No I.

[See page 3.]

T

'HE derivation of " from 7 elegit, is most agreeable to the genius of the Hebrew la language; for verbal nouns which terminate in n, n', ni, , &c. are derived from verbs in the form of Kal, which have quiefcent for their last radical. Vide WASMUTH, Append. No. I. ad Gram. Heb. Clafs ii. § 2. BUXTORF, Thefaur. Gram. cap. LVI. The Hutchinfonians, are far from being satisfied with this derivation: But the term which is usually translated COVENANT in the Old Testament, is, by them, derived from another, which fignifies to PURIFY [7, or 172]: Hence they conclude, that the term PURIFIER ought to be substituted in place of the word COVENANT, throughout the tranflation of the Old Teftament at leaft. CALCOT'S Sermon on the Elohim, p. 15. ROMAINE apud vocem.-Mr RICCALTOUN, and the rest of the Hutchinfonians are not quite confistent with themselves: In one part of Mr Riccaltoun's writings we are taught, that the words Carath Berith exprefs that which we call MAKING A COVENANT, Vol. III. p. 217: But, in Vol. I. p. 321-324. we are informed, that the fame words fignify to CUT OFF A PURIFIER. But it is eafy to fhew, that the Hutchinfonian derivation is uncertain and irregular.-The propofed tranflation abfurd and unjust.

I. THE Hutchinfonian derivation of Berith must be abfurd, even on their own principles: For their rule, respecting derivation, is, That the primitive idea of the root is conveyed to all the derivatives. Now, the idea of purification is incompatible with the term Berith in many places of Scripture: For example, If. xxviii. 15. "And ye have faid, we have made a Covenant (Berith) with death, and with hell we are at agreement." What purifier, or what purification can be here intended?

The

The propofed derivation is alfo irregular, as it confounds Berith (covenant) with Borith (foap). Things fufficiently different indeed: But, perhaps, these men will reply, That all the diftinction between these two words originates in the vowel-points. It might be answered, Be it fo; their divine original has been fufficiently demonAtrated by P. Whitefield, in our own language, as well as Dr Owen and Dr Gill; not to mention what has been attempted in other languages.

2. THE propofed tranflation is unjust and improper It must be an unjust tranflation which contradicts the infpired writers of the New Teftament. The word Berith, when quoted from the Old Testament to the New, is tranflated Diatheke; but no one ever imagined that Diatheke fignified purifier, or purification. A few examples may be adduced to our purpofe, Exod. xxiv 8. "Behold the blood of the COVENANT which the Lord hath made with you," compared with Heb. ix. 20. "This is the blood of the TESTAMENT which the Lord hath enjoined unto you." In the firft text, the original word for Covenant is Berith; In the last, the original word for Teftament is Diatheke. The Apostle is there treating of a teftamentary Covenant; therefore, Diatheke is peculiarly expreffive of the nature of it. See alfo, Jer. xxxi. 31, 32, 33. quoted by the Apoftle Heb. viii. 8, 9, 10. and x. 16. I believe there is no comparifon between the Apoftle and the Hutchinfonians as tranflators: Nor will any true Chriftian hesitate a moment which to prefer. But, although the Apoftle had never translated it, there is abundance of light, in many places, in the context, to fhew the abfurdity of this newly propofed tranflation; as 2 Chron. xvi. 23. "Then Afa fent to Benhadad, king of Syria, who dwelt at Damafcus, faying, There is a LEAGUE (Heb. Berith) between me and thee, as there was between thy father and my father. hold, I have fent thee filver and gold, go break thy LEAGUE (Heb. Berithecha) with Bafha, king of Ifrael." This text is alfo fufficient to fet afide the force of a diftinction which Mr Riccaltoun makes to the following purpose: "That Carath Berith are used to exprefs the tranfaction we call making a covenant may be grant ed; but that Berith, standing by itself, fignifics a cove◄

Be

nant,

nant, will not be easily proved." Here' it flands by itfelf, yet it fignifies a League, or Covenant: But he further infifts,That, when ftands by itfelf, and fignifies God's Berith, then it signifies PURIFIER, and not coVENANT." We may now give fome inftances of God's BERITH, which cannot be tranflated GOD'S PURIFIER: Pfal. Ixxviii. 10. "They kept not the COVENANT (Heb. Berith) of Elohim and refufed to walk in his law." If Berith be tranflated PURIFIER, in this verfe, What is the meaning of it? Or how has it any meaning left in it at all? See alfo, Deut. xvii. 2. Josh. vii. 11. and xv. 2. 2 Kings xviii. 12, &c. It is ftill objected, That it is abfurd to fay CUT OFF A COVENANT; whereas it is a proper expreffion to fay CUT OFF A PURIFIER. It may be anfwered, That the facrifice by which the Covenant was confirmed was cut off, and alfo cut into two parts, Gen. xv. 10. and the facrifice which feals the Covenant may bear the name of it as well as circumcifion. Now, Where is the impropriety, or abfurdity, of faying cut off a facrifice? Moreover, this objection ftrikes as much against Mr Riccalton as against the doctrine we main tain: For he grants that CARATH BERITH fignify to make a covenant; and this is the only phrafe which can be tranflated, from the Hebrew, TO CUT A COVENANT. From the above confiderations it appears, That the word COVENANT has a juft claim to its place in our tranflation.

THE

No II.

[Sce page 580.]

HE School of Alexandria is a clear proof of the ears ly converfion of Egypt unto the Chriftian Faith. If we fearch the records of the Church, we will find, that Ifaiah's prediction received an accomplishment in the literal Egypt. A learned Roman Catholic (HUETIs) attempts to apply the oracle, If. xix. 18-25. to the temple which ONIAS built in oppofition to that of jeru falem: But, as VITRINGA juftly obferves, this hiftory cannot agree with that oracle: The oracle fpeaks of Egyptians,

gyptians, as diftinguished from Ifraelites; the History of Jews as diftinguished from Egyptians (Jofephus). The fetting up of any altar befides that at Jerufalem, was confidered by God as fetting up an altar against his altar, and it expofed perfons to his cui fe; but this oracle affures us, that the perfons vowing and building the altar are certainly bleffed: "The Lord of hofts fhall blefs them, faying, BLESSED be Egypt my people," &c. If there were profelytes to the Jewish religion, from among THE DWELLERS IN EGYPT, at Jerufalem on the day of Pentecoft, who were converted to the Christian Faith, as a kind of firit fruits: How much more copious should be the harvest, which produced a regular dispensation of Gofpel ordinances. A JULIAN himfelf attefts the fulfilment of this prediction, Epift. li. "By the gods, I am not a little afhamed, that any of Alexandria should dare to confefs himself a Galilean. There was a time when the ancestors of the Hebrews ferved the Egyptians: But ye, Alexandrians, Egypt being fubdued, patiently endure flavery to the defpifers of the dogmas of your ancestors, which is against all right." Upon the whole, VITRINGA concludes that this teftimony is an evidence not only of the accomplishment of this prophecy, but also of that in Pfal. lxxxvii. 4. "I will make mention of Rahab (or Egypt) and Babylon to them that know me."——“ En, cateris miffis, verba notabilia Juliani, in Epiftola ad Alexandrinos, quibus hanc mutationem exprobrat: Equidem pudore, per Deos, haud mediocri teneor, Alexandrini, quod illus apud vos GALILEUM (Chriftianum) se fateri audeat Hebræorum quondam verorum Parentes Ægyptiis ferviebant: at vos, Alexandrini, modo Egypto fubacta, (hanc enim conditor vefter fibi fubjecit:) Tois xaτολιγωρηκαῖσι τῶν πατρίων δογμάτων δελείαν ἐθελάσιον, ἀντικρυς τῶν παλαιῶν θεσμῶν ὑφίςασθε. patriorum dogmatum contemptoribus fervire fponte contra antiqua jura fuftinetis. des facta Oraculo (Pfal. lxxxvii. 4.) ejufdem fenfus cujus hæc eft prophetia: Commemorabo RAHABUM (Egyp tum) et BABELEM inter eos qui me cognofcunt." V1TRINGA, Comment. in Ifaiam, p. 782. Now, it is well' known that the Primitive Chriftians literally swORE unto the Lord of Hofts, as appears from the monuments of antiquity formerly adduced.

Sic fi

No

COVE

No III.

[See page 658.]

COVENANTING was lefs general in Ireland than in Britain, as a great number of Proteftants fell by the dreadful maffacre in that kingdom; and, probably, because the followers of Archbp USHER adhered to what was called the ROYAL CAUSE. There were a great number of Scots, however, who had fettled in the northern parts of Ireland; thefe clave to their brethren, and fupported, with distinguished courage, every part of Reformation principles. The labours of a Blair and a Livingstone were eminently fuccefsful in that kingdom; and the fruit they afterwards produced appeared in the ready acceptance, and renovation of the Solemn League. And many Irish Proteftants followed their example: As appears from the declaration of the Prefbytery of Bangor in the year 1649, That they and others had renewed this covenant. In the feveral congregations of Irish Proteftants, a reprefentation was read against the proceedings of the Sectarian Party that beheaded King Charles I. and thefe Proteftants avow the Solemn League as their own covenant. Not only fo, but as late as 1662, fiftynine minifters of the Synod of Bellimenoch, who were moft zealous covenanters, refufed to conform to Epifcopacy, confidering it as abjured by the Solemn League; which gives us the ftrongest proof that covenanters were not fo inconfiderable in the kingdom of Ireland as fome have imagined.