duced as the ground of ascribing to him thrice, in the most solemn manner, the epithet holy.

There is a passage pretty similar to this in the Apocalypse, iv. 8, "The four beasts" (or, as the word ought to be rendered, living creatures) "had each of them six wings about him, and they were full of eyes within; and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come. And when those creatures give glory, and honour, and thanks, to him that sitteth on the throne who liveth for ever and ever; the four and twenty elders fall down before him that sitteth on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honour, and power; for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are, and they were created." Here every circumstance points to the majesty, power, and dominion, not to the moral perfections of God; the action and doxology of the elders make the best comment on the exclamation of the four living creatures, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, &c.

It is universally admitted, that to hallow or sanctify the name of God, is to venerate, to honour it. According to analogy, therefore, to affirm that the name of God is holy, is to affirm that it is honourable, that it is venerable. Nay, in the same sense, we are said to sanctify God himself; that is, to make him the object of our veneration and awe. In this way, to sanctify God is nearly the same as to fear him, differing chiefly in degree, and may be opposed to an undue fear of man. Thus it is employed by the prophet, "Say not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say a confederacy, neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid. Sanctify the Lord of Hosts himself, and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread," Isa. viii. 12, 13. But nothing can give a more apposite example of this use than the words of Moses to Aaron, on occasion of the terrible fate of Aaron's two sons, Nadab and Abihu: "This is that the Lord spake, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me; and before all the people I will be glorified," Lev. x. 1, &c, Their transgression was, that "they offered before the Lord strange fire," or what was not the peculiar fire of the altar, lighted originally from heaven, but ordinary fire kindled from their own hearths; an action which, in the eye of that dispensation, must be deemed the grossest indignity. Spencer (lib. i. cap. 7.) has well expressed the sense of the passage in these words: "Deum sanctum esse, id est, a quavis personâ vel eminentiâ, incomparabili naturæ suæ excellentiâ, separatum, ideoque postulare, ut sanctificetur, id est augustè, decorè, et ritu naturæ suæ separatæ, imaginem quandam ferente, colatur."

15. The sixth and last sense mentioned was moral purity and innocence; a sense which, by a very natural turn of thinking,

arises out of the two first meanings assigned, namely, clean in the common import of the word, and clean in the eye of the ceremonial law. This meaning might, in respect of its connexion with these, have been ranked in the third place; but, because I consider this as originally a metaphorical use of the word, and requiring a greater degree of refinement than the other meanings, I have reserved it for the last. This acceptation is accordingly much more frequent in the New Testament than in the Old. In the latter, it oftener occurs in the prophetical and devotional writings, than in the Pentateuch and the other historical books, where we never find holy mentioned in the description of a good character. This, in my judgment, merits a more particular attention than seems to have been given it. In what is affirmed expressly in commendation of Noah, Abraham, or any of the patriarchs, of Moses, Joshua, Job, David, Hezekiah, or any of the good kings of Israel or Judah, or any of the prophets or ancient worthies, except where there is an allusion to a sacred office, the term kadosh, holy, is not once employed. Now there is hardly another general term, as just, good, perfect, upright, whereof, in such cases, we do not find examples. Yet there is no epithet which occurs oftener, on other occasions, than that whereof I am speaking. But, in the time of the evangelists, this moral application of the corresponding word hagios was become more familiar; though the other meanings were not obsolete, as they are almost all at present. Herod is said to have known that John the Baptist was a just man and a holy, Mark vi. 20. There is nothing like this in all the Old Testament. When David pleads that he is holy, (Psal. lxxxvi. 2.) it is not the word kadosh that he uses. The many injunctions to holiness given in the law, as has been already hinted, have at least a much greater reference to ceremonial purity than to moral; the only immorality against which they sometimes seem immediately pointed is idolatry; it being always considered in the law as the greatest degree of defilement in both senses, ceremonial and moral.

But, as every vicious action is a transgression of the law, holiness came gradually to be opposed to vice of every kind. The consideration of this, as a stain on the character, as what sullies the mind, and renders it similarly disagreeable to a virtuous man as dirt renders the body to a cleanly man, has been common in most nations. Metaphors drawn hence are to be found, perhaps, in every language. As the ideas of a people become more spiritual and refined, and, which is a natural consequence, as ceremonies sink in their estimation and virtue rises, the secondary and metaphorical use of such terms grows more habitual, and often, in the end, supplants the primitive and proper. This has happened to the term holiness, as now commonly understood by Christians, or rather to the original terms so rendered. I had in a good measure happened, but not entirely, in the language

of the Jews, in the days of our Lord and his apostles. The exhortations to holiness in the New Testament are evidently to be understood of moral purity, and of that only. On other occasions, the words holy, and saints, ayıol, even in the New Testament, ought to be explained, in conformity to the fourth meaning above assigned, devoted or consecrated to the service of God.

16. Having illustrated these different senses, I shall consider an objection that may be offered against the interpretation here given of the word holy, when applied to God, as denoting awful, venerable. Is not, it may be said, the imitation of God in holiness enjoined as a duty? And does not this imply, that the thing itself must be the same in nature, how different soever in degree, when ascribed to God, and when enjoined on us? As I did not entirely exclude this sense, to wit, moral purity, from the term when applied to the Deity, I readily admit, that in this injunction in the New Testament there may be a particular reference to it. But it is not necessary that, in such sentences, there be so perfect a coincidence of signification, as seems, in the objection, to be contended for. The words are, "Be ye holy, for" (not as) "I am holy." In the passage where this precept first occurs it is manifest, from the context, that the scope of the charge given to the people is to avoid ceremonial impurities; those particularly that may be contracted by eating unclean meats, and, above all, by eating insects and reptiles, which are called an abomination. Now, certainly, in this inferior acceptation, the term is utterly inapplicable to God. But what entirely removes the difficulty is, that the people are said, by a participation in such unclean food, to make themselves abominable. To this the precept, "Sanctify yourselves, and be ye holy," stands in direct opposition. There is here, therefore, a coincidence of the second and fifth meanings of the word holy, which are connected, in their application to men, as the means and the end, and therefore ought both to be understood as comprehended, though the latter alone is applicable to God. Now, as the opposite of abominable is estimable, venerable, the import of the precept, "Sanctify yourselves," manifestly is, "Be careful, by "Be careful, by a strict attention to the statutes ye have received concerning purity, especially in what regards your food, to avoid the pollution of your body; maintain thus a proper respect for your persons, that your religious services may be esteemed by men, and accepted of God; for remember that the God whom ye serve, as being pure and perfect, is entitled to the highest esteem and veneration. Whatever, therefore, may be called slovenly, or what his law has pronounced impure in his servants, is an indignity offered by them to their master, which he will certainly resent."

But as an artful gloss or paraphrase will sometimes mislead, I shall subjoin the plain words of Scripture, Lev. xi. 42, &c. which come in the conclusion of a long chapter, wherein the laws relat

ing to cleanness in animal food, in beasts, birds, fishes, and reptiles, are laid down. "Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all-four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat, for they are an abomination. Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby: For I am the Lord your God; ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy, for I am holy. Neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth: For I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God; ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy." It is plain that any other interpretation of the word holy than that now given, would render the whole passage incoherent.

17. Now, to come to the word on chasid, óolog, this is a term which properly and originally expresses a mental quality, and that only in the same manner as PT tsaddik, dikalos just, j amon, Toros, faithful, and several others. Nor is there any material variation of meaning that the word seems to have undergone at different periods. The most common acceptation is, humane, merciful, beneficent, benign. When there appears to be a particular reference to the way wherein the person stands affected to God and religion, it means pious, devout. In conformity to this sense, our translators have, in several places in the Old Testament, rendered it godly. The phrase of oσLOL TOV εOV, is therefore not improperly rendered the saints of God, that is, his pious servants. It most probably, as was hinted before, means pious, in what is said of our Lord, that he was dolog, akaκος, αμίαντος, as it seems to have been the intention of the sacred writer to comprehend, in few words, his whole moral character respecting God, the rest of mankind, and himself. In the enumeration which Paul gives to Titus (i. 8.) of the virtues whereof a bishop ought to be possessed, it is surely improper to explain any of them by a general term equally adapted to them all; since nothing can be plainer than that his intention is to denote, by every epithet, some equality not expressed before. His words are, φιλοξενον, φιλαγαθον, σωφρονα, δικαιον, όσιον, εγκρατη. Το render botov, holy, (though that were in other places a proper version,) would be here in effect the same as to omit it altogether. If the sense had been pious, it had properly been either the first or the last in the catalogue: as it stands, I think it ought to be rendered humane.

There are certain words, which on some occasions are used with greater, and on others with less latitude. Thus the word Sukalog sometimes comprehends the whole of our duty to God, our neighbour, and ourselves; sometimes it includes only the virtue of justice. When oi dikator is opposed to oi Tovnpo, the former is

the case, and it is better to render it the righteous, and dikaιoovvn, righteousness; but when Sikatos or dikaιoovvη occur in a list with other virtues, it is better to render them just or justice. Sometimes the word is employed in a sense which has been called forensic, as being derived from judicial proceedings: "He that justifieth the wicked," says Solomon, "and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord." Prov. xvii. 15. The word wicked means no more here than guilty, and the word just, guiltless of the crime charged. In like manner, doorns, in one or two instances, may be found in the New Testament in an extent of signification greater than usual. In such cases it may be rendered sanctity, a word rather more expressive of what concerns manners than holiness is.

18. But, as a further evidence that the Hebrew word Ton chasid, is not synonymous with IP kadosh, and consequently neither óotos with ayos, it must be observed, that the abstract D chesed, is not once rendered by the Seventy óolorηs, or by our interpreters holiness, though the concrete is almost always rendered dotos in Greek, and often holy in English. This substantive, on the contrary, is translated in the Septuagint ελεος, ελεημοσύνη, οικτείρημα, ελπις, χαρις, or some such term, once, indeed, and but once, bota. In English it is translated kindness, favour, grace, mercy, loving-kindness, pity, but never holiness. The analogy of language (unless use were clear against it, which is not the case here) would lead us to think, that there must be a nearer relation in meaning than this between the substantive and the adjective formed from it. Yet worthy does not more evidently spring from worth, than Ton chasid springs from TD chesed. Of the term last mentioned it may be proper just to observe, that there is also an anomalous use, (like that remarked in kadosh,) which assigns it a meaning the reverse of its usual signification, answering to avoua, ovados, flagitium, probrum. But it is only in two or three places that the word occurs in this acceptation.

19. I shall conclude with observing, that chasid or hosios is sometimes applied to God; in which case there can be little doubt of its implying merciful, bountiful, gracious, liberal, or benign. The only case wherein it has an affinity in meaning to the English words saint or holy, is when it expresses pious affections towards God. As these cannot be attributed to God himself, the term, when used of him, ought to be understood according to its most frequent acceptation. The Psalmist's words, which in the common version (cxlv. 17.) are, "The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy," chasid, "in all his works," would have been more truly as well as intelligibly and emphatically rendered, "The Lord is just in all his ways, and bountiful in all his works." There is not equal reason for translating in the same manner the Greek hosios, when applied to God in the New Testament. Though hosios, in the Septuagint, commonly occupies the place