YET Mr Bate strongly opposes this very fuggeftion 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 a, but to purify." p. 148.

if it be the root of בר )

AND again, "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 usually 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 pass on to examine their several constructions 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.

ISHEWED from Mr C.'s interpreting it of Adam, that he allowed a Berith here

without

BUT go ye Ελεον θελω και ου θυσιαν, for I am not come to call the righteous, but finners to repentance. "ACTS of mercy and charity (for fo "Dr Hammond paraphrases it), especially "fuch as are spiritual, are preferable to the "ceremonies even of the Worship of God, " and much more fo to fuch ritual laws as "those of not accompanying with an hea"then, or an unclean perfon."

and learn what this meaneth,

THE next text is Deut. xxix. 12. "That "thou shouldft enter into covenant with "the Lord thy God, and into his Oath "which the Lord thy God maketh with "thee this day."

THIS paffage had been quoted by Mr C. to prove that Alah was applicable to Jehovab: For as he obferves, "the text fays, "His Oath, i. e. Jehovah's, and He made "it this day.". -Mr C's State of the

Cafe, p. 17.

ICITED this as having a fair appearance of an acknowledgement from Mr C. that may be, fometimes rendered properly to make, and confequently did not, in conjunction with Berith, always fignify to cut off a purifier.

BUT

BUT Mr Bate fays, "'tis moft likely "Mr C. had not the Hebrew word then "before him, or in his thoughts." p. 101. Sure however it is that Mr Bate had not before him, or in his thoughts, my words in p. 29. of the Differtations, when he says, that the Doctor would, against all possi

bility, afcribe the Alab mentioned in the "text, to the people and not to Jehovah.” For I exprefsly fay, "This is His rs,” though I expound it in the fame fense that I do the of Babylon's Adjuration, in Ezek. xvii. which is alfo called God's 8, it appearing, as I obferved, from the whole context, that God is not here fwearing in his own perfon, but impofing an oath upon the people.

BUT Mr Bate to make this matter clear, and fhew that neither Mr C. nor I understood the ufage of in this text, tells us it fhould be tranflated as follows.

"THAT ye should enter into the puri"fication of Jehovah your Aleim, and into "his Execration (denounced to bind in Covenant) as, (or according to what) the Lord your God hath cut off "with you to-day." p. 104.

་་

FOR "take

(as he fays ibid.) as "an adverb or conjunction, not a pronoun, and the difficulty is got over at " once." For Carath by this means is neither applied directly to Berith, or to Alah.

BUT what say the other Gentlemen. Mr ABOA B." It must be ex"It plained thus-To make thee pass ♫ through or between the Purifier of Jehovah thy Elohim, i. e. through the parts of the Victim that was cut off as a type to the great Purifier, and through "his 18, which Jehovah thy Elohim cut "off with thee this Day. The Victim is

,אלתו

.45 .p .אלה and ברית here called •

BUT Mr Moody takes a third way: And tells us, "Carat may retain its fenfe of cutting off, and be applicable to Berith,

though not to Ale." p. 113. Yet he fays this only to fhew that I may be in the wrong, in fuppofing Carath applicable to both the Nouns +: For in his own opinion,

"Where (fays he) is the neceffity of making the " verb Carat applicable to both the Nouns? The Doctor's great reading cannot but afford him inftances enough in "both facred and prophane Authors, of verbs placed be

26 tween