important than this, or the significations attached to which ramifies itself farther, and gives form to more views in theology. I need not say that it lies at the foundation of entire systems of belief in regard to covenants; that the views attached to this word modify or control the views which we entertain of the divine dealings with Adam and with all his posterity, and that the conceptions of the nature of the plan of redemption are also moulded very much by the sense attached to this word. It becomes, then, a question of immense moment, whether the usual explanations of this word are true, or whether they do not tend to lead the mind into error. It has been no common calamity, if erroneous views of the meaning of this word have been allowed to lead a mind like that of Prof. S. into error in the interpretation of the Bible.

T-:-9

The word dat occurs in the New Testament thirty-three times. It is translated covenant in the common verson, in Luke i: 72, Acts iii: 25; vii: 8, Rom. ix: 4; xi: 27, Gal. iii: 15, 17; iv: 24, Eph. ii: 12, Heb. viii: 6, 8, 9 bis, 10, ix 4 bis; x 16, xii: 24, xiii: 20. In every other instance it is rendered testament. In four of those instances, Matt. xxvi: 28, Mark xiv: 24, Luke xxii: 20, and 1 Cor. xi: 25, it is used with reference to the institution or celebration of the Lord's supper. In the Septuagint it is used not far from three hundred times, in considerably more than two hundred of which, it is the translation of the word . In one instance, Zech. xi: 14, it is the translation of the word , brotherhood; once, Deut. ix: 5, as the translation of word; once, Jer. xxiv: 18, as the translation of , words of the covenant; once, Lev. xxvi: 11. as the translation of in, tabernacle; once Ex. xxx1: 7, as the translation of 2, testimony; it occurs once, Ezek. xxvi: 28, where the reading of the Greek and Hebrew text is doubtful, and three times, 1 Sam. xi: 2, xx: 8, 1 Kings, viii: 9, when the word is not in the Hebrew text. From this use of the word by the translators of the Septuagint, it is evident that they regarded it as the proper translation of the Hebrew, and as conveying the same sense which that word conveys. It cannot be reasonably doubted, that the writers of the New Testament were led to the use of this word, in part at least, by the fact that they found it in the

version which was in common use, but it cannot be doubted also, that they regarded this word as fairly conveying the meaning of the Hebrew word n. On no principle can it be supposed, that inspired and honest men would use a word in referring to transactions in the Old Testament which did not fairly convey the idea which the inspired writers of the Old Testament meant to convey. The use being thus regarded as settled, there are some remarkable facts which present themselves to our notice, demanding attention and explanation. These facts are the following.

It

(1.) The word dadxn is not the word which properly denotes compact, agreement, or covenant. That word is συνθήκη—or in other forms σύνθεσις, and συνθεσία; or if the word diathan, is used in that signification it is only remotely, and as a secondary meaning. See Passow, Comp. the Septuagint in Isa. xxviii: 15, xxx: 1, Dan. xi: 6, Wisdom i: 16, 1 Mac. x: 26, 2 Mac. xiii: 25; xiv: 26. is not the word which a Greek would have naturally used to denote a compact, or covenant. He would have employed it to denote a disposition, ordering, or arrangement of things, whether of religious rites, civil customs, or property; or if used in reference to a compact, it would have been with the idea of an arrangement, or ordering of matters, not with the primary notion of an agreement with another.

(2.) The word ouvexn is never used in the New Testament. In all the allusions to the transactions between God and man, this word is never employed. For some cause, the writers and speakers of the New Testament seem to have supposed that the word would convey an improper idea, or leave an impression which they did not wish to leave. Though it might have been supposed that in speaking of the various transactions between God and man, and especially, if they had the common views which prevail now in theology, they would have selected this word, yet with entire uniformity they have avoided it. No one of them-though the word Sathan has been used by no less than six of the writers of the New Testament-has been betrayed in a single instance into the use of the word ouvexn or has differed from his brethren in the use of the language employed. This cannot be supposed to have been the result of concert or collusion, but it must have been founded in some reason which operated equally on all their minds.

(3.) In like manner, and with like remarkable uniformity, the word ouvex is never used in the Septuagint, with reference to any arrangement or "covenant" between God and man. Once, indeed, in the Apocrypha, and but once, the word ruvenn is used in that sense. "With great circumspection didst thou judge thine own sons, unto whose fathers thou hast sworn, and made covenants of good promises," ὅρκους καὶ συνθήκας ἔδωκας ἀγαθῶν ὑποσχέσεων. In the three only other instances in which the word ouvexn is used in the Septuagint, it is with reference to compacts between man and man. Isa. xxviii: 15, "and with death we are at agreement"καὶ ἐποιήσαμεν μετὰ τοῦ θανάτου συνθήκας—where it is a translation of ; Dan. xi: 6, "the king's daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement,' Tou Toñσaι ouvexas, where it is a translation of, rectitudes, or rights; and Isa. xxx: i, "that cover with a covering but not of my spirit," where it is a translation of non, covering, and refers to compacts, according to the translation of the Septuagint, made with other nations. This remarkable fact, that the word duvonen is never used by the authors of that ancient version to denote any transaction between God and man, shows also that there was some reason for it which acted on their minds with entire uniformity. No man can believe that that whole version was made by the same individual, or even nearly at the same time, or by men acting in concert, and the reason, therefore, why they avoided the use of this word, must have been one that would occur to many minds, and must have been so strong and decided as to keep them from varying from one another.

