on the Lord, to walk by the rule of his Word, and to hearken to his voice by his fervants. In all which, profeffing our own weaknefs, we earnestly pray to God, who is the Father of mercies, through his Son Jefus Chrift, to be merciful unto us, and to enable us, by the power of his Holy Spirit, that we may do our duty, unto the praife of his grace in the Churches. Amen." BESIDES the Confeffion of Sins, which is ufually read before the fwearing of this bond, there was alfo framed a particular one, fuited to the cafe of the miniftry; and the minifters themselves fet an example unto their congregations. The form of the attestation of their fubfcription is as follows: "We under fubfcribing minifters, members of the Affociate Prefbytery, do fubfcribe the above BOND with our hands, at Stirling, the 28th day of December 1743 years;-the. faid bond having been this day folemnly fworn by us. EBENEZER ERSKINE, Stirling. JAMES FISHER, Glasgow. DAVID SMYTON, Kilmaurs. AND. CLARK SON, Craigmailen, GEORGE BROWN, Perth. FOUR minifters who were not then prefent, and another who was not then ordained,-did join, after the fame manner, in that folemn work, at Falkirk, on the 14th day of March enfuing: And fubfcribed as follows, viz. "JAMES MAIR, Linton. PATRICK MATTHEW, Midholm. JAMES SCOT, Gatefhall, JOHN WHYT, Dunse. HENRY ERSKINE, Falkirk *." NEAR an hundred congregations have copied the example fince that time; and fome of them have done it frequently, having had occafion for fo doing on account of the numbers who voluntarily offered from time to time. THE ferious part of this nation (fome friends to the abdicated family excepted) had always a becoming reverence for the Covenants, tho' they had not renewed them for near a century. The first oppofition made unto them *The last of thefe five fubfcribers was ordained the day before. All who have been ordained fince that time, had previously joined in Covenanting-work, from from any other quarter was, from Independent notions, maintained under the aufpices of JOHN GLAS: But as his fyftem was remarkably obfcure, and fome of his followers travelled ftill farther into the land of darkness, it has not proved a hurtful inftrument. Oppofition from another quarter has been more fuccefsful: The fame of WHITEFIELD induced feverals to invite him into this country; but, as he formed a fyftem of religion fuited to the univerfal tafte of mankind; and, as he knew the avenues of human nature remarkably well, he difcarded the plan of a Covenanted Reformation, as by much too narrow. This needs to be no matter of furprize: The Covenanters have uniformly reprefented Epifcopal govern ment and worthip as corruptions which required reformation; and called fuch as have been corrupted by them.unto repentance, humiliation, and amendment. Though the Apostle Paul faw the propriety of being IN FASTS OFTEN, yet Mr WHITEFIELD feems to have reckoned them wholly unneceffary. Mourn ing for fin he confined to CONVICTS before converfion: Humiliation he found diametrically oppofite to that flow of affection which was the life of his caufe. His principles were embraced with avidity by many who had formerly fignalized themfelves on the fide of Covenanting: For his fake, a WILLISON and a ROBB were ready to run down what they had formerly established. From this period, vari ous 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 distinction between thefe two words originates in the vowel-points. It might be answered, Be it fo; their divine original has, been fufliciently demon ftrated 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 unjuft 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 purpose, 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 laft, the original word for Teftament is Diatheke. The Apoftle 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 Apofile Heb. viii. 8, 9, 10. and x. 16. I believe there is no comparison between the Apostle and the Hutchinfonians as tranflators: Nor will any true Chriftian hefitate a moment which to prefer. But, although the Apostle had never tranflated it, there is abundance of light, in many places, in the context, to fhew the abfurdity of this newly propofed tranf Iation; 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 Batha, king of Ifrael." This text is alfo fufficient to fet afide the force of a diftinction which Mr Riccaltpun makes to the following purpose: "That Carath Berith are ufed to exprefs the tranfaction we call making a covenant may be grant ed; but that Berith, ftanding by itself, fignifies a cove Be nant, nant, will not be eafily proved." Here it ftands by it felf, yet it fignifies a League, or Covenant: But he further infifts," That, when it ftands by itself, and fignifies God's Berith, then it fignifies PURIFIER, and not coVENANT." We may now give fome inftances of God's BERITH, which cannot be tranflated GOD'S PURIFIER: Pfal. lxxviii. 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. Jofh. 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 maintain: For he grants that CARATH BERITH, fignify to make a covenant; and this is the only phrase 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. No II. [See page 580.] HE School of Alexandria is a clear proof of the ear 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 (HUETIUs) attempts to apply the oracle, If. xix. 18-25. to the temple which ONIAS built in oppofition to that of Jerufalem: But, as VITRINGA juftly obferves, this hiftory cannot agree with that oracle: The oracle fpeaks of Egyptians, 湯 |