ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

at happiness, was laid under an indispensible obligation to observe the conditions as the sole means to attain it; and that happiness which laid him under this obligation, was an enforcement to observe the conditions-and an enforcement to observance is what properly constitutes

a sanction.

II. But not to insist upon this-I proceed more particularly to prove, “That the obligation to ob"serve every law, rite, and ceremony is enforced by "Moses upon the sanctions of future rewards and "punishments."

Now, in reading the books of Moses, it cannot but be observed, that there is one sanction which runs throughout the body of the law; and there is no ceremony, not the most minute rite, but what is enforced upon that sanction-To a great part of the laws it is particularly added, and not to all of them in general, that the obligation to do this, or avoid that, was founded upon the Lord's being their God. The Jews are required in particular to keep the* ten commandments

the passover, the jubilee, the feasts, and all the other weightier matters of the law; because the Lord was their God-and upon the same sanction they are required in general to keep ‡ ALL the commandments, and ALL the statutes, to do ALL the judgments, and walk therein. This is so frequently insisted upon, that there can be no doubt of its being the sanction of all the Mosaic laws-The only enquiry then is, what is the meaning of this sanction? Under what character is God here to be considered, or what is the ground of obligation? Doth God's claiming obedience of the Jews, because he Jehovah was their God, relate to some temporal character which God supported among the Jews, and to the temporal rewards and punishments which he under that character distributed or is this

* Exod. xx. 2. § Deut. v. 6. § J. H. Maius de Economiâ Vet. Test. p. 415.

+ Lev. xxiii. 43. § xxv. 17.

Lev. xi. 44. § xviii. 3, 4. § xx. 7. Numb. xv. 40, 41. § Deut. iy. 34 to 41. § xxvi. 16, 17. § xxviii. 58. § 2 Chron. xx. 20.

properly, and in its primary sense, the sanction of future? Future rewards and punishments will appear to be what God intended, and what the Jews understood, for the following reasons

[ocr errors]

1. And the first is, That the word Jehovah is not supposed to carry in it any sense of relation; and yet some relation is certainly implied in this sanction. As it denotes that essence which hath existence and all perfections in and of itself, it hath no respect to mankind, either as created or redeemed. The essence indeed, and the persons in it respect us in both these relations, but then there are other words to describe them; and Jehovah is never used in scripture, and it cannot be used, because the idea of the word is absolute, with relative pronouns, as it might be if the word expressed either of these relations. It is a term of distinction, signifying the different manner in which the divine essence exists from all other essences. Now a term used to distinguish God from other beings and things, cannot be descriptive of the relation he stood in to the Jews under the theocracy: for a term which doth not imply in it any relation, cannot be used in a relative sense; and therefore it is not expressive of God as head of the Jewish state, nor consequently of the temporal sanctions, which he as head of that state was engaged to execute.

2. And besides, the sanction now mentioned is not thus worded, "I demand your obedience, because I am Jehovah: but, because I Jehovah am your God:" so the obligation arises from, and is enforced upon, that relation, in which Jehovah was to be considered. He was to be considered under the character of their God, and upon that account obeyed; and therefore the sanction is expressed in that term of relation, and not in the word Jehovah.

3. And though the word God (or Elohim) be certainly a term of relation, as the relative pronouns, frequently joined with it demonstrate, and must theremy they-our-your-their Elohim, &c.

fore express some beneficent character which God supports, yet it cannot possibly be that relation which he stood in to the Jews under the theocracy: for if the word stands for this relation, how can he in that sense be said to be the God or Elohim of the whole earth? (Isa liv. 5.) The God of the whole earth could not be a local tutelary deity: for that would be a contradiction in terms-what is local being limited and confined and what is limited and confined being not universal: so that as theocracy was a form of government peculiar to the Jews, if this term of relation respected God as head of that government, how could it be applied to him in an universal sense? None of the nations were under such a government, and yet all the nations stood in that relation to God (whatever relation it be) which this word expresses; and therefore the word cannot be solely applied to the character which God sustained under the theocracy, or any relation in which God was to be considered as head of that particular form of government: and by consequence we shall not come at the true idea of the word, unless we consider the God of the whole earth under some other relation than that of a local tutelary Deity.

