here to limit the application, but the nature of the subject spoken of. 2. The analogy of Scripture is in favour of this ex- planation. In 1 Pet. 4, V we find the expression " the end of all things is at hand." Matt. 24, 6, " The end is not yet ; " V. 14, "Then shall the end come." So in Mark 13, 7. Luke 21, 9. In all these passages the end means the end of the world. 3. The equivalent expressions serve to explain the meaning of this phrase. The disciples asked our Lord, " What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world ? " (i. e. the consummation of the present dispensation.) In an- swer to this question, our Lord said certain things were to happen, but " the end is not yet ; " and afterwards, " then shall the end come." See Matt. 24, 3. 6. 14. The same ex- pression occurs in the same sense. Matt. 13, 39. 28, 20, and elsewhere. "The end," therefore, means the end of the world. In the same sense the phrase " until the restoration of all things" is probably used in Acts 3, 21. 4. What immedi- ately follows seems decisive in favour of this interpretation. The end is, when Christ shall deliver up his kingdom, after having subdued all his enemies ; i. e. after having accomplished the work of redemption.
Many commentators understand by the end^ the end of the resurrection. That work, they say, is to be accomplished by distinct stages. First the resurrection of Christ, then that of his people, then that of the wicked. This last, they say, is expressed by then cometh the end^ viz., the end of the resur- rection. Against this view, however, are all the arguments above stated in favour of the opinion that the end means the end of the world. Besides, the doctrine that there are to be two resurrections, one of the righteous and another of the wicked, the latter separated from the former by an unknown period of time, is entirely foreign to the New Testament, un- less what is said in the 20th chapter of Revelation teaches that doctrine. Admitting that a twofold resurrection is there spoken of, it would not be proper to transfer from that pas- sage an idea foreign to all Paul's representations of the subject. If that fact was revealed to John, it does not prove that it was revealed to Paul. All that the most stringent doctrine of in- spiration requires is, that the passages should not contradict each other. The passage in Revelation, however, is altogether too uncertain to be made the rule of interpretation for the plainer declarations of the epistolary portions of the New Tes- tament. On the contrary, what is doubtful in the former