and confess that men may believe in Christ and be saved without joining any visible church?

Again, the Congregationalists and their allies in the war against Prelacy, clair for themselves the credit of defending spiritual religion against formalism. They abound in ridicule and reprobation of the theatrical performances of Puseyism, and the absurd pretensions connected with them;