Could for the honour of the Redeemer, and the salvation of a lost world. The time is rapidly approaching, when his "wrath shall come, and the dead shall be judged;" and he "shall give reward unto his servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear his name, both small and great." May we, at that day, be found on the Lord's side, reposing in Christ as our Saviour, and treading in the steps of his beneficence and love!

I come, in conclusion, to apply this passage, more particularly for our personal edification.-Is there, then, among us, any one who has not practically and in truth joined himself to the Lord, and who has no scriptural warrant to hope that he is on his side; any one who, if summoned at this moment to the bar of God, would be found impenitent, unconverted, unholy? If there be such a one, let him, as he values his present peace, as he hopes for future glory, think deeply aud solemnly of his awful condition. When the countless millions of mankind stand before God in judgment, and the ques tion is asked, Who is on the Lord's side with what earnestness will every sinner, in that awful Presence, press forward to urge his claim, and to assert his own alliance with the Lord of hosts. But let us remember, that this alliance must be established on earth, in order to be acknowledged in heaven: we must here choose God as our portion; here avow our allegiance; here do homage to his power and grace; here abandon the camp of the enemy; here consecrate ourselves to the Saviour, if we would be recognized and adopt. ed by him in the presence of God, and of his angels. Let us then make haste, and turn our feet unto His testimonies. We have, perhaps, said long enough, "Let us break his bands asunder, and cast away his cords from us ;" now let us make haste to "kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and so we perish

from the right way, if his wrath be kindled, yea but a little.”

But it is often the complaint of those who are on the side of the Lord, that they have, as yet, rather suffered from the toil of the conflict, than enjoyed any of the fruits of victory? But let them persist in the con test: let them put on the whole armour of God, and they shall, in the end, enjoy the triumph: they shall overcome, and sit down on the right band of the throne of God. The victory is pledged to them, by Him who is the faithful and true Witness; by him who is "clothed in vesture dipped in blood, out of whose mouth goeth the sharp sword that is to smite the nations; and who hath on his vesture, and on his thigh, a name written, The King of kings and Lord of lords." Let them remember, in their moments of doubt, depression, and difficulty, on whose side they are engaged; and let them take to themselves the consolation of his promises: "I am Alpha and Omega, the Begin ning and the End; I will give unto him that is a-thirst, of the fountain of the water of life freely. He shall overcome; and he shall inherit all things, and I will be his God, and he shall be my son."

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

EVERY suggestion coming from the able and ingenious pen of Mr Faber irresistibly draws my atten tion; and his letter to you, on Heb. ix. 15-17, in which he endeavours to clear up the interpretation of that passage, by translating a diaxy covenant, instead of testament, as it is rendered in our Authorized Version, has occupied much of my thoughts, since I received your Number for October last. I must confess myself, however, dissatisfied with his exposition. He does not, in effect, apply himself to the main difficulties attending this interpretation, which arise from the forced construction put upon some

of the expressions used by the Apostle.

To support this interpretation, the following words-ru yap διαθήκη, θάνατον ἀνάγκη φέρεθαι το διαθέμενο. Διαθήκη γὰρ ἐπὶ νεκροις βεβαια, ἐπεὶ μήποτε ισχύει ότε ζῇ ὁ Sabeueros-are rendered thus, "For where there is a covenant, it is necessary that the death of him who ratifies the covenant, should be brought forward. For a covenant is firm over dead (victims), since it is of no strength while he who ratifies the covenant is living." Now, this rendering of το διαθέμενο and ό διαθέμενος by "he who ratifies the covenant;" and applying these masculine participles to the animal victims sacrified under the Law, appears to me to be such a manifest perversion of the Greek as cannot be vindicated; nor does there seem to me less violence used in translating ET VExpois ßeßása "firm over the dead victims;" for besides that there is no ground for supplying the word "victims" to make out the new sense, it does not appear that covenants were ratified by the mere act of executing them over the sacrifices, but by sprinkling the parties with the blood of the victims; as may be gathered, both by the passage from Exodus cited by the Apostle, and also by notices to be found of the same rite in heathen writers".

These objections have always appeared to me fatal to the interpretation supported by Mr Faber. It is however, I am well aware, much easier to object to an exposition,

Eschylus affords a striking instance in his description of the rite by which the seven chiefs pledged themselves to destroy Thebes, or to perish in the attempt.

