forth from the teeming modern press, which will bear study, and are worthy of it.

ARTICLE III.

EXAMINATION OF THE REV. A. BARNES' REMARKS ON HEBREWS 9: 16-18.*

By M. Stuart, Professor in the Theological Seminary, Andover.

I have read with attention, the remarks of my highly respected friend and brother, the Rev. A. Barnes, of Philadelphia, on the exegesis which I have given of Heb. 9: 16-18, in my volume of Commentary on this epistle. I need not assure him, who knows me so well, that I am not in any degree offended by his strictures; for of the manner of them I cannot complain; and as to the matter of them-that only furnishes me with an occasion of reinvestigating the difficult passage, usually called difficult, to which he has invited my attention once more, in order that I may ascertain, at least for myself, still more definitely, whether I have defended an erroneous opinion. A somewhat thorough re-investigation of the whole subject has ended in the conviction, that Mr. B.'s arguments are not sufficient to establish the position, that I have misunderstood, and in my Commentary misinterpreted, the passage in question.

I hope and trust, that this state of mind is not the result of prejudice in favor of my former views. I have lived long enough to know that men are not infallible; at all events, to know that I am not. I am one of those who believe, that in respect to many of the details of sacred science, truth is the daughter of time. I do not mean, of course, that truth in itself is changed by time, but that we must gradually and by protracted and patient effort come to the knowledge of many truths; and among these are to be found not a few, which are far from being unimportant. Being a full believer in all this, I deem it quite possible, that I may yet in many cases be justly corrected, as to my expositions of the Scriptures; and it

* Printed in the Biblical Repository, July, 1842.

can be hardly otherwise than certain, that in some I have failed to do justice to the sacred writers.

That Mr. B. differs in judgment from me respecting the true meaning of Heb. 9: 16-18, I can have no right even to regret, unless I can be well assured that he is in the wrong and I in the right. There has been a difference of opinion among interpreters, respecting this passage, long before our time. It is not a case, however, out of which any heresy can well be made out on account of such a difference. And even if it could, my respected brother and myself are not among the class of men who are over-anxiously seeking after heresy, or over-zealous speedily and loudly to proclaim it on slight occasions. I trust we can look upon honest differenees of opinion (and such there may be), on points like the present, as affording new impulse to study and investigation. Happy for all who must differ on such points, if they can turn the matter into such a shape as to make it a means of their own improvement, and perhaps of casting light on the paths of other inquirers. I trust that Mr. B. and myself will at least show, that we are not only disposed ἀπηθεύειν ἐν ἀγάπῃ, but that we are capable of carrying into execution our good intentions.

If I may state, in the briefest compass possible, the grounds why Mr. B. has failed to satisfy me by his criticisms and arguments, I would say,

(1.) That his interpretation of several important words, in themselves considered, does not appear to me to be well grounded.

(2.) That some important facts, on which the conclusion. to which he comes mainly depends, do not appear to be correctly stated.

First, then, I must dissent, in various respects, from Mr. B.'s views of the meaning of diathan.

On page 52 et seq., he avers that dan "does not properly denote compact, agreement, or covenant," but that either “ συνθήκη, σύνθεσις, οι συνθεσία,” is the appropriate word for such a meaning." Again, on page 56 he avers the same thing, and also says, that "although in classic Greek the word [dian] may have the notion of a covenant or compact remotely, yet it cannot be shown to have that meaning in a single instance in the Scriptures."

We join issue on these points, and proceed forthwith to the work of investigation.

I state, without fear of contradiction on the part of any who have made extensive investigation in respect to the words before us, that dian, which in its most generic sense unquestionably means arrangement, disposition, disposal, in respect to any thing, is also employed, often and familiarly, in the sense of compact, agreement, or covenant, between two contracting parties of the same or the like condition or rank; yea is so employed in the Scriptures, as well as in the classics.

When Mr. B. states, and insists on it (as he often does), that συνθήκη, οι σύνθεσις, is the appropriate word for contract in Greek, he is plainly misled by the etymology of the word. A priori we should naturally conclude that the case is as he states; for the preposition dúv, united with 0nxn or dig would seem very appropriately to denote contract, covenant, or compact. But usage has otherwise ordained, for the most part. Thus the word dúvesdis is appropriated mainly to rhetorical and logical expressions. It means the placing or putting together, i. e. composition, of words and sentences, as joined in ordinary speech or written composition. In logic, it means the joining or bringing together the different elements which form data for a general proposition or conclusion. In respect to this meaning of the word, it may be applied to mathematical, as well as other ratiocinative processes. It is only in an unusual and nearly tropical sense, (tropical, if usage be considered), that it is ever employed to designate contract, agreement, compact, etc.

Even so is it with uvexn. It belongs to rhetoric and composition; and, so far as these are concerned, there is no difference between the signification of σύνθεσις and συνθήκη. Of the two, the latter admits more frequently the tropical sense of compact, agreement, etc. But such a usage is quite seldom, either in sacred or profane writings.

