-perhaps to the greater number-this is not clear; some of these are eminent scholars and divines. This must be determined by two considerations-congruity and verbal criticism.

Ist. Congruity. Why should the writer leave the subject of a covenant, so entirely kept to in chap. viii., and the whole of the former part of the ninth chapter-the first half-and then adopt the same word for a testament in the latter half. Indeed, with the single exception of vii. 22, the word testament occurs nowhere else in this epistle. If the translation is correct in this last instance, then it is wrong in viii. 6 and xii. 24. No one can question this. In ix. 15 we read that transgressions, that is, those who committed them, were redeemed by death, so alsoas the argument clearly proceeds-the object of the Mediator, Jesus Christ, was that by his death, as peoírns, we who are called might receive the promise of an eternal inheritance, which elsewhere is spoken of as receiving the atonement (Rom. v. 11).

In Exod. xxiv. 8 are the words "blood of the covenant:" this is in the LXX. Sia@nens. This was the blood of sacrifices, "burnt offerings, and peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord" (verse 5). Are sacrifices attendant on a will? What is done with the blood? "Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you."

(Verses 6-8). Observe it was a book read in the audience of the people, containing commands which the people engaged to perform. This was the covenant which Jehovah made with the fathers of the Jewish people, Heb. viii.

Both parties were sprinkled with the blood-Jehovah, in the altar, and the people in their own persons. All this would be utterly inconsistent with the confirmation of a will. There is death, but of neither of the contracting parties. It is the death of the Mediator, the type of Him who is "Mediator of the New Covenant." This being indubitably a covenant, we pass on. 2nd. As to verbal criticism.

First. Aalen from the last paragraph does mean, sometimes

at least, a covenant, as the LXX. have used the word to embody the transaction there narrated. It is perhaps strictly anything placed between: hence by metonymy the sign is put for the thing signified, as, "the covenant of circumcision," viz., the covenant of which circumcision is the sign; and "the redemption of transgressions" (Heb. ix. 15), viz., transgressors. The thing placed between the parties might naturally give its own name to the transaction. Circumcision was not the covenant, it was the sign; that which, coming between God and the sinner, procured immunity for the one under the law, as for Moses, "by the way in the inn." So dialnη-something placed between in making a covenant-became the name of the covenant itself. Consider,— άπоonη, anything laid by; a repository, granary.

One objection to the word covenant has been raised which is worthy of respect from its reverential character; that to speak of a covenant between an infinitely holy God and so degraded a creature as man is incongruous. (Parkhurst.) But we see by considering the above quotations, especially Nos. 5, 11, 12, and 13, First Series, that the consent of two parties is not necessary in order to establish the covenant; although it is so indeed in Exod. xxiv. As to the New Covenant, the consent of the second party is in acceptance of the conveyance. But indeed, as to the New Covenant, the two consenting parties are manifest from the beginning, viz., God; and man's substitute: Christ at the same time is the substitute, and "the Surety," "the Mediator." The mode of taking the most solemn of all oaths, as between God and Abraham, and referred to in Jeremiah xxxiv. 18, 19, is typical of this inexpressibly awful covenant involving the salvation or destruction of the human race. One might raise the question, Did Christ take the place of all mankind, or of His redeemed only? It is sufficient to say that the Scriptures do

K

not set up this inquiry, but rather suppress it by saying, "There is one Mediator between God and man.

A more earnest contest is anticipated over the meaning here given to διαθέμενος = μεσίτης. What is the meaning of διατίθε μαι ? Verbs in -pai are the most ancient, as aπтоμaι is plainly more ancient than aπTw: the latter means to kindle, as a fire, always in Luke; the former to touch; the primitive method of kindling a fire was to make two pieces of wood touch, then by friction to kindle them into a flame. The rendering of aπтoμai in the English version might always be touch. In composition, "Sià is all through, as in diaßaivo: between." (Liddell and Scott.) So Siarileμai may be to place between, whatever other meanings may be assigned, as διίημι is to send through, διαγιγνώσκω, to discern between. Regimen will vary meanings. This is an obvious law with all words: we mangle linen, and thus smooth it; we mangle a carcase, and thus roughen it. So colere domum is, to build a house, but colere Deum is to worship God. The meaning of διαθέμενος will then be placed between, the same as μεσίτης, for position. The single difference—and it is important—is that the latter indicates automatic action; the former, the action of another, as to getting into position: in other words, the Mediator Himself is indicated as going between (uéoos, between, and inμi, I go); the other is dià, between, and Oéμevos, placed.

It may be urged that a solecism is involved in this construction, viz. "a covenant is of force after the death of mediators." One might take refuge behind the English version, "a testament is of force after men are dead." What men? Only one man makes a testament or will. If the objection to this proposed rendering is valid on this ground, it would be equally strong against the A. V. But it may be justified—both one and the other-by the fact of generalization: a covenant, any covenant, and so covenants in general are valid after the deaths of mediators, and so of any will or wills after the death of testators. For éπì, after, see Phil. ii. 27, "sorrow after sorrow" Anglicè, "upon:" also Acts xi. 19, "after (the death of) Stephen." And Mark vi. 52, after (the miracle of) the loaves."

