righteous, and extends its invitation and welcome to the whole family of the redeemed! It is readily conceded, that Christians of different sects should speak together, work together, pray together. But, if ever there be cause for union, it is surely in commemorating that atoning blood by which it hath pleased God to reconcile all things unto himself, and, in doing express homage to him in whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth into an holy temple in the Lord.' Permit us, then, to recognise here an earnest of heaven, and to delight in the persuasion that, to the followers of the Lamb, the gates of this ordinance are not shut at all by day, and that it has no night-belonging to the children of light and of the day, and to all of them radiant with the beams of life and immortality.

These remarks I make on the principle of Catholic communion, but with a deep sense of its practical difficulties. Our fellowship must not be made so free that it shall cease to be Christian. Where discipline ends, freedom itself is compromised, and passes into licentiousness. The chief hinderance arises from the disorganised and secular condition of some churches, which renders their attestation to Christian character of little or no value. If the several denominations could trust each other's discipline, there would be no barrier to intercommunion.

This shows how much one duty aids another. To enforce pure communion, and hence keep out the impure, has an aspect of exclusiveness; and yet it establishes that mutual confidence which alone is

needed to banish sectarianism in the celebration of Christ's death. Selection and catholicity thus go hand in hand. They are mutual helpers in this land of arduous pilgrimage, and where we shall find one we shall find both gloriously perfected in the Jerusalem above. The worship of that Zion is not frequented by aliens, and not deserted by citizens; but in strains, as pure as they are powerful, the select and countless worshippers uplift their songs of everlasting joy. The Lord grant an earnest of such worship now! Thy kingdom come: thy will be done on earth as it is done in heaven.' Let the church still refine its elements while enlarging its efforts, till its terrestrial be assimilated to its celestial condition; and even here the ejaculation be elicited-Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have a right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city!'*

*Rev. xxii. 14.

CHAPTER VII.

THE LORD'S SUPPER A SEAL OF THE COVENANT.

'THIS cup,' said our Lord, 'is the new testament in my blood.' If we consider the translation to be correct, the passage represents the Saviour as making a testamentary deed in favour of his people, and as dying to put them in possession of the inheritance he bequeathed to them. But, though he died, he revived, and now dispenses himself the unsearchable riches made over to us in his will. The same figure not unfrequently meets us in reading the English version of the scriptures. But, while the word translated ' testament' admits of such a rendering, considered by itself,* it is seldom, if ever, used in this sense by the inspired penmen. There is only one instance in the New Testament where the connexion seems positively to require that it be so understood. I allude to Heb. ix. 16, 17. Paul there says-'Where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead, otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.' In these words the blessings of salvation are exhibited as conveyed to us in a testament, and as

*All the lexicons will supply proof that the meaning, testament, is a common one in classical Greek.'-Stuart on the Hebrews, ch. ix.

becoming our rightful property in virtue of the testator's decease. Here the usual rendering of the term by our translators appears to be borne out by the connexion in which it occurs,* but in no other case can it be adopted with any degree of probability.

Even this passage has been otherwise interpreted. Dr Macknight, with many expositors of eminence, understands the apostle to speak of a covenant made over a sacrifice, and ratified by the death of the sacrificial victim. His translation is, 'Where a covenant is, there is a necessity that the death of the appointed sacrifice be brought in. For a covenant is firm over dead sacrifices, seeing it never hath force while the appointed sacrifice liveth.' This exegesis is plausible, but is liable to serious objections. The chief of these is thus stated by Professor Stuart:-Those who render dann in verses 16, 17, by the word covenant, construe vengoïs here as applicable to dead sacrifices-i. e. victims slain in order to confirm a covenant. But it is a conclusive objection to this exegesis that vexgos never means the dead carcase of an animal, but the corpse of a human being.'

Mr Peirce agrees with Dr Macknight in substituting covenant for testament in these verses, but he translates them somewhat differently. His translation is—'For, in every such covenant which God makes with sinful men, there must also of necessity be the death of the pacifier. For the covenant is made upon the condition of death, and is confirmed thereby; because the pacificator has no power at all while he liveth.'

In respect to the word 'pacifier,' (v. 16) Mr P. observes, that it well accords with the character of a mediator.' But the former covenant did not involve the death of the mediator-for a sacrifice is not

เ

so called. 'The old covenant,' says Mr Hallet, in his Supplement to Peirce on the Hebrews, chap. xii. 24, ' was made between God and the Jews by the mediation of Moses.' That covenant, however, was not confirmed by the death of Moses; and, therefore, in a covenant made by God with sinful men, there must not of necessity be the death of the pacifier if mediator and pacifier be convertible terms.

It is doubtful, besides, if the word diabeμevos admits of being

The same word is sometimes rendered covenant in our English version;* and much obscurity, not to say incon

translated pacifier. Mr P. produces only one example from lexicographers in which it can bear such a sense, and he candidly adds, 'I own I can't find any the like use of it in the New Testament or the LXX.'

Farther, Mr P. supposes the writer of the epistle to speak only of covenants made by God. But his language expresses no such limitation, and has all the appearance of deriving an argument from the character of covenants, or testaments in general. But, as applied to covenants generally, it would not be true. Every covenant made between men was not confirmed by death, for Mr P. admits that 'some covenants or compacts were always transacted between them, without the intervention of any sacrifice at all.' Farther, when Mr P. replaces, in v. 17, the words of our translation, 'otherwise it [a testament] is of no strength at all whilst the testator liveth;' by this other rendering, 'because the pacificator has no power at all while he liveth,' he supposes the language to make an averment respecting Christ, which has the appearance at least of being extreme, and which is not, I think, paralleled in scripture. Where again is it said that Christ was powerless while he lived?

Finally, Mr P. understands ɛzi vexgois to mean, upon the condition of death-the concrete being used for the abstract, exi vexgois for exi θανατῳ. 'Thus it seems used,' he says, in other places, and particularly Rom. xi. 15, 'if the casting them away be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but, (wn ix vexgäv, life from the dead,' i. e. 'from death?' This example fails in an important element already remarked upon. The word vex gav in the passage cited, has relation to dead men, or to the death of man; but Mr P. says, 'I vexgois [in the verses under consideration] means,

*The original term, diaoran, signifies both a testament and a covenant. Its primary meaning is testament; but, in scripture, it frequently occurs in the sense of συνθηκη.”* The corresponding word

in Hebrew is n, which always signifies covenant, and not testament.

*Dick's Theology, vol. ii. p. 459.