Imágenes de páginas
[merged small][ocr errors]

[See page 3.]

■ r

THE derivation of JVO from mi elegit, is most agreeable to the genius of the Hebrew language; for verbal nouns which terminate in D, IT, m, m, &c. are derived from verbs in the form of Kal, which have n quiescent for their last radical. Vide Wasmuth, Append. No. I. ad Gram. Heb. Class ii. § 2. Buxtorf, Thesaur. Gram. cap. LVI. The Hutchinsonians, 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 signifies to'Purify ["O, or TO]: Hence they conclude, that the term Purifier ought to be substituted in place of the word Covenant, throughout the translation of the Old Testament at least. Calcot's Sermon on the Elohim, p. 15. Romaine apud vocem.—Mr Riccaltoun, and the rest of the Hutchinsonians are not quite consistent with themselves: Iu one part of Mr Riccaltounrs writings we are taught, that the words Carath Berith express that which we call Making A Covenant, Vol. III. p. 217: But, in Vol. I. pr 321—324. we are informed, that the fame words signify to Cut Off A PuriFier. But it is easy to mew, that die Hfitchinsoniait derivation is uncertain and irregular.—The proposed translation absurd and unjust.

1. The Hutchinsonian derivation of Berith must be absurd, 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: Yor example, If. xxviii. 1 j. "And ye have said, 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 proposed derivation ia-also irregular, as it confounds Berith (covdnane) with Boritli (soap). Things siiffi«iently different indeed: But, perhaps, these men will reply, That all the distinction between these two words originates in the vowel-points. It might he answered, Be it so; their divine original has. been/ sufficiently demonstrated by P. Whiteskld, in our own language, as well as Dr Owen and Dr Gill; not to mention what has been attempted in other languages.

2. Th E proposed translation is unjust and improper. It must be an unjust translation which contradicts the inspired writers of the New Testament. The word Berith, when quoted from the Old Testament to the New, is translated Diatheke ;. but no one ever imagined that Diatheke signified purifier, or .purification. A few examples mav be adduced to our purpose, Exod. xxiv S. "Behold the blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you," compared with Heb. ix. *o. "This is the blood of the Testament which the Lord hath enjoined unto you." Ill the first text, the original word for Covenant is Berith; In the last, the original word for Testament is Diatheke. The Apostle"is there treating of a testamentary Covenant; therefore, Diatheke is peculiarly expressive of the nature of ir. See also, Jer. xxxi. 31, 32, 35. quoted by the Apostle Heb. viil. 8, o'y 10. and x. 16. I believe there is no comparison between the Apostle and the Hurchinsouians as translators: Nor will any true Christian 'hesitate a moment which to prefer. But, although the Apostle had never translated it, there is abundance of.light, in many places, in the context, to shew the absurdity of this newly proposed translation; as a Chron. xvi. 2^. "Then Asa sent to Beuhadad, king os Syria, who dwelt at Damascus,, faying, There is a League (Heb. Berith) between me and thee, as there was between thy father aud my father. Behold, I have sent thee silver and gold, go break thy League (Heb. Berithecha) with Baiha,king of Israel." This text is also sufficient to set aside the force of a distinction which Mr Riecaltpun makes to the following purpose: "That Carath Berith are used to express the transaction we call making a covenant may be grant* ed; but that Berith, standing by itself, signifies a cove

, nanc,

riant, will not be easily proved." Here it stands by it-
self, yet it signifies a League, or Covenant: Cut he fur-
ther insists, "That, when it stands by itself, and signi-
fies God's Berith,then it signifies'puRiKiER, and not Co-
Venant." We may now give some instances of God's
Berith, which cannot be translated God's'purifier:
Psal.' lxxviii. 10. "They kept not the Covenant (Heb.
Beritli) os Elohiin.: and refused to walk in his law."
If Beiith be translated Purikier, in this verse, What is
the meaning of it? Or how has it any meaning left in
it at all? See also, Deut. xvii. 2. Josh. vii. 11. and xv. 2.
2 Kings xviii. 12, &c. It is still objected, That it is ab-
surd to say Cut Off A Covenant; whereas it is a pro-
per expression to fay Cut Off A Purifier. It may be
answered, That the sacrifice by which the Covenant^vas
confirmed was cut off, and also cut into two parts, Gen.
xv. 10. and the sacrifice which seals the Covenant may
bear the name of it as well as circumcision. Now>
Where is the impropriety, or absurdity, of saying cut
off a sacrifice? Moreover, this objection strikes as much
against Mr lliccalton as against the doctrine we main-
tain: For he grants that Carath Bekith . signify td
make a covenant; and this is the only phrase which can
be translated, from the Hebrew, To Cut A Covenant!