*Ανδρες γὰρ ἑπτὰ θέριοι λοχαγεται
Ταυροσφαγέντες εις μελάνδετον σάκος,
Και θιγγάνοντες χερσὶ ταυρείω φόνω,
*Αρην, Ενυὼ και φιλάιματον φόβον,
'Ωρκωμότησαν, ἢ πολέι κατασφάγας
Θέντες λαπάξάιν ἄςυ Καδμέιων βίᾳ
Η γῆν θανόντες τηνδε φυράσειν φόνῳ.

in the context is unquestionably what we mean by the word covenant, according to the ordinary acceptation of that word, as denoting a reciprocal compact between two or more original contracting parties; for I apprehend, that this is the appropriate force of ovv0rjun. not of dialy; and that the latter word does not necessarily im2 ply more than one party, import ing only any solemn engagement or disposition which may be entered into or made by such sole party; and that, even when applied to reciprocal conventions and treaties (as most engagements are conventional and reciprocal), it refers rather to the individual act of each contracting party, than to the joint act. And it is manifest that the Mosaic and Christian covenants are rather conditional dispensations than (properly speaking) compacts or covenants, as they originated in the free grace and favour of God, and neither conveyed any advantage to their Divine Author, nor derived their authority from human consent. They were covenants in no other sense than as God was pleased to pledge himself to bestow certain blessings on man on certain specified terms, and were undoubtedly binding upon his creatures by

virtue of his sole appointment. In short, they were (to repeat what has been said) rather conditional dispensations than compacts or covenants; and, in respect to the Mediators through whom they were dispensed, may very fitly be called Testaments and both, it is immediately to our purpose to observe, were ratified by the death of these mediatorial testators; Moses having been removed by death immediately after his recital and enforcement of the Law to the Israelites previously to their entering the proInised land, and Jesus Christ having voluntarily ratified the Gospeltestament by his death on the cross. And here we may also notice another feature of correspondence between the two cases; as at the first consecration of the Law (recorded in Exodus, and referred to by the Apostle), Moses sprinkled the altar (according to the history), or the book of the Law (according to the Apostle), and also all the people, saying, "This is the blood of the covenant which God hath made with you;" thereby ratifying the Law on the one hand, and binding the people to its observance on the other: 80 Jesus Christ, at his last supper, emphatically said, on taking up the cup, "This is the blood of the New Testament;" or (as it stands in St. Mark), "This is the New Testament in my blood, drink ye all of it," pointing to his approaching death, (not merely, I apprehend, as an expiatory sacrifice, but also) as a ratification of the New Testament on his part, and enjoining them to drink of the cup as a solemn engagement on their part to comply with its conditions.

But now, admitting that blood was used as a symbol of ratification on the introduction of both dispensations, on what principle can this be applied to the case of a testament? Here lies the nucleus of the question at issue and to this point, what I have to offer immediately applies. On the use of blood as a

type or symbol of expiation, purification, and consecration, there is probably little diversity of opinion. The victims being but vicarious offerings for the transgressions of the Law, this expiation was applied to the parties themselves, by sprink ling them with the blood of the sacrifices. But on what principle the same rite was used to express the solemn ratification of an engagement is by no means so certain. The commonly received opinion, I presume, is, that the sprinkling of the party with blood was deemed equivalent to an imprecation; as if he had said, "I hereby devote myself to death like this victim, if I violate this my engagement." But I would suggest that there is another easy explanation of this rite appli cable immediately to the case of a testament. As blood (on every view of the subject) was but employed as a symbol of death, why may we not consider the act of sprinkling with blood as significa. tive of the deadness of the party as to all power of revocation; as if he had said, "I hereby solemnly divest myself of all power to rescind or supersede this my engagement, as much as if I were a dead man and it were my last testament." This view of the rite is not only simple and natural, but there is something in the Apostle's manner of expressing himself which affords a strong presumption that he viewed the rite in this light; for having observed, that in the case of a testament, the death of the testator is essentially necessary to give it validity, inasmuch as it has no force during his life-time, he draws this remarkable conclusion," whence not even was the first testament consecrated (or ratified) without blood." It should seem, therefore, that the Apostle considered the sprinkling of the Law with blood, as a symbol of its ratification in the very same sense as a testament is confirmed by the death of the testator; which implies, that the act

was DECLARATORY, not imprecatory, signifying that the Law was from thenceforth irrevocable and unalterable, as much as the will of a testator after his decease.

If it be objected, as of course it will, that this argument is founded upon the assumption, that the Authorized Version of the contested passage is correct, and that it is therefore a mere petitio principii: I answer, first, that even admitting the Authorized Version to be questionable, the argument is still good, so far as it leads to a consistent and satisfactory exposition of the Apostle's train of reasoning; and affords so far a presumption, both that the version is correct, and that our principle of interpretation is the true one; and that, secondly, there is no pretext for calling in question the accuracy of the Authorized Version, except the difficulty of reconciling the sense which it conveys with the context. It is, in effect, the plain and literal translation of the Apostle's words; whereas the new translation offered is manifestly strained, and is assumed merely to get rid of that difficulty. I main< tain, therefore, that the argument rests on substantial grounds, and affords a solid presumption that the view which has been given of the rite in question was that contemplated by the Apostle. To shew more clearly how it elucidates the scope of his reasoning, I will now subjoin a paraphrase of the whole context, so far at least as seems to be necessary. The Apostle having then pointed out the insufficiency of the various sacrifices under the Law to expiate sin, as being designed in effect to atone rather for the violations of the ritual of that Law than for moral guilt, and being only types of that one real and all-sufficient sacrifice for sin which was to be offered by the Son of God, thus urges upon the Hebrews the importance and efficacy of that sacrifice: "If the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer,

