Art. 55. A new Tranflation of St. Paul's Epifile to the Hebrews. From the original Greek. With Explanatory Notes. By Samuel Hardy, Rector of Little Blakenham, in Suffolk, and Lecturer of Enfeld, in Middlefex. 8vo. I s. 6 d. Printed for the Author. 1783. In fome places the tranflation is confiderably improved; but in others we think the original meaning either obfcured or perverted.. The Author's predilection for a darling opinion is too apparent throughout the whole; and the Notes feem to be principally directed to the confimation of it. He fatigues us by his repetitions, more than' he convinces us by his arguments; and though we give him credit for the piety of his defign, yet we are forry to fee it to often blended with fuperdition. The Author's extravagant ideas of the fan&ity and power of the Eucharift have in them a ftrong taint of Popery. Het fuppofes that the oblation of Chrift, by which he fanctified his people, and made atonement for their fins, was the Eucharift, which he administered to his difciples. This notion he attempts to fupport by the following very extraordinary feries of argument: Since the one oblation which Chrift offered was offered by prayer; fince the Apostlest were then confecrated when he confecrated himfelf; and fince he prayed for their confecration when he celebrated the Eucharift, andi never at any other time, as far at least as we know; fince they were! then confecrated when their fins were put away, and their fins were put away by the Eucharift, it must needs follow that the Eucharift was that oblation, or facrifice, which Chrift offered for the fins of the priests and the people; and that he then offered himself reprefenta tively, when he offered the Eucharift. The Eucharist, therefore, is a real facrifice.' The conclufion is in our eye a contradiction. 6 This Author gravely fays, that we have our Holy of Holies as the Jews alfo had: it is that part of the church now called the Chancel. St. Ignatius calls it the Altar-room.' So wholly abforbed is this writer in his favourite object, that he thinks he fees it fo clearly in the Greek word quskaya, that he fcruples not to tranflate it oblation, inftead of profefion. Confider the Apoftle and High Priest of our oblation :” Let us bold fall the oblation :”—“ the oblation of our faith." It is proper to give the Author's reafon for this fingular licence. I tranflate oμshoyiz oblation, because I think an oblation is more fuited to the office of an High Priet, than any confeflion or profeflion what-ever; and becaufe in the language of the Seventy, which was ufed alfor by the Holy Ghoft in the Epiftle to the Hebrews, quohoyia is used for a material offering.' The former reafon is futile, and the latter is falfe. Chrit is the Apoftle, as well as the High Prieft of our profeffion; and that profefion means our acknowledgment of, and fubmif-› fron to, the Chriftian doctrine, published and confirmed by him, as our Apofle, fent from God to intract us, and as our High Prieft, · who voluntarily fealed the truth by his blood. Opeñoys is not used by the Seventy for a material offering.' in the paffage referred to by Mr. Hardy (viz. Jer. xliv. 25.) it means nothing more than a folema declaration. It may refpe& a material offering, but it doth not neceffarily include it. This will be illuftrated by the text iffelf. Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your your hand, faying, We will furely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incenfe to the Queen of Heaven, and to pour out drink-offerings unto her." Ouchoyia was the vow or declaration; but it was not the oblation. To fay they were the fame, would be to confound words with actions, and the purpole with the execution.. The term occurs in three other places of St. Paul's writings, in neither of which can it by any mode of conftruction be made to fignify an oblation. 2 Cor. ix. 13. 1 Tim. vi. 12, 13. What oblation did Timothy offer before many witneffes; or Chrift before Pilate? None. The one made an acknowledgment of his faith, and the other a declaration of the truth. The Author may call this an oblation if he pleales; but we flyle this an abufe of words. Who having, in His tranflation of Heb. v. 7. deferves attention. the days of his fiefh, offered up deprecations and fupplications, with trong crying and tears, unto him who was able to fave him from death, and having been ftrengthened under his agony, &c. &c." In a note he obferves, that to hear petitions, is frequently in Scripture language to grant petitions; to fupport, comfort, or ftrengthen, as the particular occafion of the requel may require... In his agony was that he prayed more earnestly-and was ftrengthened. The learned Heinfius hath fomething to the fame purpose: σε Εισακελαι igitur ano euhaßuas qui à folicitudine et anxietate in qua verfatur eripitur et liberatur." [Vid Exercitat. in Locum.] it With regard to this Author, we think him too prejudiced to be a candid, and too fanciful to be a judicious expofiter. Art. 56. The Proteftant's Prayer Book: or, Stated and Occafional Devotions for Families and private Perfons, and Difcourfes on the Gift. Grace, and Spirit of Prayer: Together with Effys on the Chriftian Sabbath, Baptifm, and the Lord's Supper. To which are added, Hymns adapted to focial and fecret Worship. By J. M. Moffat. 8vo. Brifol, printed, and fold by R. Baldwin, &c. in London. 1783. This prayer book is evidently published with a defign to advance the ends of devotion and piety, and to affift well-difpofed perfons in the attainment and exercife of this important part of a christian fpirit and practice. It is written for the edification of common chriftians,' and this, the Author offers as an apology, if fame parts of the work fhould be thought too prolix. The prayers are hort, the obfervations fenfible and ufeful, and the writer confines himself to fcriptural doxologies. On the whole, this performance may be recommended as well calculated to promote the pious purposes for which it is intended. Art. 57. The Sentiments of a Member of the Church of England refpecting the Doctrine of the Trinity; or an Addrels to John Difney, D. D. F. S. A. on the late Publication of his Reafons for refigning the Rectory of Panton, and Vicarage of Swinderby, in Lincolnshire, and quitting the Established Church. By W. H. a Layman. 