2. Aarz is the translation of the Hebrew word na, which never signifies will or testament, but always covenant, or arrangement. Whether the Greek and the Hebrew words exactly correspond to each other is not the question. It is enough to know, that the Greek could not possibly be intended to exclude the main idea contained in the Hebrew word, and to introduce another altogether foreign to it. Lexicographers give the Hebrew word as derived from the verb signifying to cut or strike, on account of the sacrifice slain or cut in pieces, by which the covenant was ratified. It follows obviously from this, that where banan is the substitute for or representative of na, it ought to be translated covenant, not testament. And there can be no doubt that the former is the real meaning of the word in the New Testament, though our translators have, very arbitrarily, sometimes given the one, and sometimes the other.

3. Setting aside the mere words, the reference of the passage before us is undeniably to what we call the 'New Covenant.' It is the covenant with Abraham, or the covenant with David, or the covenant spoken of by Jeremiah, and referred to twice over by the apostle in this Epistle; it is this one covenant, (for they are not many covenants, but one,) that is referred to, both here and throughout this whole Epistle. Now, in that covenant, so often and so fully dwelt upon in the Old Testament, there is nothing which has the slightest reference to a will or testament. Nor is such an idea ever so much as hinted at in any one of the many passages in which its nature, its ratification, and its provisions, are detailed. It seems strange, then, that the Apostle, after having used the word in several places in its natural and Old Testament sense, should all of a sudden turn off and take advantage of a classical and secondary use of the Greek word, foreign both to the Hebrew term and the Hebrew idea, and use the word in a sense quite new in Scripture. Let it, moreover, be kept in mind, that the apostle was writing to Jews, who would attach but one meaning to danxn, viz. the meaning contained in the Hebrew word of which it was the translation. Had the word occurred in the Epistle to the Romans or Galatians, such a use of it might be intelligible; but occurring in an epistle to Jews, it would be utterly unavailing as an argument, and in all likelihood would have little meaning of any kind. For it has been shown, at great length, by a commentator already referred to, in a note, (Codurcus,) that the Jews knew nothing about wills in the disposal of property; that this was at variance with their law; that it is contrary to all the many statements in Scripture regarding the transference of property; and that it is exclusively a Gentile custom or law. Neque enim, says he, ullum extat vestigium ejus

modi testamentorum a Patriarchis, a Judæis, a viris sanctis jure naturali vel Judaico nuncupatorum."

4. It is not the death of the testator that makes the testament valid. It is the legal deed which he has executed, and which might either convey the property to those designed, before his death, or perhaps not for many years after it. Mr Tait has stated this forcibly in a note already referred to. The only circumstance which makes the death of a testator necessary before his bequest can take effect is, that, as long as a man lives, he has occasion for his own property. If it should be otherwise, and he is pleased to denude himself of that property by a voluntary act, his death is not necessary to make such a bequest valid. If Christ, by dying, had resigned for our use blessings and mercies for which he had no farther occasion, the argument would be sound. But, as things really are, it has no application to him; once, indeed, he was dead, but he is now alive for evermore; and, though he has made us heirs of God, it is as joint-heirs with him. He neither resigns nor can resign any thing, but remains eternally the heir of all things.'

5. There is nothing in the death of Christ which refers to the giving effect to a testament. He dies altogether in a different capacity, not as a testator, but as a sacrifice and substitute. And to this the apostle is evidently referring in the immediate context, both preceding and succeeding. Christ the sacrifice, not Christ the testator, is the Apostle's theme. Besides, if there be a testator at all, it is God the Father, not Christ. It is through the will of the Father that we receive the inheritance; and, if the death of the testator be necessary for confirming the testament, then there can be no confirmation, for Jehovah cannot die. But, even allowing that Christ might be the testator,-then, if his dying ratified the will, his resurrection would undo and annul the ratification; for, in the case of a testament, it is not merely necessary that a man should die, but that he should remain dead. If a man comes to life again, he resumes his property, and the will is of no effect.

،

6. The comparison which the Apostle draws between the old covenant and the new, shows that he cannot mean testament by dradnxn. For what likeness is there between an old covenant and a new will? Whereupon,' says he, 'neither the first covenant was dedicated without blood. For, when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people, according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people, saying, this is the blood of the covenant, (dıaonun,) which God hath enjoined unto you.' Now, what Moses did had nothing of the testament about it. He

was in no sense a testator; the death of the victim was in no way the ratifying of a will. And how, then, can the apostle use this as an illustration of the death of Christ, if Christ in dying did so as a testator. The whole context, and the comparison instituted therein between the old and the new dranean, make it imposIt sible that that word can be used to signify a testament. would be strange, indeed, if, when the Apostle speaks of a first covenant, he meant literally a covenant, and then, when he speaks of a second covenant, and compares the two together, he did not This mean covenant at all, but something altogether different. surely would destroy his argument, even if such a use of words had been admissible.

7. The Greek will not admit of the translation given in our version of the 17th verse. διαθηκη γὰρ ἐπὶ νεκροῖς βεβαία, a testament is of force after men are dead. Surely in vengos cannot mean after men are dead. Such is a most unnatural use of the words, and seems as if forced into them by the necessity of making them correspond in some way or other to testament. If it can be shown that another meaning is the more natural, and corresponds entirely with the other use of dia@nan, surely we may be glad to get rid of such an awkward translation as that of our version; and not of our version alone, but of all the six preceding English versions, from Wicliffe's down to the Bishop's: for Wicliffe, Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Rheims, and the Bishop's, all run in the same strain, and almost in the same language.

What, then, is the meaning of this expression? We answer, first, that it obviously refers to the sacrifices which confirmed the covenant. So long as these were unslain, and their blood unshed, a covenant was nought; but as soon as these were slain, and the covenanting parties had pledged faith over (ET) these dead victims, then the covenant was valid; it was ÈTMi vengoîs BeCaía. What more natural than this? What more expressive? But, to put this beyond all doubt, we cite the following passage, from the Septuagint (Ps. 1. 5.) It is so strikingly apposite, that the Apostle's words seem almost taken from it. Gather together his saints, those that have made a covenant with him by sacrifice;' roùs διατιθεμένους την διαθηκην αυτου ἐπι θυσίαις: lit. “ those that have entered into or confirmed his covenant over sacrifices.' A late English translator of the Septuagint✶ thus renders these words, Assemble ye his saints to him, those that have engaged in a covenant with him upon sacrifices.' Now, place these two passages together, and it becomes obvious that it is not of a will, but of a cove

#

6

See the Septuagint Version, translated into English, &c., by Sir J. C. L. Brenpublished last year by Bagster & Sons, and noticed in the last number of the Review.

ton,

nant that the apostle is speaking; that it is not to the death of the testator, but the death of the sacrifice that he alludes; and that he must have had some such passage, or at least, some such idea or figure in his eye as this of the Psalmist, in the remarkable words which he uses. Thus we see that the apostle's expression in this clause presents an insurmountable obstacle to those who think he is speaking of a will; but appears most natural and Scriptural to those who consider him speaking of a covenant ratified by sacrifice.

But there is a difficulty in the way of our view, which we must state, and if possible remove. It lies in the use of the verb diaTion. It is employed in the middle voice, and in the masculine singular of its participle. By many even of those disposed to take our view of the passage, this has been considered a very serious difficulty. Let us consider it.

The reason for its being singular, and not plural, to correspond with vexgos, seems to be in order to point more directly to Christ, the true sacrifice. In one verse, speaking of sacrifices, the apostle uses the plural, because the whole illustration is taken from the old ritual, where there were many sacrifices; in the other, he uses the singular, just in order to show that the true ratifying sacrifice was but one. For the same reason, the masculine gender is used, agreeing either with xgoros, or with μorns, or with aggsus, which all occur in the context.

As to the use of the middle voice, in what is apparently a passive sense, the difficulty may thus be solved. Had Christ been simply the victim presented by another, no doubt it would have required the passive voice; but let it be remembered, that he was at the same time the victim presenting himself, and the use of the middle voice becomes obvious. Farther, while it was the apostle's object to point to him as the sacrifice laid upon the altar for the ratification of the covenants, it was also his object, to present him to the Hebrews as the maker of the covenant; and to do this, required the middle voice. By the use of this part of the verb, the apostle brought out these three ideas: (1.) Christ, the executor of the covenant; (2.) Christ, the victim presented for its confirmation; (3.) Christ, the victim presenting himself.

The following, then, may be taken as the translation of the passage, in so far as one can bring out in our language the peculiarities of the Greek. And for this cause, he is the Mediator of the new covenant, that death (or his death), having come to pass (EVOLEVOU) for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they who are called might receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where a covenant is (a diaban, a covenant or agreement, ratified by a slain or divided

victim), there is a necessity that the death of the interposing sacrifice be presented (or brought in, pegada). For a covenant is only valid over the dead (slain victims), since it is of no strength at all, so long as the sacrifice interposed, or interposing itself, is alive.'*

We must, though rather abruptly, draw these remarks to a close. There are several other passages which we had intended to have taken up, and several extracts from Mr Tait's work which we intended to have given, but the length to which some of our criticisms have extended, prevents this. We must leave the Epistle, though not without regret, for it is a rich mine of gold. The deeper we dig, the more of the precious metal have we found. And not the least interesting part of our investigations have been the difficulties which, like stumbling-blocks, have lain across our way. We cannot but hope that a deeper and more correct scholarship is returning to us in Scotland. We trust that our students and ministers are setting themselves more than ever to the study of the languages. We know of nothing, next to deep piety and warm love to Jesus, that we desire to see, than the progress sound, solid, and extensive scholarship, in the Free Church of Scotland.

of

ART. II. Die Evangelische Gemeinde in Locarno, ihre Auswanderung nach Zürich und ihre weitere Schicksule, &c. (The Reformed Congregation in Locarno, their removal to Zürich and subsequent fortunes. A Contribution to the History of Switzerland in the 16th Century, chiefly drawn from MSS. hitherto unused. By FERDINAND MEYER, 2 vols. Höhr, Zürich, 1836.)

THIS work embraces an interesting episode in the great history of the Reformation, at a period which the author's countryman, Dr D'Aubigné, has not yet reached. It has been for a considerable time before the Swiss public, but it will be new to most of our readers; and the picture of Christian devotedness which it presents, is so engaging, that we mean to enter at some into its contents.

length

The whole of this receives very striking illustration from the scenes recorded in the 17th chapter of Genesis, especially when read in the Septuagint. The dividing of the animals, and setting them opposite to one another, are just the very ideas presented to us in the words used by the apostle, διεῖλεν αυτα μεσά και ἔθηκεν αυτα åvтiægóσwπα åλλǹλos, are the words used in Genesis. The divided parts are called rà δισχοτομήματα αυτῶν. And then at the conclusion of the whole we are told, διεθετο Κύριος τω Αβρααμ διαθήκην,