From the above considerations it appears, That the

word Covenant has a jult claim to its place in our

No II.

[.See page 580.]

THE School of Alexandria is a clear proof of the ear-
ly conversion of Egypt unto the Christian Faith.
If we search tUe records of the Church, we will find,
that Isaiah's prediction received an accomplisliment in
the literal Egypt. A learned Roman Catholic (huetj-
us) attempts to apply the oracle, If. xix. 18—25. to the
temple which Onias built in opposition to that of Jeru-
salem: But, as Vitringa justly observes, this history
cannot agree with that oracle: The oracle speaks of E-
* 0,141 gyptians,

gyptians, as distinguished from Israelites; the History of Jews as distinguished from Egyptians (Josephus). The setting up of any altar besides that at Jerusalem, was considered by God as setting up aH altar against his altar, and it exposed persons to his curse; but this oracle allures us, that the persons vowing and building the altar are certainly blcflcd: "The Lord of hosts sliall bless them,, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people," &c. If there were proselytes to thejewisli religion, from among The Dwellers In Egypt, at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, who were converted to the Christian Faith, as a kind of first fruits: How much more copious should be the harvest, which produced a regular dispensation of Gospel ordinances. A Julian himself attests the fulfilment of this prediction, Epist. li. "By the gods, I am not a little astiamed, that any of Alexandria should dare to confess himself a Galilean. There was a time when the ancestors of the Hebrews served the Egyptians: But ye, Alexandrians, Egypt being subdued, patiently endure slavery to the despisers of the dogmas of your ancestors, -which is against all right." Upon the whole, Vitring A concludes that this testimony is an evidence not only of the accomplishment of this prophecy, but also of that in l'sal. lxxxvii. 4. " 1 will make mention of Rahab (or E

gypt) and Babylon to them that know me." "En,

cttteris missis, verba notabilia Juliani, in Epistola ad Alexandrinos, quibus hanc mutationem exprobrat: Equidem pudore, per Deos, haud mediocii teneor, Alexandrini, quod illus apud vos Galilæum (Christianum) fe fateri audeat Hebræorum quondam verorum Parente* Ægyptiis serviebant: atvos, Alexandrini, modo Ægypto fubacta, (hanc enim conditor vestersibi subjecit:) ru<

•jrxXcuii ticr/tHn vtykiurti. patriorum dogmatum contemptoribus scrvire fponte coiitra antiqua jura fustinetis. Sic fides facta Oraculo (Psal. lxxxvii. 4.) ejusdem sensus cujus hæc est prophetia: Commemorabo Rahabitm (Ægyptum) et Babf.lem inter eos qui me cognoscunt." VITringa, Comment, in Isaiam, p. 782. .Now, it is well known that the Primitive Christians literally Swore unto the Lord of Hosts, as appears from, the monuments of antiquity formerly adduced.

No No III.

[See page 6 $8.]

COVENANTING was less general in Ireland than in Britain, as a great number of Protestants fell by the dreadful massacre in that kingdom; and, probably, because the followers of Archbp Uiher adhered to what was called the Royal Cause. There were a great number ■ of Scots, however, who had settled in the northern parts of Ireland; these clave to their brethren, and supported, with distinguished courage, every part of Reformation principles. The labours of a Blair and a Livingstone were eminently successful in that kingdom; and the fruit they afterwards produced appeared in the ready acceptance, and renovation of the Solemn League. And many Irish Protestants followed their example: As appeal s from the declaration of the Presbytery of Bangor in the year 1649, That they and others had renewed this covenant. In the several congregations of Irish Protestants, a representation was read against the proceedings of the Sectarian Party that beheaded King Charles I. and these Protestants avow the Solemn League as their own covenant. Not only so, but as late as 1662, fiftynine ministers of the Synod of Hellimenoch, who were most zealous covenanters, refused to conform to Episcopacy, considering it a3 abjured by the Solemn League; which gives us the strongest proof that covenanters were not so inconsiderable in the kingdom of Ireland as some have imagined.

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »