ing, we are led to infer that true illumination is here intended. And this is the sense in which the apostle uses it elsewhere; as in Ch. x. 32, After ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions.'

Again, the word you does not mean merely to taste slightly, but to experience and relish a thing fully, as 1 Peter ii. 3, if ye have tasted (eg Eyevaσle) that the Lord is gracious.' Other passages of similar import might be added; but this is a specimen. On the other words of this passage, we do not enter into any criticism. They may perhaps admit of being softened down, and explained away. We have noticed those which seem to admit of no such process, as we wish to avoid what is doubtful and disputable, in order that our position in the end, may appear the stronger. We pass over also, the peculiar construction of the words, both because this does not affect the meaning of the passage, and also, because we believe that our translation is as correct as any that can be given. We now come to inquire into the state of character here alluded to by the apostle. Is it that of the real Christian, or of the stony-ground hearer, and mere temporary professor?

We have already endeavoured to show that the words themselves, taken in their obvious and unperverted signification, express that state of soul which is peculiar to the child of God, and to no other. We have, however, other and equally decisive grounds for settling this point. (1.) The whole address of the apostle, of which this forms part, is directed to Christians, to the 'holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling;' and there is no reason, either in the expressions themselves, or in the turn of the argument, for supposing that there is any change in the persons to whom his remarks are pointed. (2.) It was no warning at all to real saints, no preventive of backsliding in their case, to be told that when mere professors fall away, it is impossible for them to be renewed. This might be an argument with those who had the mere appearance of saintship, but it is none with the actual Christian. (3.) How could it be said of mere professors that they fell away?" They never were in a state of grace, and how could it be said that they fall from it. (4.) How can any but real Christians be said to be 'renewed again' (avanamigen) to repentance? Only those who repented at first can repent again; only those who experienced renewal at first, can experience it again. They only who once had the character of renewed men, can be said to recover it after backsliding. (5.) The idea here brought forward, supposing real saints to be meant, is precisely the same as we find expressed in numerous other passages of Scripture. The following are instances:-Heb. x. 26,

'If we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.' Ezek. xviii. 24, "When the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned; in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.' We need quote no more. These are sufficient to show that similar warnings are set before the righteous, in many passages where it is impossible to dispute the plain meaning of the term righteous. (6.) We have no Scriptural authority for believing that mere professors falling from their profession, and going into sin, cannot be renewed to repentance. On the contrary, the whole work of God proclaims mercy to the last, even for such. And hence, many feeling this difficulty in the interpretation of the passage, yet thinking that it refers to mere temporary professors, have softened down the word aduvarov, into very difficult,' instead of 'impossible."

The apostle saw his Hebrew brethren stopping short in their Christian progress, indifferent as to advancing in knowledge or in grace; and he saw at the same time, the natural consequences of such a temper, and its tendency, in the nature of things, to lead on to apostacy. These awful effects he traces out and lays before them in the full magnitude of their terrors, as results which, in the nature of things, must ensue from their conduct. But he says not one word here, as to whether or not, that grace of God, flowing out of his everlasting election in Christ Jesus, which alone could arrest this natural and inevitable course of events, might interpose to save them. Here then, there is not the slightest interference with God's eternal election, or with his gracious promises to his people, of assured and infallible perseverance. But every doctrine has its own place, and every condition of the soul has a doctrine exactly suited to it. To convict the Antinomian, we should not think of urging the free grace of God. To arouse the mere professor and formalist, we should not think of exhorting him to duties. So it is here. The truth of God's everlasting predestination, and of the saint's final perseverance, are precious to the believer struggling hard against the enemy, and feeling his feet ready to slip at every moment. But for a backslider, as such, to take refuge in these as an excuse for, or consolation under his guilt, would be perversive of the doctrines, and ruinous to himself. The moment a saint declines, that moment those truths cease to be for comfort and encouragement. They led him most blessedly and peacefully along while he kept advancing; but now they fade away and are obscured; nothing but threaten

ing stands out against him. Had the apostle addressed these doctrines to one of those Hebrew backsliders, the natural consequence would have been, that the man, not being in a condition fit to use them aright, would have perverted them to most ruinous ends. He might say, 'you call upon me by my election of God to return to him, but since I am assured of my election, I need not be under any very heavy concern, knowing that God will not cast off his own.' But the apostle closes up this refuge of his, by showing him, that be he elect or not, the natural tendency of his conduct is to ruin, and that this ruin was terrible beyond description.

The correctness of our exposition has been denied by many, chiefly, and indeed solely, on the ground, that it is opposed to the doctrine of the Christian's perseverance. The remarks already made, may tend to show how far this is from being the case. But we may present the subject in another light. If the objection have any meaning, it takes for granted that all warnings and threatenings addressed to Christians, are inconsistent with the doctrine of election, and, of course, that all invitations and entreaties addressed to the non-elect, are useless and absurd. Now, it seems strange that the very men who have best defended the doctrine of election from the Arminians, when they assailed it on the ground of its inconsistency with the warnings and invitations of Scripture, should have taken up this objection to that interpretation of this passage for which we are contending. If warnings to his saints, for the purpose of preserving them, be irreconcileable with God's purpose of election, then most assuredly, the preaching of the gospel, for the purpose of gathering in his saints, must be inconsistent with it. When the gospel is preached, we know of a surety, that all his chosen ones will certainly receive it, and all others will as certainly reject it. But does this impede our preaching, or paralyse our message? Does this make our message of peace an absurdity, a contradiction? No. Why then should it be otherwise in the case of warnings? God's purpose concerning his own has already secured the end, so that they shall never finally fall away, but does that make it an absurdity to warn and threaten them, any more than it did to preach the gospel to them at the first?

That Christians are in Scripture frequently warned and threatened, while at the very time their title to the name of Christians is fully allowed, will not be denied. Now, a threatening necessarily implies the possibility of a certain fatal consequence. It has no meaning otherwise. So that it is not this passage alone that would interfere with the perseverance of the saints, but all the passages in which any warning occurs, and these are innume

rable. True, this statement of the apostle seems to give a greater breadth and prominence than usual to the idea which every warning involves in it, viz., the possibility of a certain fatal consequence ensuing; but this makes no difference as to the things themselves, but merely adds greater force and impressiveness to the warning here. When we speak of the possibility of apostacy, we speak of it as it exists in the nature of things, according to the constitution of a creature, and apart from God's purpose of election. It is God's purpose alone that makes it an impossibility. What would the saint be, even the holiest on earthwhat would all his grace do for him, however abundant in measure it may be, if the everlasting arms were for a moment withdrawn? If this distinction were kept in view, the compatibility between the two things above dwelt upon, would be at once perceived. Difficulties would still remain, for these ever must remain to us who see only as creatures, and who, moreover, see through a glass darkly; but still the reconcileableness of the two would be in some measure understood. We should see that there is room for warning of every kind, from the slightest to the strongest. We should see the exact point where these come in, and the exact place which they occupy.

We think Mr Tait by no means satisfactory or felicitous in his exposition of this passage. There is a little self-contradiction too. His idea is, that Paul is just declaring the possibility of man going a certain length in religion, and after all falling utterly away,' vol. i. 411. A very mournful truth,' as he well calls it. But still, is it the truth which the words contain? We have given our reasons for thinking not, and we can dwell no longer on it.

VIII. Ch. ix. 15-17. The word upon which the difficulty here specially turns is dann. Does it mean testament, a covenant? Does its kindred verb, diarionu, refer to the giving effect to a will, or the ratifying of an agreement between two parties? Our translators, along with most of the fathers and ancient commentators, have chosen the former.* Modern expositors are much

* Our author, in the first note at the conclusion of the second volume, states the opposite. I do not know any commentator of note except Professor Stuart, who defends the common version. Now, this is comparatively an unimportant matter, yet a short statement upon the subject may not be uninteresting. Having at present no access to books beyond our own library, we have not the means of making it so full as we should like; but we believe the following to be a correct statement upon the point. The fathers understood the term as denoting a testament; Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, are quite express upon the matter. Jerome is the only one among them who seems to have taken another view. In his exposition of the second chapter of Malachi he thus speaks, 'notandum quod n, verbum Hebraicum, Aquilo avvenny, id est, pactum interpretatur, 70 semper dianan, id est testamentum; et in plerisque Scripturarum locis testamentum non voluntatem defunctorum sonare, sed

more divided in their opinions; but still it may be said that the majority of critics translate the word as meaning testament. And to this no doubt they were led by the prima facie aspect of the passage, which, we confess, does at first sight look very like an allusion to a will taking effect upon the death of the testator. To this view of the passage, however, we object,

1. That this is not the usual meaning of the word. It is a secondary and not an uncommon sense, but it is not the primary and natural one, which simply denotes an arrangement or disposition. Thus the verb from which it comes is used in the following way: Luke xxii. 29, 'I appoint (daria) unto you a kingdom as my Father hath appointed (diedero) unto me,' Acts iii. 25, 'Ye are children of the prophets and of the covenant (dian) which God made (diedero) with our fathers.' The noun itself occurs in the following passages, among others, sometimes in connection with its cognate verb and sometimes not: Luke i. 72, 'To remember his holy covenant;' Acts vii. 8, 'He gave him the covenant of circumcision;' Rom. ix. 4, Whose is the adoption and the glory, and the covenants;' Gal. iii. 15, 17, Though it be but a man's covenant . . . the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ;' Gal. iv. 24, These are the two covenants;' Eph. ii. 12, 'Strangers from the covenants of promise;' Heb. viii. 8, 'I will make a new covenant, not according to the covenant I made with their fathers; Heb. xiii. 20, The blood of the everlasting covenant.' These are a few of the passages in which our translators even have shown that they understood covenant to be the correct sense of the word in question.

pactum viventium," (Oper. tom. v. p. 279, Antwerp edition, 1579.) Suidas also gives us the following statement, which we need not quote in the original: "The dann of God to Abraham and the rest of the fathers, was the promise (rayya) that of the seed of David he would raise up Christ.' Judging from monkish homilies in our possession, we should say that in the middle ages the word was always understood as meaning testament; and this is confirmed by Wicliffe's translation, which gives testament as the sense of the term. All the English translators, from Wicliffe downwards to our own, follow the same interpretation. All the commentators of the Reformation, and downwards for two centuries, adopt it also. There is only one exception, Codurcus, an able and learned man of the seventeenth century; who, however, seems afterwards to have apostatized to the Church of Rome. His exposition of this passage, in opposition to the prevailing opinion, is admirable. For it he was soon afterwards very sharply assailed by Herricus Guisardus, who wrote a treatise upon the subject, called Vindicia Testamentaria. Tena, who, next to Owen, wrote the longest commentary, or rather dissertations, upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, takes for granted that it is just testament that is meant. In later times, there is a greater division of opinion; and certainly the majority of interpreters for a century back do take the word in the sense of covenant or dispensation. See M'Knight, Scholefield, Faber, &c. But then, on the other hand, we have Schoettgen, Stockius, Elsner, Hammond, Kuttner, Vater, Moses Stuart, &c., still maintaining its meaning to be that of testament or will.

VOL. XIX. NO. I.