We cannot conclude without teftifying our opinion, that this work does honour to the Author's understanding, as well as to his heart. It is a valuable monument of his wifdom, learning, integrity, and piety; and we hope that he will be favoured with the public encouragement: and particularly with the patronage of thofe Chriftians who concur with him in fentiment. K. ART. VI. A new and literal Translation, from the original Hebrew, of the Pentateuch of Mofes, and of the biflorical Books of the Old Tefta ment, to the End of the Second Book of Kings: With Notes critical and Explanatory. By the late Reverend and Learned Julius Bate, M. A. Rector of Sutton, in Suffex. 4to. 16 s. Boards. Law.

1773.

O

UR opinion of Mr. Julius Bate, as a writer and a critic, hath been long known to the Readers of the Monthly Review. The perufal of the prefent work hath not given us the leaft reafon to change that opinion. It is, most certainly, a new tranflation, and fo very literal, as to be really unintelligible to a plain English reader.

We have seen many verfions of the fcriptures; but we do not recollect any one, in any language, not excepting that of St. Omer's, which exceeds, or even equals, this of Mr. Julius Bate, for obfcurity, inconfiftency, and abfurdity. The Author, it must be granted, was a tolerable master of fome parts of Oriental literature; but he feems to have been entirely void of judgment. He hath employed all his learning in disfiguring, we may fay, in burlefquing, the facred writings.

The chief defign of this work, is a defence of the Athanafian Trinity; and many paffages, which are fimply historical, are faid, by our Author, clearly to contain that doctrine.

If this be really true, we fhould be obliged to fome able Hutchinfonian for the folution of the following difficulty: If the Old Teftament doth really, as thefe gentlemen affirm, contain the doctrine of the Athanafian Trinity, how came it to pass that no Jew, from the days of Mofes to the present, ever found it out, or even fufpected it? That the Jews never had any apprehenfion of this doctrine is well known; and that, with the more fenfible part of them, it is one grand objection to Chriftianity, we are affured by learned perfons of that perfuafion.

As modern improvements in fcience, and in found criticifm, have deprived the Hutchinfonians, and others, of an Athanafian Trinity in the New Teftament, they have been obliged to change their ground, and fearch for it in the Old: and to prevent, if poffible, another discomfiture, they have put myftical fenfes on plain hiftorical paffages, and inferred ftrange conclufions, from fanciful, equivocal, and, very often, unna

tural

tural etymologies. A few inftances will prove that Mr. Julius Bate excelled in this mode of writing.

Genefis i. 1. At first the Aleim created the heavens and the earth.' This tranflation is illuftrated by the following note: a title (i. e. Aleim) of the ever bleffed Trinity. It means the perfons under the oath, or binding curse of a covenant.'-If we understand our Author, the idea is not only abfurd, but impious. Is it not impious to fay, that the Supreme Being, whether the Trinitarian or Unitarian doctrine be the true one, is bound by a curfe? The abfurdity of the idea is beyond expreffion for whether we fuppofe the perfons of the Trinity to be three diftinct beings, or only three diftinct relations of one and the fame being, Mr. Bate's notion involves in it the most inexplicable contradictions. There is another note expreffive of the fame idea, on Levit. xviii. 1.

In Genefis xviii. the facred hiftorian relates the appearance of three angels to Abraham at the door of his tent; which three, our Author tells us, were the three perfons in the Trinity. And in a note he adds, in this chapter is ocular proof of there being one God, and three perfons; for the persons who appeared fpeak as Jehovah, and are spoken to, and of, as the Lord in Trinity, whom Abraham entertained, &c.' Here we muft own, with concern, that our eyes are not fo good as Mr. Bate's were; for we cannot difcern this ocular proof. As it appears from the narrative, that two of these angels went and conducted Lot out of Sodom, how could the three be the Lord in Trinity? One reason why they could not, may be affigned from our Author's own tranflation of chap. xix. 13. for the cry against them is great before Jehovah; and Jehovah hath fent us to deftroy it.' In other words, according to Mr. Bate, Jehovah hath fent Jehovah to deftroy Sodom. Strange that any well-meaning Expofitor fhould father such absurdities upon the facred writer!