sprinkling the unclean, (that is, those who have been desecrated and rendered common by some illegal act), sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, (that is, renders their bodies again pure and holy in the sight of the Law), how much more shall the blood of Christ, who, through the Eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works, to serve the living God (that is, expiate your guilt, redeem you from the penalty of death, and sanctify your conscience, so as to enable you to yield unto God a true and spiritual service). And for this cause (that is, for this final cause or end), he is the Mediator of the new testament, that death having taken place (that is, the legal penalty of death having been paid by Him on the cross,) for the redemption of the transgressions under the first testament, (that is, of those breaches of the Moral Law, for which the first testament provided no atonement), the called (or, as some copies read, the heirs) might receive the promise of the eternal inheritance (that inheritance which was promised to Abraham, and which has now been bequeathed to us in the testament of Christ, and confirmed to us irrevocably by his death). For where there is a testament, there the death of the testator is necessarily inferred, (or must of necessity be interposed), inasmuch as it never has force, while the testator is alive. Whence not even was the first testament consecrated without blood: for (as we find recorded in Exodus) the whole commandment, according to the Law (that is, the whole code of the Law), having been spoken by Moses to all the people, he, taking the blood of calves and goats, with water, and scarlet-wool, and hysop, sprinkled both the book and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament which God bath enjoined you; and he sprinkled in like manner the tabernacle, and all the ves

sels of the ministry with blood; and almost all things are sprinkled with blood according to the law, and without shedding of blood there is no remission," &c. &c.

Should the reader still think that the common version introduces the idea of a testament too abruptly, and that the connexion is unwarrantably helped out by the foregoing paraphrase; I readily admit, that there is on the face of the thing some colour for the former part of the objection, inasmuch as diabý is certainly rendered covenant, not testament, in other parts of the same chapter: but it appears to me, that this seeming discrepancy in the translation was unavoidable, inasmuch as we have no single English word answering exactly to diabxn, and expressing at once a testament and a covenant. But further, if we attend to things rather than words, I would maintain. that there is no discrepancy at all: inasmuch as the notion of a covenant, in the only sense in which it can be applied either to the Law or the Gospel; that is, as signifying a conditional dispensation conveyed through an human mediator; stands closely connected with the idea of a testament in reference to that mediator. In point of fact, the charge of abruptness lies more hardly upon the proposed translation, than the Authorized Version; for the only expression which could lead to the mention of death as necessary to the ratification of the Gospel, considered as a covenant, seems to be that of θάνατο γενόμενο, which occurs near the beginning of the preceding verse; whereas, besides this expression, which equally applies to the case of a testament, the mention of "the everlasting inheritance" (which words occur at the very end of the preceding verse) naturally suggests to the mind the idea of a testator, and the necessity of his death to the full conveyance of that inheritance.

If there be any abruptness of

transition in the train of the Apostle's ideas, it lies in his passing suddenly from the contemplation of blood as a symbol of expiation to its use as a seal of ratification. The primary scope of his general argument is plainly to shew the efficacy of Christ's death in the former, not in the latter, sense; and after the little digression, which occurs on the controverted passage, he immediately reverts to his first train of reasoning. Now this abruptness of transition occurs equally whichever interpretation we adopt : but I think it is more easily accounted for on the view I have taken of the context, than on the other: for the mention of the inheritance (as it appears to me) most naturally accounts for it; and, as Dr. Paley has noticed, St. Paul is remarkable for thus glancing off from his main subject, as it were, at a word.

But I fear I am trespassing too far on your readers' patience. I will therefore only add, in conclusion, that, as truth is my sole object, I have no wish that more weight should be given to my suggestion, than it deserves when probed to the bottom, and that I shall be glad to avail myself of any more satisfactory interpretation that may be offered.

D. M. P.

For the Christian Observer. WHETHER RELIGIOUS ENTHUSI

ASM OR IRRELIGIOUS PRAC
TICE BE MOST CALCULATED
TO PROMOTE THE CAUSE OF
INFIDELITY..

AT a period when the banners of infidelity are displayed with unpre cedented boldness; when the danger of our common faith, and, by consequence, of our invaluable constitution, forms no unimportant feature in the periodical addresses of our bishops to their respective clergy; when the venerable Society for promoting Christian Knowledge is reprinting, with