with the greatest folemnity when the high priest carried the appointed blood into the holy place, and fprinkled it before the mercy-feat.

This explains to us the title which the Apostle gives our great high priest, when comparing him with the Old-Teftament priests. They were fureties of that covenant under which they ministered, and were bound to do every thing neceffary for making good the promise contained in it but our Lord taking the fins of his people upon himself, is furety of a better covenant; better on account of the better promises; not fimply of pardon, but eternal life. And thus he ftands bound by his office, not only to put away fin, but effectually to convey the promised blessing.. This is quite another, and incomparably greater thing, than what fome have rested the import of it upon, viz. to be furety to God for finners, and to make up the honour due to God and his law, by his perfect obedience. Accordingly, when our great high priest had effectually put away fin by the facrifice of himself, and entered into the true holy place, the very prefence of God, with his own blood; he had

all

all the bleffings ever God defigned for mankind, eternal life, with all that belongs to it, all that is neceffary for beginning, carrying it on, and perfecting it in glory, lodged in his hands.

Upon reflection even on this faint sketch, and yet more as it stands in the record, it will appear, that our Lord's terms of dif cipleship, to deny ourselves, to take up our cross, and to follow him, are really no more than what every man who brought a facrifice was bound to, and, if he was in earnest, certainly did practise. He renounced all right or title to life, could have no dependence on any thing he had done, or could do, and betook himself to the free grant of pardon, and the new right to life there given him.

There has been great fault found with a term commonly made ufe of in defcribing the effect of Chrift's priesthood and facrifice, viz. his fatisfying the juftice of God, or the demands of his law. It is true, the word fatisfaction is no where to be found in fcripture; and perhaps fome accounts which have been given of it are not altogether proper. But as there can be no doubt made of his having punctually

tually discharged every part of the priestly office, by taking upon himself the fins of all that come to him in this character, and thus being made fin for them, as the OldTeftament facrifices were, and accordingly binding himself to put them away, which he actually did by his one facrifice; and all this being done by the direction of his heavenly Father, and in obedience to the command he received from him; he thus finished the work which was given him to do, and perfectly fulfilled the terms on which the difpofition or grant of eternal life was made to him in behalf of a perishing world. When these things are confidered, the term, making full fatisfaction, is by no means improper. But when men are agreed in the matter, it feems hardly becoming men of learning and candour to fall out with one another about a word.

19. The import of the word God.

THE

'HE often repeated promife of being God to this or the other person or people, naturally leads one to confider

what

The very

what it is to be God to one. words carry in them an intimation of what is commonly obferved, that it is a relative term, and very different from another, which we render Lord. It is agreed by all, that JEHOVAH is an effential name; and it will be easily allowed, that the Apostle John's is the best tranflation of it, "He "who is, and was, and is to come;" the effential poffeffor and proprietor of being. Our tranflators have been very justly complained of for rendering this by the relative term, Lord, after the later Jews, whose fuperftition not permitting them to pronounce this name, always substitute Adoni, Lord, instead of it. But certainly they ought not to be followed by Christians.

There would be the fame ground of complaint for rendering the original name Elahim, which is plural, by the fingular word God, the origin and meaning of which is not certainly known, had not the writers of the New Teftament ufed a word of as uncertain derivation. And there are but two ways I know of by which the import of it can be ascertained; either to have recourse to the Old-Testament name, or to gather up the particulars which arę found

found to be comprehended in this fhort expreffion of being a God to one. And if these two are found to agree perfectly, we may be well affured, that we have the true import and meaning

fallen upon

of it.

The original word stands pointed ELOHIM. Thofe who look upon pointing as a modern invention of the apoftate Jews, and with no good defign, and therefore difregard it altogether, read ELAHIM, and others ALEIM: the letters are the fame, only affigning different powers.

The word evidently carries a plural form; and that has occafioned a variety of fpeculations, many of them little to any good purpose, and as ill founded. But when it is confidered how propenfe the people were to idolatry and polytheism, the import of it cannot be the fame with our word God: for that would have led them to speak juft as the Heathen did;

66

The Gods do, or did, fo and fo." And perhaps this very word carried off, and brought into common ufe, without knowing what was defigned and intended by it, might give countenance, if not rife, to that unnatural notion of many gods. Z z

VOL.I.

They