"for a Covenant with the people," as it would be "for a Purification of the peo"ple,” as was shewn, Differtations, p. 122. but cannot be in ftrictnefs tranflated as Mr H. and his followers have infifted that it muft, a purifier of the people, even fuppofing it might fignify purification, any more than can be strictly translated for an enlightner of the Gentiles, instead of for a light of the Gentiles.

BUT to return.-I thought the dispute between Mr C. and me had been, whether Berith, in every use of it, conveyed the idea of Purification or not?

BUT Mr Moody fays, that " Berith, " wherever or however ufed, conveys or re"tains the idea of Secretion. And this (says

he) is the point in debate; and this is what "I hope the Reader will, though the Doctor "does not, keep in view.” p. 149.

IT is fomething ftrange I fhould overlook it, as it gave me fo good an opportunity of obviating Mr C's Doctrine, by replying, that the idea of Purification was never otherwife conveyed in Berith, than as Purification was one of the many effects of Secretion. That Secretion is the idea conveyed by the word, wherever or however

ufed;

ufed; and that Mr C. ought to have kept this in his view; and though he might fometimes to avoid confufion use the word Purification, yet the context would often oblige him to change it for Secretion. This, I fay, had been a short method of setting afide Mr C.'s pofition, laid down by him as univerfally true, had I viewed the point in this light.

AND yet Mr Moody gives me the credit of fuggefting this Ruling Idea to him. "The Doctor has himself helped us to the

primary Image, when he fays that 971 "in the fenfe of eligere, occurs in Scripture "much oftener than in any other fenfe "whatever.-And the queftion will be, "whether the sense of eligere, fecernere, "&c. be not prior in order to that of purificare, mundare, as well as more fre

quent in use. For things are purified by Selecting and feparating them from mix"tures, by taking forth the precious from "the vile, as Jeremiah expreffes it." p. 105,

-106.

UPON which Mr Moody adds-"The "primary and leading Idea then of is "Secretion, fo election, felection," &c.

YET

YET Mr Bate strongly opposes this very suggestion of mine, which Mr Moody acknowledges to have helped him to the primary Image.

"To chufe (fays Mr Bate) will not be "found the leading fenfe of 72, but to 'purify." p. 148.

AND again, " if it be the root of "Berith, muft mean purification, and not chufing, &c. provided the derivative have "the fame idea in it it's root hath; which "if it has not, it might as well be derived "from any other." p. 126.

BUT fays Mr Moody, after he had read Mr Bate, and had well confidered the thing, "Berith may and must agreeably to "the nature of an ideal language, be used "for every thing that has the idea of Se"cretion, &c. how unlike foever it may be " in other respects. So a Treaty or Cove"nant, whether it be religious or civil, be"fides being ratified by cutting off Berith, "is a fecreting inftrument, which fecretes, "fo limits to certain conditions, &c. ex"clufive of others," &c. p. 124.

HERE Mr Bate's fole Idea of Purification conveyed in Covenant is totally excluded. Because if Covenant be called Berith, as it

is a fecreting inftrument that limits to certain conditions, it is called fo without any regard to Purification, which denotes a Se cretion of quite another kind. Therefore when Mr Bate tells us that " Purification "was Covenant with the Ancients," this may be a mere fiction of his own. For as to his fuppofition that Berith, Purification, fignified alfo Covenant, because Covenants were ufually made with Sacrifice, a purifying Rite, Mr Moody thinks it not neceffary this should be fuppofed in order to account for the meaning of the word, fince Covenant, as he tells us, befides it's being ratified by cutting off Berith, is a fecreting inftrument that limits to certain conditions.

I SHALL therefore leave him and Mr Bate to adjust the primary Idea of Berith between themselves, while I pafs on to examine their feveral conftructions of the

texts which I had cited upon this fubject.

THE firft is, Hof. vi. 7. quoted by Mr C. in proof of God's Covenant with Adam. A text that had been cited by Mr H. to the fame purpose, in his chapter on Berith, Vol. iv. p. 379.

I SHEWED from Mr C.'s interpreting it of Adam, that he allowed a Berith here without

without the idea of Purification annexed, and preffed him with the confequences of this conftruction which he had taken from Mr H.

BUT Mr Bate, not attending to the scope of my reply which was ad hominem, blames me highly for taking advantage of his mistake, instead of setting him right when he was betraying his own caufe. He reminds me of candour and ingenuity in the beginning of the fentence, and intimates in the conclufion of it, that I fet up my own credit above the word of God. p. 101.

HE infifts upon Berith in this text fignifying Purification, and fignifying Men, viz. the Nations around, or the Gen

tiles. p. 100.

MR Aboab agrees with Mr Bate that neither Covenant nor Adam is a right tranflation. But he will have Berith to mean the Purifier, and D vulgar, prophane, mere human creatures. p. 45.

BUT Mr Moody fhews, that under the idea of Secretion you may interpret the text either of Adam and Covenant, or of Men and Purification. p. 109, 110.

I HAVE NO occafion to enter into these difputes, they may discuss the points in dif

ference