In this latter sense, indeed, duvdería is prevailingly employed. But it also means, in the latter Greek, emulation, contention, rivalship, acted out so as in some way to come into clashing or contest. It might have been employed in common parlance, had usage so willed it, instead of dialýän, to designate the idea of compact, covenant, etc. But it seems to have been almost in a state of general desuetude. simple truth is, that dian has commonly usurped the place

The

of all these words, as employed to designate either compact, covenant, or agreement.

This is perfectly natural. Aadhan, arrangement, disposition, is so generic, that it comprises every kind of arrangement. But, in far the greater number of cases where the word is employed, the context demands a specific or limited sense. This anxn very conveniently designates; for at one time it is compact or agreement; at another, testament; at another, covenant; at another, statute, or law, or ordinance, i. e. authoritative arrangement; at another, promise of good; at another, threat of punishment, i. e. arrangement for moral and retributive government. Nor do even these comprehend all its meanings. But these are enough for our present purpose.

The sequel will present the evidence in respect to such of these meanings as we are now concerned with. For the rest, I may refer to any good New Testament Lexicon, and also to any good Lexicon of the Septuagint; but specially to the Concordances of the Greek Scriptures, i. e. both of the Old Testament and of the New.

Ι

For my statement in regard to the proper meaning of σύνθεσις, συνθήκη, and συνθεσία, I may refer to Passow's most excellent Greek Lexicon, which contains the sum of what I have stated. Confirmation of these statements I have sought for extensively elsewhere, and found it in abundance; but I do not think it necessary to occupy room here in stating my other sources. There is no good ground to doubt that Passow is in the right.

As to the fact of actual usage, I may appeal, in order to confirm what I have said, to the Septuagint, and to the New Testament. Not one of the words, συνθήκη, σύνθεσις οι συνθεσία, ever occurs in the New Testament; and in the Septuagint we find no use of συνθεσία. The word σύνθεσις is indeed employed there, in a few cases; but only in the sense of composition, i. e. the compounding of things together, e. g. spices, unguents, etc.; see Exodus 35: 26, 30: 35, 25: 6, al. It occurs some fifteen times, but always in such a

sense.

Zuvexn, however, occurs only three times in the whole of the Old Testament, viz. Isaiah 30: 1, 28: 15, Dan.11: 6; and there in the sense of agreement or compact. But often as the idea of compact, etc., is designated in the Old Testa

ment Scriptures, these are all the examples of employing the words now before us. In the Apocrypha we find five instances more of the same method of employing συνθήκη.

Compare now this with the use of dan. In the Old Testament, according to Mr. B.'s own statement (p. 52), we find it employed nearly three hundred times, and in the New Testament thirty-three times. Of course all that I have stated above, about the usage of the words under consideration in common parlance or in writing, must be regarded as abundantly confirmed. In fact, we might appeal to most of the classics themselves, and come out with the same result.

Can it be possible, now, that the sacred writers of the Old Testament, and of the New, have had no occasion for designating the idea of agreement, covenant, compact, etc.? Certainly this is not the case. These are frequent words; and this leads us directly to the examination of Mr. B.'s position, that "San cannot be shown to have such a meaning in a single instance in the Scriptures." Bib. Rep. p. 56.

As the dispute here turns upon that which is simple matter of fact, and facts are within our reach, it is easy to settle it.

In Gen. 21: 27 seq., diathan designates the mutual compact or covenant between Abraham and Abimelech; comp. vs. 26, 32. In Gen, 26: 28, it designates the agreement between Isaac and Abimelech. The same between Jacob and Laban, Gen. 31: 44; between the Hebrews and the heathen, Ex. 23: 32; between the same parties in Ex. 34: 12, 15; and again in Deut. 7: 2; the covenant between Joshua and the Gibeonites, Josh. 9: 6, 7, 15, 16; between the Hebrews and the heathen, Judg. 2: 2; between Jabesh and Nahash, 1 Sam. 11: 1, (I follow the designations of our English Bible here); between David and Jonathan, 1 Sam. 20: 8; same in 1 Sam. 23: 18; between Abner and David, 2 Sam. 3: 12, 13, 21; between David and the Hebrews, 2 Sam. 5: 3; between Hiram and Solomon, 1 K. 5: 12; between Ben Hadad and Asa, 1 K. 15: 19; between Ben Hadad and Ahab, 1 K. 20: 34; between Jehoida and the rulers, 2 K. 11: 4; between David and the elders of Israel, 1 Chron. 11: 3; between Asa and Ben Hadad, 2 Chron. 16: 3; between Jehoiada the priest and the people of Israel, 2 Chron. 23: 3, 16; between Job and his own eyes, Job. 31: 1; between Job and Leviathan, Job 41 : 4 (Sept. 40: 23;)