4. And besides, how could a word, used from the foundation of the world, carrying in it the idea of an universal relation, denote a particular one, which did not exist till after two thousand years. From the beginning the Deity was known and worshipped under this name; and after the theocracy ceased, it was still his appellation as well as before, (1 Sam. viii. 7, &c.) It cannot then carry in it any particular designation of God's being placed at the head of the Jewish commonwealth, because it is not appropriated to him in that respect; and therefore, whatever sanctions it includes, they certainly were not those temporal sanctions which were solely appropriated to the theocratic government, and which God was then engaged to execute. 5. And farther, it cannot be used to express that relation in which God stood to the Jews as their deliver

er from Egypt, because the nations who had received no such deliverance, did yet worship God under this name; and because the heads of the Jewish people, though not related in this sense, did yet call Jehovah their God: nay even before it was foretold that their seed should go down into Egypt, and should be brought into bondage; but should be delivered by signs and wonders, and a stretched out arm: even before this was revealed, the patriarchs knew and worshipped God under this relation; and therefore it cannot be the particular designation of God considered as the deliverer of the Jews from Egypt, or as their Redeemer from the house of bondage.

6. And in the next place, as the word God or Elohim, is certainly expressive of some beneficent relation in which God stands to all his creatures; so must it therefore denote either the universal relation he stands in to them as their Creator, or Redeemer: for under these two, all the relations he stands in to mankind in general are included. As to the character of Governor of the world, that since the fall could not have been a beneficent relation to sinners without a Redeemer; and yet the relation expressed by the word Elohim, is indisputably a beneficent one. And besides the same person is now both the Redeemer and Governor of the world-" All power in heaven and earth "being committed to Christ ;" and therefore that relation, which is but a consequence of redemption, ought not, and indeed cannot be considered separately from it. And as to the universal character God sustains as Creator, the word cannot be descriptive of this relation : for as a verb or a noun, it is never used in any such sense-and there is but one word used throughout the scriptures to denote the single and omnipotent act of creation-and also because it is used as a name of God in the participle passive where it cannot be applied to him in the sense of creation; for it would be blasphemy to say of God, it undeifies him to say, "He who was created." It is manifest then, from the reason of the

thing, that the word carries in it some idea of God considered as our Redeemer, and is expressive of that universal and * most beneficent relation.

7. Now it is the belief of every Christian-That the Deity foresaw the fall of man; and before it happened had provided a suitable remedy-This remedy was the redemption purchased by Christ; and the scriptures have represented each person of the Deity as covenanting to perform a certain part in the economy of that redemption-God the Father is here represented as demanding satisfaction for sin, and covenanting upon a full satisfaction made to pardon sinners-God the Son, as covenanting to make that full satisfaction to the Father, and thereby redeem mankind-and God the Holy Ghost, as covenanting to make that satisfaction effectual to the ends proposed, as sanctifying believers. That the ever blessed Trinity did make this covenant, and actually have performed it, is the foundation of our faith and hopes; and that fallen man might never want evidence for these truths, and might therefore always have powerful motives to make proper returns of love and obedience, the Divine Persons were mercifully pleased to represent themselves to sinners under the idea of persons who had made such a covenant to redeem them; which idea the word Elohim conveys. For

8. The term † (Elah) in human affairs is certainly used to express that conditional penalty which they who have entered into a covenant upon oath have laid themselves under. And why may not this be the idea in divine affairs? There is no other word in the language but this from whence it can be derived; and if this be its certain derivation, then it must have the same idea as the word from whence it is derived for

* Deut. vii. 9. Psal. lxii. 1, 6, 7, 8. § lxxxv. 5. § xlii. 6. § xcviii. Isa. lii. 10. In these and many other places, salvation is mani festly included in the word Elohim.

3.

† Gen. xxiv. 41. § xxvi. 28. Deut. xxix. 13, 18, 20.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »