transgressor. This comes from their not having elevated their understandings to the height of an order of things different from that which now surrounds us. In reality, time and space, ideas purely relative, have ceased to exist with the soul that is freed from earthly relations.

"As soon as the soul has passed beyond the threshold of matter, it enters the domain of eternity. Now, it would be attempting to measure it, and to assign epochs to it; it would be associating ideas the most contradictory, and supposing progressions, in an order of things immoveable. We are ignorant how long the souls of the dead participate of the visible world; consequently, we know not what are the operations of grace towards them. Who hath fathomed the depths of the treasures of divine wisdom? but it is evident and incontestable that the empire of eternity excludes the possibility of a commutation of rewards and penalties. In order to pronounce an opinion on that awful subject, it would be necessary to know the duration of evil. To attempt to penetrate this, is to become guilty of the most sacrilegious audacity. As long as the cause continues, the consequences remain necessary and unalterable. This truth vindicates the doctrine of the perpetuity of pains, such as it is taught by the Orthodox [i. e. Greek] Church; the wisdom and the humility of which we ought to imitate. The time which man loses in inquiring into the evil that preceded his existence, would be better employed in combating it; and while we apologize for our frailties and crimes, and cherish them by the hope of a purification gross and material, we forget that the essential thing is to sacrifice them to God. Evil is a corrosive ulcer, which exists but negatively. It will cease when there shall be no more victims. How? That is the secret of the eternal God.1

"Before disputing audaciously, then, upon the eternity of pains, and interpreting arbitrarily certain passages of the gospel, (which can never be conclusive, on account of the imperfection of all human language, which is framed on the relative ideas of time and space,) it would first be

"The Scriptures discover to us that epoch; but very mysteriously, and as if beyond our reach. It is designated by the expression, Kai kotai o gròs тa nárta èv naσı, And God shall be all in all. (1 Cor. xv. 28.)"

requisite to know what is the duration of evil. But to attempt to penetrate that, would be sacrilege, as we have said above. It only remains, then, for us to admire the wise economy of our church, which does not comment upon a doctrine that cannot be measured by our experience. The Church of the West, [i. e. the Roman Catholic,] unhappily has not observed the same religious reserve, and has seemed to be ashamed of such a sacred and reverential cautiousness. Impatient to possess and to inculcate positive ideas on a subject concerning which we cannot have positive ones, (since it does not rest on terrestrial principles,) she has cherished and proclaimed the assuming dogma of expiations by purgatorial fire."— pp. 60–64.

How far Universalism prevails in the Greek communion, we know of no means to determine. But it is evident, in the last three paragraphs of the preceding extract, that Stourdza means to involve the church, to a considerable extent at least, in the opinion that there is no other perpetuity of pains, than the continuance of punishment for the unknown period in which evil is to endure; that evil itself will eventually cease, in some way not explained to us; and that the Scripture reveals to us, though very mysteriously, the epoch when it shall be finished, and God become all in all.

H. B.

2d.

ART. XXXIV.

Usage of the Greek Negative, in the New Testament.

EVERY language has its peculiarities that distinguish it from others. And, in some instances, these are of such a nature as to make the work of translating extremely difficult. This is acknowledged by all who have undertaken to translate the Scriptures, or any considerable portion of them, into modern languages. Even in cases where there is no difficulty in transferring the sentiment, with suffi

cient distinctness, from one language to another, it often occurs that much of the emphasis and spirit belonging to it, are necessarily left behind. These remarks are suggested by the subject that is to be discussed in the present article, viz. the usage of the Greek negative particle, by the writers of the New Testament. This may seem to be a small subject; but that it has an essential bearing upon the meaning of many important passages of Scripture, will be seen in the course of my remarks.