Assuming these arguments to be legitimate, and that so far certain points have been established, there is further the consideration :

First. Whether dialéuevos does mean a testator; and, if so, is it the meaning here?

Second. Does diabéμevos also mean a mediator; and, if so, is it the meaning here? i.e. we have to balance the claims of the two meanings.

διατίθεμαι διαθήκην τινὶ This may be verified by

According to Liddell and Scott, means "to make a covenant with one." reference to Nos. 2, 13, and 15, only that the dative is not always found in two of these places πpòs with the accusative, and elsewhere . But that Sialéμevos means a testator seems to rest solely on the authority of our translators, and of those who side with them, with only topical sanction. It is true that Siarileμai does mean to appoint, dispose, as in Luke xxii. 29, "I appoint unto you a kingdom," but here only in the N. T. has it this meaning. In the other passages viz., Acts iii. 25; Heb. viii. 10; ix. 16, 17, and x. 16, the verb and the noun are in connexion. In all these, except the passage under consideration, the noun dia ýêŋ is rendered “covenant." Does the participle which occurs here, and not the verb, change its meaning? Of course, if darileμai is I appoint, then diabéuevos may be the one who appoints, the testator. Still for this we want the positive evidence that the terms have ever been employed for a will.

Another term for diabéuevos has been proposed, viz., Pacifier, and one remarkable instance is cited from Arrian. See Parkhurst and Scapula, under diarieμal. This can be but an issue of the work of the peoírns: it is a valuable contribution to the inquiry presenting the issue of the interposition.

The objection that vexpòs is never applied to the dead bodies of the lower animals is thus of no moment; it is set aside by considering διαθέμενος = μεσίτης.

There has been no known difficulty shunned in the above inquiry, and the admission first made in favour of the rendering "testator" is scarcely worth anything, for no unchallenged instance of such a meaning can be adduced, whereas several instances occur in the Scriptures, perhaps admitted by all, where the meaning is, a covenant.

There are two other words to be noticed. "That by means of" as a rendering of oπws is scarcely authorized: it is clearly

132

introductory to, and must be construed with Xáßwuev. The meaning given to péperdai has the sanction of Rom. ix. 22; Heb. xii. 20.

"Ye are not come unto the mount that can be touched and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest..... But ye are come unto mount Zion, even unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable and to Jesus the Mediator of the New company of angels; . . . Covenant."

Clifton.

W. HOWELL.

NOTE.-A JERUSALEM RUMOUR.

WE were favoured with the perusal of an extraordinary letter, dated "Jerusalem, September 14, 1876," written by one of the resident Rabbis in the Holy City to a wellknown Christian gentleman in London. The purport of the letter may be gathered by the following extract from it :

When the time was "A wise and godly man who for years was chief Rabbi over many thousand Jews, and left manuscripts, amongst which there was found a sealed packet, upon which was written that it should not be opened till ten years after his death. expired it was opened by his sons, who are Rabbis in the same position as their father It was found to contain several pages all relating to the MESSIAH who is to redeem the whole world. Copies of this manuscript were given by his sons to many learned men, one of whom came last year to Jerusalem with a copy, and this week I have succeeded in obtaining a copy from him for myself.

was.

after I got this copy I could not sleep for many nights for "Believe me, dear studying the words of that learned man. Seeing that he had explained many passages in Daniel relating to the MESSIAH; also the vision of our father Jacob's wrestling He had also with the Angel, who afterwards blessed him (Jacob); and the dream which Joseph explained to the chief butler of Pharaoh about the vine with three branches. Likewise many passages from the Talmud and other learned ancient books. made a calculation of the different times mentioned in Daniel, reducing them all to one certain period. According to his estimate the MESSIAH is to come, according to our chronology, in the year 5638, at the time of the Passover, which according to our calculation will be 2300 years after the destruction of Solomon's Temple, which Daniel refers to in the eighth chapter and fourteenth verse: 'Unto two thousand three hundred days, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed,'" &c., &c.

In the beginning of last month a copy of the alleged "several pages relating to the We perused it most MESSIAH"-consisting of fourteen large quarto pages--was sent to the same Christian gentleman, who kindly forwarded it to us for examination. carefully, and found the lucubrations couched in the usual transcendental crude rhapsodies We cannot take upon ourselves the responsibility of pronouncing of later Kabbalists. the farrago genuine. It is probably a pious fraud-the name of the "wise and godly man who for years was chief Rabbi " is not given-if so the author displayed considerable ingenuity in so craftily imitating the style of Jewish mystics of a bygone age. Any how, genuine or counterfeit, this document proves-if proof were required-that the mass of the Jewish people, unlike the handful of free-thinking politic Jews in this country, are looking out for a personal MESSIAH, and not for such a myth as political privileges personifies.

8 This will begin with Good Friday, 1878. A somewhat curious coincidence in the date of the calculator.-EDITor.