NOTE. We take this opportunity to mention some traces which we have discovered of Universalism, in the Middle Ages, after the time of Maximus,-omitting those notices, however, which are given in the Appendix to the Ancient History of that doctrine.

Eighth Century. In the time of Pope Gregory II., (from 715 to 730,) there were some, it appears, who held that even Satan, as well as his angels and servants, would be eventually restored; and we hardly need say that no one would arrive at this conclusion, (whoever may be meant by the term "his servants, cultores,") without first believing in the salvation of all men. Our authority is found in a chapter of instructions given by Gregory to some missionaries who were going among the Germans. He directs them to see that the people "be instructed in 'the hope of the future resurrection, so that they shall not 'doubt that all men are to rise in the same order, and in 'the same form, in which the Lord himself rose from the dead, in the same body in which we live, not changing ' its nature nor its sex, but only laying aside its imperfec'tions and blemishes; and that Satan, with his angels and 'servants, (cultores,) is to be burned in eternal flame, nor 'to be restored, according to the sacrilegious arguments of some, to his pristine or angelic dignity, from which he 'fell."

6

6

If I mistake not, Ambrosius Authpertus also, an Italian abbot, about the year 760, refers to some believers of the same kind, who, he says, contended, "that as sin is committed in but a limited period, it ought not to be punished without end; that God is just, and will not punish, with eternal torment, a sin that was not eter'nal in its perpetration." Ambrosius repeatedly observes, in other places, that there were very many, in his day, who held that all baptized persons, who for their sinful lives, shall be sent, at the judgement-day, into eternal fire, are to be purified thereby, and finally restored.

Those to whom Gregory and Ambrosius refer, were probably found in the Western Church. For the existence of the same class of believers, in the Eastern Church, at this time, see the notice of Germanus, in the Appendix to the Ancient History of Universalism.

Ninth Century. It will be recollected that the renowned

John Scotus Erigena belonged to this period. We also find allusions to other Universalists. Paschasius Radbertus, who flourished at the head of a monastery in France, about the year 840, and whom some have incorrectly regarded as the author of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, evidently refers to cotemporary believers in the salvation of all men, in the following remarks on Matt. xxv. "Let 'those hear, who would have the torments of Hell mitigated, ' and all men at length restored to pardon. For the Lord 'shows that the fire is eternal: 'and these shall be sent 'away into everlasting punishment.' (Matt. xxv. 46.) Now 'if the eternal life of the saints is perpetual, so that they ' will never fall into ruin, then it must also be believed that 'the torments of lost men and angels will likewise be 'eternal."

Tenth Century. Ecumenius, a Greek writer, and a bishop in Thrace, supposed to belong to this century, seems to expostulate with some of his cotemporaries who did not believe in eternal punishment. Commenting on 2 Thess. i. 9, he exclaims, "Where now are those, who say that the torments are not to endure forever! &c. He is, indeed, said to have borrowed most of his comments from the old fathers; it is therefore possible that this exclamation was copied, among the rest, and that it originally referred to heretics of an earlier period. We do not, however, think it probable.

Eleventh, Twelfth, and Thirteenth Centuries. So many of the cotemporary and immediately succeeding writers ascribe a belief in universal salvation to the Albigenses or Cathari, and to the Lollards, and even to the Waldenses, that it seems hardly just to question that some at least, among each of these sects, were known to hold the doctrine. Almost every new inspection into the monuments of these ages, brings to light some additional testimony of this purport. We suppose that the means of a thorough inquiry, are not to be found in our country; but should the matter ever be explored, we think that the prevalence of Universalism, in some form, among them, will prove to be a clear historical fact.

Fourteenth Century. The celebrated Thomas Bradwardine, elected archbishop of Canterbury, in 1348, seems to allude to heretics of this kind. After silencing the plea

that eternal punishment, though threatened, will not be executed, since God is merciful; after overthrowing the objection that temporal sin cannot justly be recompensed with eternal pain; and after trying to prove his doctrine, he proceeds: "Neither the philosophers nor the heretics, 'who say the contrary, bring any reason, nor can they 'bring any that is valid. For it is not repugnant to the 'divine mercy to punish sinners, nor is it inconsistent with 'the justice of God to punish temporal offenders eternally." This notice will perhaps be thought to have some relation to the fact, that, twenty years afterwards, another archbishop of Canterbury condemned in council certain opinions taught in the province; one of which was this:" that all the damned, even the demons, may 'be restored and become happy." See Appendix to the Ancient History of Universalism.

