from Moses, Aaron, and his successors, who were the typical mediators under the Old. He argues, that as much of the plea for the taking a testament to be rather spoken of than a covenant, rests upon the word diapos, which we render the testator, vers. 16, 17. It will be hard to account for what is there said of the death of the testator. For the testator must be God the Father, who makes the testament, and gives the blessings of it, who could not possibly die. And having quoted the 17th verse," For a testament is of force after men are dead," he says, this cannot be applied to the immortal God, who must be considered as the testator. It is indeed surprising, that a man of such uncommon learning and abilities, should draw such an inference, that God the Father is the testator. Never was one worse founded. There is not a word in all this Epistle, no not one, upon which it can rest. Throughout the whole, as indeed through the whole of scripture itself, from Genesis, down to the Revelation, it is uniformly taught that it was Christ alone who died; and therefore that he alone was the testa

tor.

Mr. Pierce seems to go upon the impossibility of one and the same person being both mediator of a covenant, and testator of a testament. The SIDEμers, says he, must be the same as the mediator before mentioned, and consequently he must be considered as acting in a covenant, and not in a testament; there being no such thing as a mediator of a testament. But did not Mr. Pierce know, that in the constitution of grace there are two parties, the Father on the one side, and Christ and his

people on the other? 1 John ii. 1, 2. The Father

sins, but re

did not give a satisfaction for our ceived it from the Son, chap. iv. 10. The Son as our surety made it, and therein acted as mediator between God and us, 1 Tim. ii. 5. and though as a testator he does not mediate between himself and us, which would be absurd, yet even in that character, he mediates between God and us. In one and the same death, he purchased salvation for us, and bequeathed it to us. If as a prophet or a witness he mediates by his word, John xviii. 37. he must also mediate in his death, whereby he confirmed that word. If his testament be one of those means by which he mediates, his death, as testator, giving it force and validity, must also be a' part of his mediation. The context itself, fully

proves, that the mediator and testator are one and the same persons, and that the death of both is the For the Apostle having mentioned the end of the Mediator's death, proves its necessity from his being the testator, verse 15.-17.

same.

Mr. Pierce has the candour to own, that if the 16th and 17th verses were to be considered without relation to the context, nothing could be more agreeable than interpreting them of a proper testament, the word abusos frequently signifying in other authors, a testator, as our translation renders it. "But, (says he,) when the reasoning in the context is carefully minded, it seems to determine the discourse to be of a covenant." On the contrary, the reasoning seems to me perfectly to coincide with the nature of a testament, properly so called, rather than of a covenant, purely pactional. On the

one hand, we have a person's death, giving validity to his promissory deed; on the other, the promise, they who are called, and their receiving the promise of eternal inheritance. Here we may see, that the inheritance is not of the law, but of promise. Compare Gal. iii. 18. It is not to those who have wrought for it, but to such as are effectually called, Rom. viii. 30. 2 Tim. i. 9. They receive it, not as the reward of their defective obedience, but as promised or bequeathed by the party who died.

Mr. Pierce observes, "that though Savos is often put for a testator, yet as it is a participle of dia, it may be well supposed to take its signification from it, and as that word sometimes signifies to appease or pacify, diabsuevos may here denote the pacifier, which well accords with the character of a mediator." An instance of this sense he quotes from Appian, Lib. ii. De Bella Civili, where he says, "That Cæsar having obtained the province of Spain, was detained by his creditors, whom he was not able to pay-however, (says he,) διαθέμενος δε τους ενοχλούντας ὡς ἐδυνατη, he pacified his creditors, who troubled him, as well as he could." And thus, (adds Pierce,) I understand the word here, though I own I cannot find any the like use of it in the New Testament, or in the LXX.”

If this be what they call the new wine, I have no difficulty in affirming, that the old is better: For the words testament and testator, in the passage under consideration, let covenant and pacifier be read, and so far from becoming clearer, it is not a little obscured. The usual signification of dives,

testator, is deserted, and the sense once given of it by an heathen author is embraced, as if it were the golden wedge of Ophir.

They who have only trode the threshold of the Greek, know that as signifies Ponere, so by virtue of the preposition, in signifies Disponere, and dienen Dispositio, a Disposition. It is equally known, that dispositions are of two sorts, viz. absolute or conditional, which agree in substance with testamentary and federal. Both of which occur in our Lord's ever-memorable words, Luke xxii. 29. Καγω διατίθεμαι υμιν, καθώς διέθετα μοι ο πατηρ μου, βασιλειαν. "And I bequeath unto you, as my Father hath covenanted unto me, a kingdom." The Son's disposition of the kingdom to his people is testamentary, John xiv. 27. the Father's disposition of it to him was federal, Isa. liii. 10, 11. now, if diaridinar, when applied to Christ, signifies to dispone in a testamentary manner, analogy itself requires, that when he is called Savos as in Heb. ix. 16, 17. the word should be rendered testator.

Some unhallowed attempts were made of late, and that by two ministers of the Church of Scotland, to denude our Lord of his all-endearing character of testator. Erazing the words testament and testator from Heb. ix. 16, 17. they read the passage thus: "For where a covenant is, there must also of necessity be the death of the (victim) appointed (to confirm it.) For a covenant is valid upon things being dead, otherwise it is of no strength at all while the appointed (victim of ratification) liveth." Dr. McGill's Essay on the Death of Christ, p. 351.—and

McKnight on the Harmony of the Gospels, as cited by him.

As by this reading, our blessed Lord is robbed of his character, so are his people of all the consolation arising from it, which, at first sight, cannot be a recommendation to those who have laid all their help where God has laid it, Psal. lxxxix. 19. Besides, this reading is patched up with several supplements, to make it run more smoothly. Take these away, and what an awkward appearance does this version make! "Where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the appointed. -It is of no strength at all while the appointed liveth." Supplements, unless necessary, are always to be avoided. But, as we shall presently see, there is not the least shadow of necessity here, the words walk, so to speak, much more gracefully without these crutches, than with them. What authority for the supplemental word victim? what use for it, except as a substantive to agree with the adjective appointed? which is a word of their own devising.

One mistake generally leads to another, and hence it is, that these cold critics having substituted the word appointed for the word testator, found themselves under a necessity of supplying the word victim. I scruple not to call the word appointed, a mistranslation. Its authors must acknowledge, that it is in the passive voice, as grammarians speak. But this was using a liberty to which they had no right. For the word dixeμvos is undoubtedly the participle of the second aorist of the middle. voice: which voice, though it sometimes has a

B b