Our Tranflators have rendered Genefis xxi. 17, latter clause, 'what aileth thee, Hagar? fear not, for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is;' i. e. where his mother had laid him. No, fays Mr. Julius Bate, fear not; for the Aleim will hearken to the voice of the lad, in the name itself.' And, in a note, we are told that the Tranflators miffed both the literal and myftical fenfe, that God would hear Ifrael according to the promife expreffed in his name (y) and the fon of the bond-woman by him, who is the name itself; which is the great promife of the gofpel.' The language here is somewhat beyond our comprehenfion: but we will venture to affert, that no man, except a myftical Hutchinfonian, could ever have found a reference to the gospel in this hiftorical paffage.

If our limits would permit, we might produce numerous intances of the Author's fondness for allufions and prefigurations for example, the fkins of the kids, which Rebekah put on her fon Jacob, prefigured our putting on the Lord Jefus, and appearing in his righteoufnefs, to obtain the bleffing. This whole hiftory is, indeed, curioufly allegorized. The twins Pharez and Zarah, the fons of Judah by Tamar, prefigured the natural and fpiritual man; and the cafe of Zarah in particular, prefigured the neceffity of our being born again.

We have always underftood Deuteronomy vi. 4, to be a conclufive proof of the unity of the Godhead. But Mr. Julius Bate tells us, on the contrary, that, as long as Hebrew is Hebrew, Jehovah fingular, and Aleim plural, and the oath of God to the heirs of falvation, is remembered, fo long will these two words, Jehovah and Aleim, prove a Trinity in Unity, the coequality of perfons.'

As a proof of our Author's obfcurity, we fhall felect the Hebrew word which our tranflators very properly have rendered a covenant.' Thus Genefis ix. 9, God faid to Noah, I eftablish my covenant with you;' but, according to Mr. Bate, it should be, I eftablish my purification with you.' This, he tells us, is the literal interpretation of the word from

་

to purify, to make clean, as every thing is through the blood of Chrift. adds he, is ufed to exprefs all the promifes to us through the facrifice of Chrift, which has a promife of this life, and of that which is to come, if we take care to imitate his purity and innocence. Waving the propriety of this etymology, which indeed we more than fufpect (for, eligere, to choose, feems to be the true word) we fee no advantage produced by this alteration. The word covenant,' is perfectly intelligible to every reader, who is in the leaft converfant with his bible; but purification,' in many paffages, is by no means fo. For inftance, Judges ii. 1, 2, And I said I will never break my covenant with you; and ye fhall make no league with the inhabitants of this land.' This is intelligible; but I faid I would not break my purification with you for ever, and ye fhall cut no purification for the inhabitants of this land, is a mode of fpeaking, to fay the best of it, not a little obfcure.

.

Mr. Bate's note on Joshua ii. 1, is, we believe, just, but not new; for moft lexicographers obferve that the word, means an hostess, as well as an harlot; and in this place it is natural to understand it in the former rather than in the latter fenfe, because it is more probable that the fpies went to lodge in a house of entertainment, than in a brothel. It is true that St. James calls Rahab open, an harlot; but it is fuppofed by feveral critics, and with fome degree of probability, that the

Greck

Greek word, as well as the Hebrew, was anciently used in thefe two fenfes.

Our Author is as remarkable for his philofophy as for his divinity. He roundly afferts that, let our philofophers fay what they will, the ftars have an influence on our atmosphere.' This he thinks is implied in Judges v. 20. We obferve, also, that his enmity to the Hebrew vowel points is fo great that he alters the fpelling of the proper names of perfons and places. Aaron he calls Aerun, Gideon, Gidoun, Canaan, Canon, Gilead, Gilod, &c.