(4.) It is not less remarkable that neither in the Septuagint nor the New Testament, is the word diabhan ever used in the sense of will or testament, unless it be in the case before us, Heb. ix: 16, 17. This is conceded on all hands, and is admitted expressly by Prof. Stuart, (p. 439,) though he still defends this use of the word in this passage. I shall have occasion to advert to this indisputable fact, and to show its importance in regard to the proper interpretation of this passage, in another place. At present it is necessary to remark on it only as a fact which no one will call in question.

A very important enquiry at once presents itself here, and which, so far as I know, has never received a solution which has been generally regarded as satisfactory. It is, why was.

the word dan selected by the writers of the New Testament to express the nature of the transaction between God and man in the plan of salvation? It might be said, indeed, that they found this word uniformly used in the Septuagint, and that they employed it as expressing the idea which they designed to convey, with sufficient accuracy. But this is only removing the difficulty one step farther back where it remains in all its force. Why did the LXX. adopt this word? Why did they not rather use the word ouvexn, the common and appropriate Greek word to express the notion of a covenant? And why, if there was no settled plan, or no propriety in the nature of things for the use of the word dashn did they adhere to it with such remarkable uniformity, a uniformity which has probably not a parallel in the use of an important word in the Scriptures?

In regard to this enquiry, it was suggested by the late Rev. James P. Wilson, D.D., of Philadelphia, that the reason might have been that the translators of the Septuagint, who were surrounded by the heathen, and who supposed that their work would be read by them, were unwilling to convey the idea that the Great God had entered into a compact, or an agreement with his creature man. That idea, he supposed, would have been revolting to them, and to avoid this, they used the word diabxn-as conveying the thought that God meant merely to express his will, or to make a testament in regard to what he required them to do, similar to that which a man makes of his property when he dies. How far considerations like this may have influenced their minds, it is impossible now to determine. It is scarcely, however, to be supposed that a resolution of this kind could have been formed by the translators of the Septuagint, without an express agreement or compact among themselves; and it may fairly be doubted whether there is not more refinement and artifice in the supposition than would have been likely to have occurred in making that translation.

A reason may, however, be suggested for this remarkable fact, which seems to be liable to no objection. It is, that in the apprehension of all the authors of the Septuagint, and of the writers of the New Testament, the word diabxn in its original and proper signification fairly conveyed the sense of of the Hebrew word n, that the word ouvexn, or compact, agreement, would not express that idea; and that they never

meant to be understood as conveying the idea either that God entered into a COMPACT or COVENANT with man, or that he made a wILL They meant to represent him as making an arrangement, a disposition, an ordering of things, by which his service might be kept up, and by which men might be saved; but they were equally remote from representing him as making a compact, or a will. In support of this supposition, we may allege (1.) the remarkable uniformity in the manner in which the word diathan is used, showing that there was some settled principle from which they never departed; but (2.) and mainly, the meaning of the word itself. In its original and appropriate signification, it is just the word that was needed, and will accord with all the usages of the word . Prof. Stuart has, undoubtedly, given the accurate original sense of the word. "The real, genuine, and original meaning of diathan is, arrangement, disposition, or disposal of any thing," p. 440. The word from which it is derived-diarion-means, to place apart, or asunder; and then to set, arrange, dispose in a certain order. Passow. From this original signification is derived the use which the word has with singular uniformity in the Scriptures. For although in classic Greek, the word remotely has the signification of will or testament (Passow), yet it never has that sense in the Bible, unless the passage before us be an instance (Stuart, p. 439); and though in the classic Greek also the word may have the notion of a cove nant or compact remotely (Passow), yet it cannot be shown to have that meaning in a single instance in the Scriptures. It denotes the arrangement, disposing, or ordering of things which God made in relation to mankind, by which he designed to keep up his worship on the earth, and to save the soul. It means neither covenant nor will; not compact or legacy; not agreement, or testament. It is an arrangement of an entirely different order from either of them; where the sacred writers with singular care, and with an uniformity which could have been secured only by the presiding influence of the One Eternal Spirit that inspired them, have avoided the suggestion that God had made with man either a compact or a will. Unhappily, we have no one word which precisely expresses this idea, and hence our conceptions are constantly floating between the conception of an agreement, or a testament; and the views which we have