which it is derived, but as to the proper idea to be affixed to it; one rendering it the purifier, another the purification, and a third fecretion, while Mr. Hutchinfon himself makes the original fignification to be foap; and in paffages where none of these fenfes will fuit the context, they often give the original word, without any translation at all. He then proceeds to confider the feveral conftructions they had given to the texts he had examined in his Differtations, in which the word berith occurs; and endeavours to prove them not very confiftent, either with one another, or even themselves. In the next section, the doctor re-examines three more texts, which he had produced as inftances, in which berith fignifies a treaty or covenant, without any idea of purification annexed to it. And as one of thefe paffages relates to the treaty Afa made with Benhadad, he obferves how improbable it is, that in a league made with an idolatrous prince, there fhould be any reference to that original berith, which (as one of these writers expreffes it) made the peace between the Aleim and men ; or that Benhadad would fubmit to a facrifice, which bound him to be fubject to the Aleim, as well as to keep his faith with Afa. The latter part of this fection is taken up in confidering fome other texts, in which berith must be rendered commandment, or ordinance; but cannot in any of them, without ftraining the fenfe in a very unnatural manner, admit of their verfion. In the third fection, he proceeds to examine the different accounts the Hutchinsonian writers have given of the meaning of the word Aranan; and to fhew, by an enumeration of feveral paffages from the New Teftament, that the apostles not only use the LXX verfion of berith, by dianan, in their quotations, but that they make it their own word in their arguments from, and their allufions to, the berith of the Hebrews.---In the three following fections, the doctor enquires more largely than he had done in his Differtations into the fenfe of the word carath, which is often joined with berith, and which, Mr. Hutchinson and his followers contend, must always in that connection fignify, cutting off beafts in facrifice. The fubftance of what he has advanced on this head, he has comprized under the following particulars, with which his fecond part concludes. 1. He maintains that his opponents are not rightly agreed about the radical fenfe of carath any more than they are about that of berith. 2. That the paffages of fcripture, on which Mr. Hutchinfon grounded his new interpretation of it, in its conjunction with berith, do not warrant his conftruction, by cutting off a purifier. 3. That it is not a facrificial term, for it is not ufed among the terms by which any of the legal facrifices are defcribed in fcripture; but is only a term used, and that but once, in the account of the covenanting rite. 4. That there is neither neceffity of conftruing it, nor propriety in understanding it, when joined with berith, of flaying a victim. 5. That tho' we may not be able certainly to fay, what cuftom brought the phrase into ufe; or from what special circumftance of cutting, carath became applied to covenants; yet its literal and proper sense of cutting is not conveyed in the phrafe itself, into which another fenfe is by ufage adopted. 6. And that therefore, to make a covenant is the proper tranflation of carath berith. In the beginning of the third part, the author examines the different hypothefes these gentlemen have invented, for difcovering the leading or governing idea of what they apprehend to be the roots of elohim and berith; and fets in a very strong and convincing light the precarioufnefs of that method of interpretation which they have adopted, and the abfolute uncertainty which fuch chimerical criticisms would introduce into all our enquiries about the fenfe of fcripture. In his next fection he confiders fome other Hebrew words, which thefe writers have undertaken to explain, but with no greater confiftency amongst themselves than in the former instances: and whereas they have always profeffed the higheft veneration for Mr. Hutchinson, and reprefent him as the great restorer of facred knowlege, he fhews, that they make no fcruple of deviating from his interpretations of fcripture; tho' he says himself, he hoped he fhould fo fix ideas to fome words, that no other words would be able to separate them.' Nay, he produces a paffage from Mr. Hutchinfon's works, in which they have taken the liberty to make no lels than five alterations, in the verfion of five lines. From all which the doctor infers, that notwithstanding all they have faid in favour of their new method of understanding fcripture, nothing can be conceived more vague and indetermined; and if it were to be generally admitted, it would leave room for endless conjectures, and the most wild extravagant conceits. We must not conclude this article without taking notice of the candor and good temper with which the ingenious author has managed this difpute: and tho' he has fometimes attacked his adversary with Lord Shaftsbury's weapon, (as indeed many of the Hutchinfonian arguments will hardly admit of a serious answer) he has never defcended to any perfonal reflections; but appears throughout to have been animated by a concern for the intereft of truth and religion. CL. ART. XXXVI. A Reply to Dr. Sharp's Review and Defence of his Differtations on the Scripture Meaning of Aleim and Berith. By Julius Bate, A. M. 8vo. 2s. 6d. Withers. IN N this, which is only the first part of his Reply, the author confines himself to the examination of the word , which, according to the Hutchinfonian ftyle, he reads aleim, and very feverely cenfures our modern reading, elohim, as confounding it with the plural of, eloah, (or according to him, alue) which he contends, from the infertion of the vau, must be in the paffive form, whereas aleim, we are told, is the plural of the active word, ale; and fo much stress is laid upon this grammatical diftinction, that it is Mr. Bate's opinion, that it had never entered into the heart of man to make aleim a paffive, if the devil had not fuggefted it to the <apoftates.' But to prevent mistakes, it may be proper to inform the reader, that by thefe apoftates, against whom he exclaims fo bitterly, he means the Hebreo-rabinical writers, (as he calls them) to whom he afcribes the invention of points, whom he represents as having designedly corrupted these, and many other important words, on purpose to conceal or dif guise those mysteries of the Chriftian religion, which he apprehends were contained in them. As to the word in question, those who have read his former pieces, know that he derives it from, which, according to him, always fignifies an oath, by denouncing a curfe; and fuppofes it originally refers to that obligation, which the three perfons in the trinity laid themfelves under, in the covenant of redemption; and to which, according to him, there is a plain reference in the covenant God made with the Ifraelites. (Comp. Deut. xxix. 12. xxvii. ult. with Jer. xi. 2-5.) But as aleim is always used in the plural, and therefore denotes a plurality of perfons in the Jehovah, fo he apprehends that alue, which is never used in the plural as a name of God, is appropriated to Chrift, who took the curfe upon him, as he thinks the word in the paffive form properly fignifies: and to this fenfe of the word he imagines the pfalmift alludes, Pf. xviii. 31. which we tranflate, Who is God, fave the Lord? but which he would render, Who is there made a curfe, befides Jehovah? Here the points,' our author adds, had, truly speaking, plaid the devil with us, and by making aleim a paffive likewife, confounded the meaning of both words fo far, that Chriftians were afraid to apply ⚫ them to God, in their otherwise natural and obvious fenfe.' The fecond part is published, and will take place in a future Review. U 3 Thefe These are the chief points he infifts upon in the work bey. fore us; but as the greatest part of it is taken up in examin ing and re-examining a number of texts, and replying to some particular objections of his antagonist, we imagine the reader will eafily excufe our not enlarging any farther upon this article, a. ART. XXXVII. The Divine Legation of Moles. In nine books. The fourth edition, corrected and enlarged. By W. Warburton, D. D. chaplain in ordinary to his Majefty. The first volume, in two parts. 8vo. Part I. 329 pages. Part II. 323 pages. 8vo. 10s. Knapton. IN N this new edition of the Divine Lagation, which is dedicated to the earl of Hardwicke, the learned author has made fome very confiderable additions, and improvements. The first we meet with, that deferves a particular notice, is in the fourth fection of the fecond book, and contains an extract from that fragment of Sanchoniathon, which he had only mentioned in the former editions, together with his reafons for thinking it to be the very history that was narrated to the initiated, in the celebration of the greater myfteries. This makes about eight pages.---The next (which contains about five or fix) is intended to illuftrate his general scheme for explaining the Eneis, by fhewing how fkilfully Virgil carries on his grand defign of erecting a religion and civil policy, in his Episodes, in the eighth and ninth books, the one containing a particular account of the facrifice, and other religious ceremonies, at Evander's court, and the other the story of Nifus and Euryalus.---A few pages forward, we have fome additional remarks on the real labours, and imaginary terrors, in which the trials of the initiated confifted, to which fome paffages in Virgil are fuppofed by him to refer. He has likewife given the reader a fragment of Berofus, defcribing the antient chaos, which he applies to the fame fubject.---The next confiderable addition, is that which concludes his first part, and is inferted towards the end of the fourth fection, containing upwards of forty pages. In the beginning of it, the author explains the figures upon Eneas's fhield, as referring to the mysteries he had been defcribing; and then fhews how artfully the poet, after he had recommended, in the fixth book, the pure and holy mysteries, endeavours, in the next, to difcourage and expofe thofe that were corrupt and impure, by making the rites of Bacchus the inftrument of traverfing the defigns of Providence in the cfta blishment of his heroe; and by putting a fury on the office of exciting the afpirants to the celebration of them.---But the greatest part of this article is taken up with a particular explication of the Metamorphofis of Apuleius, entitled, The Golden Afs, a fable, reprefenting the transformation of a young man, who was viciously inclined, into an afs, and, after a long series of adventures, his restoration, upon his repentance, to the human form. This, which by most of the learned has been treated as a mere romance, is fuppofed by this ingenious critic to be an allegory, intended not only as a fatire upon the vices of the times, but as a laboured attempt to recommend the myfteries of the pagan religion, in oppofition to Chriftianity, to which he reprefents him as an inveterate enemy. In confirmation of this opinion, he points out the refemblance between the feveral parts of the story, and the rites of initiation, both in the greater and leffer myfteries; and explains the allegory of Cupid and Psyche, which makes a long episode in the fame piece, upon the like principles. There are no material additions in the fecond part, till we come to the fixth section of the third book, where, in treating of the advantages of religion to fociety; and, in order to obviate an objection, that it was not religion, but fuperftition, that for the most part procured this, he fets himself to confute a tract of Plutarch, that was intended to prove fuperftition worse than atheism. The grand fallacy, he obferves, in this piece, as well as in M. Bayle's revival of it, lies in their not diftinguishing between fuperftition, confidered as a thing adventitious to religion, or a corrupt rite, and a corrupt fpecies of religion. In the firft fenfe, he allows it is of no ufe at all, but of infinite mifchief, and worse than atheism itself: but in the second sense, it is of great service; for by teaching a providence, it impofeth a necessary curb upon individuals, fo as to prevent the mischiefs of mutual violence and injuftice; tho' on the other hand, he acknowleges, that it is alfo of great differvice; fince by begetting wrong notions of the moral attributes of God, it hinders the progrefs of virtue.---He obferves farther, that in the manner of ftating the propofition, the happiness of individuals and fociety are confounded, whereas the effects of fuperftition on each are quite diftinct. But for the more particular difcuffion of this point, and his examination of Plutarch's arguments, we must refer the reader to the book itself. (N. B. This addition takes up more than twenty pages.)--Towards the clofe of the lajt fection, the doctor prefents us with several additional remarks on the origin and progrefs of idolatry amongst the antients; and takes occafion to examine |