It is proper to say in conclusion, that, for most of the particulars in this Note, I am indebted to Dietelmair's Commenti Fanatici de Rerum Omnium ATOKATασTάσει Historia Antiquior. Altorf. 1769. 12mo. pp. 279.

H. B. 2d.

ART. II.

Hebraisms of the New Testament.

THE Old Testament was originally written in the He brew language; the New Testament was written in Greek. But though the New Testament was written in Greek, it was written by Hebrews. This fact has important bear> ings on the interpretation of many passages in that sacred book; and hence we crave the reader's attention to what we shall offer in the present article with the design to illus. trate this subject.

The Greek of the New Testament is not pure, classic Greek. It was written by Hebrews, and is such as He

brews might be expected to write. It is not unlike an Englishman's French, or a Frenchman's English. Hence, while the words of the New Testament are Greek, the style or idiom is Hebrew; and, in consequence, many modes of expression and forms of speech occur that a native Greek would not have used.

Most of the writers, too, of the New Testament were also illiterate men. This circumstance, it will be justly inferred, affected, in some degree, the style of their language. Paul and Luke were educated men; and hence the style of their writing is different from that of the other writers; but so far as our present subject is concerned, it is not important to note the difference, since, being Hebrews, though their language is more classical, it is no less Hebraistic.

If it be asked why the writers of the New Testament did not write in their native tongue, rather than in another language, the answer is, that the former was almost confined to the Jews of Asia, while the latter was almost universal; and it was doubtless chosen, that the divine communication might be as generally read as possible. Had they written in Hebrew (or Chaldaic, as some prefer to call the language of Palestine at that time,) their writings could have been read only by Jews, who were comparatively few, and most of them quite indisposed to receive the divine message. But, written in the Greek, the book could be read by all the world, not excepting the Hebrews themselves, who, besides their native tongue, wrote and spoke the Greek language, affected indeed more or less by their own idiom.

By Hebraisms of the New Testament, we mean such forms of expression, and such signification of words, as are not properly Greek, but which belong appropriately and peculiarly to the Hebrew language. That something analogous to these, may sometimes be found in Greek authors, will not be denied; but the instances of analogy are not sufficiently prominent or numerous to justify the conclusion that the idioms referred to are not true and genuine Hebraisms. For, were we to deny an idiom to a language, because some writer, in some other language, may sometime have used a similar word or form of words, we should be obliged to deny idioms to all languages; though

it must be confessed not an easy matter to decide, when the claims of one language thall be deemed valid, against the claims of another, where the same forms do sometimes occur. We shall avoid all controversy on this point, by taking only such forms, as, it is believed, will be deemed unquestionable by all, at the present, who claim to understand this subject. Many instances occur whose legitimacy will not be doubted; and the passages where they are found, can not well be interpreted, without this circumstance in view.

We will mention and illustrate particular instances. These are generally sufficiently obvious from the common version; having been, not so much translated as transferred, from the original language.

1. When the Hebrews would express the idea that one thing will be, rather than another, the form of speech they used, was, that that the one will be and the other will not be.

Matt. ix. 13. 'Go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice; for I am come not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.' Compare Matt. xii. 7. It was the fault of the Pharisees, as it has been the fault of the great mass of professing Christians, that they placed more stress on outward forms, as constituting religion, than on real goodness. They preferred sacrifice to mercy. They exacted tithes of mint, and annis, and cumin; but omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgement, mercy and faith. The religion of the Saviour did not estimate things in this way. He placed mercy above sacrifice. He looked upon goodness as better than forms. To restore a sick man to soundness, was to him more important than to keep the Sabbath. He sacrificed the less to the greater good. And had the Pharisees understood the true sense of that passage, in their scriptures, I will have mercy and not sacrifice,' they would not have condemned the guiltless. Now the meaning of the language is not absolutely, ‘I will have mercy and not sacrifice; but I will have mercy rather than sacrifice. Various sacrifices were offered, by God's command, at the Jewish temple; but the object was to promote genuine goodness. They were valuable only as they promoted this object. And if, in any in