Before proceeding with the use and application of this particle in the New Testament, I should inform the reader, who may not be acquainted with the Greek language, that the Greeks, in stating a negative proposition, sometimes made use of one negative, not, sometimes two, and not unfrequently three, according to the amount of emphasis which they wished to attach to the proposition. This characteristic of the Greek language occurs in the New Testament, and serves to modify the meaning of several important passages. For example, when our Saviour says to the Jews, (John vii. 34,) "Ye shall seek me and shall not find me; and where I am, thither ye cannot come," he makes use of but one negative particle, in either of the sentences, "ye shall not find me," or "ye cannot come," for the reason that he did not wish to attach particular emphasis to those declarations. But when he says, (Matt. xxiv. 34,) "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away till all these things be fulfilled," he uses two negative particles, as will be seen by consulting the original. The reason of this is, that he wished to attach more than ordinary emphasis to the declaration. Hence his language, if literally rendered, would be, "this generation shall not not pass away," &c. Again, referring to the dreadful calamities that were to fall upon the Jews, (Matt. xxiv. 21,) he says, "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor [literally, not, not, not] ever shall be." The reason for trebling the negative is, that he wished to make the declaration as einphatic as possible, that there should NEVER be such a time of trouble as at that period.

The usage here developed, though it may appear un

important, has an essential bearing upon the meaning of several important passages of Scripture. Many of those passages that are thought to teach the endless rejection of a part of mankind, contain the negative particle, and some of them the double form. The meaning of that particle, therefore, has a connection with the meaning of those passages. Indeed, the whole force of the argument which is drawn from them, in favor of endless misery, often depends upon the extent of meaning that belongs to this particle.

As the writers of the New Testament sometimes use the double, and even the treble form of the negative, it will naturally be inferred that the single form was intended to be understood in a less positive sense than the others. This inference is found to be true. And, accordingly, it occurs, that the single form of the negative is often used in a modified or restricted sense. That is, the writers of the New Testament often assert that a thing shall not be, (using the single form of the negative,) without meaning to be understood that the thing referred to should never be, or that it should not, under any circumstances, or by any means, take place. This proposition, if true, developes one important principle of criticism, that should be kept in view by the interpreter of the sacred oracles. That the proposition is true, will first be shown, and then it will be applied to the explanation of some passages that are thought to teach endless punishment.

The following passages, we think, are to the point, by way of proof. Luke i. 37: "Nothing shall be impossible with God." That this declaration is not to be received as absolute, is proved by the testimony of Paul, who says, (Heb. vi. 18,) that "it is impossible for God to lie." And reason also teaches us that not only falsehood, but everything else that is opposed to his nature, is impossible with him. That "nothing shall be impossible with God," therefore, must be restricted in its meaning. Luke ix. 58: "Foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." The declaration, that "the Son of man hath not where to lay his head," must be taken in a restricted sense; for Jesus had many friends, who were willing to

receive him, and afford him shelter and repose. The expression seems to have been made with reference to a particular place mentioned in the previous connection, where he had been refused entertainment. In Matt. viii. 20, however, the same language occurs, and appears to have been used with a more general application; but even there it must be understood in a comparative, and not an absolute, sense. That the Son of man had not where to lay his head, was not true in an absolute sense; but that he was comparatively destitute and friendless, no one can doubt. Luke xiii. 33; "It cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem." That this declaration is not of an absolute character, is obvious; for a prophet could, without doubt, perish out of Jerusalem. The expression was only intended to set forth the wickedness of the Jews in persecuting the true prophets of God. That a prophet should perish at Jerusalem, by the hand of violence, was no unusual occurrence; but that such an event should occur anywhere else, though not absolutely impossible, would be unusual and extraordinary. John xiii. 33: "Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me; and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go ye cannot come, so now I say unto you." The expression "whither I go ye cannot come" is restricted, by the Saviour himself, in the succeeding context; for, addressing Peter, he says, "Thou canst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow me afterwards." It is worthy of remark, however, that this restriction was not added for the purpose of explaining his previous language, or keeping his disciples from understanding it in an absolute sense; for he does not seem to have supposed that it needed any explanation, or that it was in danger of being thus construed. Hence, immediately after making the declaration "whither I go ye cannot come,' " he introduces another subject, "A new commandment I give unto you," &c. And it was merely in answering the inquiry of Peter, "Whither goest thou?" that he incidentally uses the restrictive phrase. John xvi. 10: "I go to my Father, and ye see me no more." The 16th verse of the same chapter explains what is here meant: "A little while, and ye shall not see me; and again, a little while, and ye shall