To this work is prefixed a fhort advertisement by the anonymous Editor, wherein he calls it a valuable and intelligible performance; but how justly, the above fpecimen will enable our Readers to determine. The three engravings are well executed: the laft, which exhibits a view of the infide of the Tabernacle, and of the Holy of Holies, feems to have been borrowed from a plate in the late Dr. Ifaac Watts's Scripture History.

B.

ART. VII. Political Difquifitions: Or, an Enquiry into public Errors, Defects and Abuses. Illuftrated by and established upon Facts and Remarks extracted from a variety of Authors, ancient and modern. Calculated to draw the timely Attention of GOVERNMENT and PEOPLE to a due Confideration of the Neceffity, and the Means of reforming thofe Errors, Defects, and Abufes; of restoring the Conftitution, and faving the State. Vol. 1. 8vo. 6s. boards. Dilly. 1774.

T was, if we miftake not, a remark of the celebrated Dr. Tillotson's, that it feemed extremely difficult, if not almoft impoffible, for a man to step over the threshold of a court, and preferve his honefty.' The keeneft fatyrift could hardly have thrown out a farcafm more fevere than this declaration of the gentle Archbishop. Yet if this obfervation gives us a true idea of courts and statefmen, we must nevertheles fuppofe that the evil does not neceffarily arife from the very nature of government and the conduct of civil fociety, but from the ill management, or artful and corrupt defigns, of perfons to whom this great and important truft, the care of the ftate, is committed.

Politics, or the art of government, is frequently reprefented as fomewhat very myftericus, and foaring far above vulgar apprehenfions. Statesmen and lawyers may be well pleafed with the prevalence of fuch a perfuafion and no doubt there are fubjects of this kind which common capacities, unused to political enquiries, would not be fufficient to investigate and direct. To prefide over a large community with fuch happy influence as may fuffice to prevent, or duly correct, thofe evils and abufes

which naturally fpring up in human fociety, and to diffufe peace and profperity through all ranks and conditions,—to attain these great and defirable ends, will require the ableft talents, and the nobleft difpofitions; but as for those state-tricks and little arts which merely ferve to promote a temporary view, or answer fome felfifh purpofe, as they are unworthy of an elevated genius, fo are they practifed only by men who are incapable of acting upon more exalted principles.

The obfervation which was made by one of the fathers on the facred fcriptures, feems to be very properly applied to politics by the Author of the work now before us, the lamb may wade in them, and the elephant fwim.' The remark of the great Mr. Locke is alfo pertinently introduced, viz. That politics (in the common and confined fenfe) are only common fenfe applied to national inftead of private concerns.' From hence it follows, that the generality of the people may form proper conclufions concerning public and national affairs, although they may not be capable of developing or removing thofe difficulties and myfteries which state lawyers or others may throw in the way, in order to conceal the truth.

In his general preface to this work, our Author obferves, that in a country which pretends to be free, and where, confe quently, the people ought to have weight in the government, it is peculiarly neceffary that the people be poffeffed of juft notions of the intereft of their country, and be qualified to diftinguish between thofe who are faithful to them, and those who betray them. It muft, I think, fill every generous mind with indignation, to fee our good-natured countrymen abused over and over, from generation to generation, by the fame ftate dog-tricks repeatedly played upon them, by a fucceffion of pretended patriots, who, by thefe means, have fcrewed out their predeceffors, and wormed themselves into their places. To teach the people a set of solid political principles, the knowledge of which may make them proof against fuch gross abuse, is one great object of this publication.'

Should this Writer be thought to have indulged some warmth in the above paffage, or in other parts of his work, it is, we are perfuaded, nothing more than the natural effect of an honeft zeal for the liberty and welfare of his country, and a juft difdain of those measures which under colour of regard to the public weal are chiefly intended to accomplish fome private defigns. If minifters of ftate, or fuppofed patriots, are profecut ing fuch ends, let them be expofed and cenfured! If our Author writes with spirit, it is not of the factious kind. He does not wish that the British conftitution should be overthrown, or that a republican form of government fhould be introduced s he appears to be animated with a true and hearty folicitude for

the