274,) states, that they do not even contain the word Gehenna; so that they must be thrown entirely out of the question, leaving nothing but the Targums to sustain the critics in their decision. The Targums, I believe, have not been sufficiently examined* by any author who doubted the common opinion. Before we ought to be satisfied with regard to their bearing on this subject, it appears, to me that the following points should be clearly ascertained; (1,) Whether the oldest of them, those of Jonathan Ben Uzziel and Onkelos, do in fact use the word Gehenna to denote a place of future torment; for all the others are of too late a date to be used as evidence. (2,) Whether it is probable that even those Targums are as old as our Saviour's time; for I understand that this is a disputed question among critics, and that the celebrated Bauer and Jahn bring them down to the second or third century.' Trumpet, ii. 89.

In relation to the date of the Targums, I only add the following remarks from Horne :—

The Targum of Onkelos: The generally received opinion is that Onkelos was a proselyte to Judaism, and a disciple of the celebrated Rabbi Hillel, who flourished about fifty years before the christian era; and consequently that Onkelos was contemporary with our Saviour; Bauer and Jahn, however, place him in the second century.' Intro. ii. 159.

Targum of the Psuedo Jonathan: 'Learned men are unanimously of opinion that this Targum could not have been written before the seventh, or even the eighth century.' Ibid. p. 159.

Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel: Some suppose this Jonathan to have lived in the days of Christ, and Wolfius thinks he lived a short time before that period. 'From the silence of Origen and Jerome concerning this Targum, of which they could not but have availed

*This examination has since been made by Rev. H. Ballou 2d, (the author of the article here quoted,) and its results published in the Universalist Expositor, Vol. ii. pp. 351-368, to which the reader is referred. He has ascertained, by a careful investigation, that Gehenna is not used, in any Jewish writings now extant, to indicate torment in the future life, before the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel. Concerning the probable date of this Targum some remarks will be found in the text.

themselves if it had really existed in their time, and also from its being cited in the Talmud, both Bauer and Jahn date it much later than is generally admitted: the former indeed is of opinion that its true date cannot be ascertained; and the latter, from the inequalities of style and method observable in it, considers it as a compilation from the interpretations of several learned men, made about the close of the third or fourth century.' Ibid. p. 160.

Hence it is seen that before the Targums will support the critics in their opinion that Gehenna had, in the days of Christ, acquired this new sense, expressing torments in the future life, it must first be proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the Targums were then in existence; this is strongly doubted by some of the best critics. (Eichhorn dates Targ. Jonathan in the fourth century, and Bertholdt in the second or third; see also the preceding remarks.) At the least, it must be proved that they were written within a short time after Christ; because if their true date is in the second, or third, or fourth, century, they can yield no conclusive testimony; words change in their signification astonishingly in one or two hundred years.

It may not be improper to introduce, in this place, the following passage from Macknight :

Into the deep. The word abyssos in this passage signifies the place where wicked spirits are punished; as it does likewise Rev. xx. 3, where it is translated the bottomless pit; properly it denotes a place without bottom, or so deep that it cannot be fathomed. The Greeks described their Tartarus in this manner, and the Jews, when they wrote Greek, did not scruple to adopt their expressions, because they were universally understood. Besides, the Hebrew language did not furnish proper words for these ideas, which was the reason that the first Christians also, when they had occasion to speak of the state of evil spirits, made use of terms purely Greek, such as Hades, Tartarosas, &c.' Har. Evan. Sec. 32. But if Gehenna, (which is of Hebrew origin, and was

transplanted into the Greek, merely changing the termination,) had so early acquired the sense which some suppose, and was used to describe the torments of a future life, how can it be said that the Hebrew language contained no terms expressive of this idea? This declaration of Dr. Macknight appears altogether inconsistent with the supposition that Gehenna was used to denote a state of torment in the invisible world, at so early a period.

6

It will be observed that our author says, in consequence of this lack of Hebrew words, proper for the purpose, the first christians also, when they had occasion to speak of the state of evil spirits, made use of terms purely Greek, such as Hades, Tartarosas, &c.' But was Hades used to denote a place or state of torment, in the future life? On this point, Dr. Campbell, a standard critic writes thus :

'As to the word Hades, which occurs in eleven places of the New Testament, and is rendered hell in all, except one, where it is translated grave, it is quite common in classical authors, and frequently used by the Seventy, in the translation of the Old Testament. In my judgment, it ought never in scripture to be rendered hell, at least in the sense wherein that word is now universally understood by christians.' Prel. Diss. vi. part ii. § 2.

Hence, if Dr. Campbell's judgment may be relied on, the early christian writers, were not describing the state of evil spirits in another world, or in the place which many suppose to be indicated by the word hell, when they employed this Greek term.

I repeat, that in connection with the notion that Gehenna had, before the days of Christ, acquired a new signification, the remark of Dr. Macknight is worthy of serious consideration;-i. e. that in the days of the first christians, the Hebrew language did not furnish proper words, to describe a place for the torment of evil spirits, in the invisible world: I think I do not mistake the Doctor's meaning.

For a sufficiently full examination of this class of texts, in which Gehenna occurs, see Balfour's Inquiry, pp. 91-420, (1st Edit.) Whittemore's Notes on the Parables, (2d Edit. Parable of the Offending Hand and Foot.") Universalist Expositor, vol. ii. pp. 351368.

SECTION XI.

Enter ye in at the strait gate; for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.' MATT. vii. 13, 14.

The parallel place is Luke xiii. 24.

PEARCE. 'Rather through the strait gate; i. e. the narrow gate, meaning that which lets men into the gospel, or kingdom of God. By a gate the Jews understand that which leads or lets men into the sense and knowledge of any doctrine. Hence Maimonides' treatise concerning the law of Moses, is called by a word signifying the gate of Moses. In a sense not much unlike to this, Paul says, 1 Cor. xvi. 9, a great door and effectual is opened unto me,' i. e. for preaching the gospel of Christ; in Acts xiv. 27, it is said that God hath opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles, and in Col. iv. 3, mention is made of a door of utterance. i. e. for preaching.' Com. in loc.

The Bishop does not say whether he understands the destruction, here mentioned, to mean a temporal calamity, or endless misery. But as he refers so many similar passages to the different fate of believers and unbelievers, at the destruction of Jerusalem, and especially as he explains entering into life to mean entering into the gospel, we may justly conclude that he did not believe the doctrine of endless misery is here taught, or

even implied. For further remarks on this subject, see the notes on Matt. vii. 21-23.

SECTION XII.

'Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.-MATT. VII. 19.

1. PEARCE. This verse seems not to belong to this place; for it rather interrupts the view of Jesus' argument, than helps it. It is found word for word in ch. iii. 10, and seems to have been from thence quoted and inserted in the margin of some ancient Greek copies, and then by the mistake of transcribers, brought into the text, as hath happened (I think) in other places of the New Testament." Com. in loc.

The place to which Bp. Pearce refers, he explains to mean the temporal calamities about to come on the Jewish nation, and the distinction which should then be made between believers and unbelievers, in the preservation of the lives of the former, and the destruction of the lives of the latter.

2. KENRICK. This verse does not seem to belong to this place, for it evidently interrupts our Saviour's reasoning here, by introducing an idea which is foreign to the purpose of the rest of the discourse. It is found, word for word, in ch. iii. 10, and being inserted in the margin here, was probably introduced into the text, by the mistake of some transcriber, at a very early period; for it is found in all the present manuscripts and versions. Slight errors of a similar nature have been observed in other parts of the New Testament.' Expos. in loc.

3. GILPIN also thinks this verse is interpolated, 'because it here interrupts the sense.' Note in loc. He supposes the tree which brought not forth good fruit, (Mat. iii. 10,) to be the Jewish law; and that its being