4to. Is. Trapp. 1783. Send the boy to school again, He hath not got his leffon perfect. SERMON. SERM O N. A Sermon on Matthew, v. 18. in which an Emendation of a Text in Ezekiel is propofed. By Henry Dimock, M. A. Vicar of Chipping Norton, and late of Pembroke College. 4to. I s. Riving When our Saviour declares, that "one jot or tittle of the law fhall in no wife pafs till all is fulfilled," he alludes to a fuperftitious notion of the Jews, with refpect to the minuteft uncorruptnefs (fays this preacher) of the Mofaical writings, and the expreffion is applied only by our bleffed Lord, to the preceptive and predictive part of them.' The text of the Old Teftament is not abfolutely without error: and without a conftant miracle, it would have been impoffible for it to have been literally perfect. The Author gives an inftance of the mutability and defectibility of the facred text,' in the name of David. In a great number of places it is read without a jod or iota, as our bleffed Lord calls it, and in fome few with it.' But the principal evidence of this mutability and defectibility, arifes from the late collation of the Hebrew text by Dr. Kennicott. If there are mistakes in one part, why not in another? Mr. Dimock thinks he fees one in Ezek. xxvii. 17. and propofes an emendation of the original. Av prefent, according to our English verfion, the prophet is made to fay, They (i. e. the Tyrians) were thy merchants; they traded in thy market wheat of Minnith and Pannag, and honey, and oil, and balm." He fuppofes Minnith and Pannag to be a corrupt reading; and would fubftitute in the room of them zith, uphag. The text will then be rendered-" they traded in thy market with wheat, the olive, and the fig, and honey, &c." This is a proper detail (he thinks) of the commodities of Canaan: and fit fubjects of commerce with the merchants of Tyre. Whether the ingenuity of the Author's conjecture will atone for its rafhnefs, or indeed whether it bears any proportion to it, we leave to the determination of thofe who have a greater right to decide on fuch fubjects. ERRATA in our Laft. Page 285, 1. penult. for departments, r. department. *For the future, our CORRESPONDENCE, and NOTES to Correfpondents, will be printed on the laft leaf of the Blue Cover of the Review; to which our Readers are referred for the Correfpondence, &c. of the present month, THE MONTHLY REVIEW, For DECEMBER, 1783. ART. I. PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS of the Royal Society of London. Vol. LXXII. Part II. for the Year 1782, concluded. See our last Review. Art. 21. New fundamental Experiments on the Collifion of Bodies. By Mr. John Smeaton, F. R. S. COON after the publication of Sir Ifaac Newton's Principia, a doubt arose concerning the law for determining the quan-, tity of motion in a body. According to Sir Ifaac's theory, its measure is as the quantity of matter and the velocity fimply; but fome antagonists contended, that the fquare of the velocity is to be involved into the quantity of matter. This controverly gave, rife to a former Paper of Mr. Smeaton's, published in the 66th volume of the Philofophical Tranfactions, in which the question was confidered, as far as it relates to the gradual generation of motion from reft; and in which, taking in all collateral circumstances, the experiments confirmed the latter opinion, namely, that in favour of the fquare of the velocity. In the prefent paper, which is to be regarded as a fupplement to the former, the fame queftion is confidered, as it relates to the generation, or rather communication of motion by collifion; and it is here proved that the fame principles apply to both cafes. In treating of collifion, bodies muft naturally be divided into elaftic and non elaftic; the effect of the fhock in the two cafes being evidently, very different. Of the former, little remains now to be faid; but as to the latter, much controverfy arose among mathematical philofophers, concerning the effect of the collition, whether bodies be perfectly hard or perfectly foft *. The general opinion, though unfupported by any experiments, was, that, in both cafes, two equal non elastic bodies will, atter colli fion, proceed together with half the velocity the ftriking body had before the collifion; that is, that the whole quantity of motion is preferved. Those Those who were of the Newtonian opinion concerning the measure of motion, had no doubts in regard to their theory, as far as it related to hard bodies, where, no motion being loft, the law juft mentioned infallibly applies :-but as to foft bodies, they were not a little perplexed by the objection, that these bodies lofe fome motion by the change of figure in the shock, and that therefore the cafe could not be fimilar to that of hard bodies. To obviate this difficulty, they seriously endeavoured to prove, that bodies may change their figure without lofs of motion. Those philofophers, on the other hand, who eftimated the motion of bodies according to the fquares of the velocities, applied their theory fuccefsfully to the collifion of foft bodies; but they were equally perplexed in the cafe of hard bodies, and endeavoured to get rid of the difficulty by faying, that as there are no perfectly hard bodies in nature, all reasoning concerning them may be confidered as fuperfluous. That there is a loss of motion in the change of figure of two bodies that strike against each other, appears obvious from the familiar inftance of the hammer of a forge, which, if there were no fuch loss of motion, would at every ftroke recoil back nearly to the height from whence it fell; and if there is a lofs of motion in the change of figure, the effect of the collifion of hard and foft bodies cannot be the fame. That the theory of the collifion of perfectly hard bodies, though fuch may not exist in nature, is not a vain enquiry, Mr. Smeaton proves from his own experience; and adds, that neither are there any perfectly elaftic, nor any perfectly non elastic foft bodies, which neverthelefs have been confidered in theory, to the no fmall advantage of practitioners, who know how to make allowances, and to draw proper inferences. The controverfy, however, can never be fettled, but by an experimental examination whether the velocity after the collifion of non elaftic bodies be the fame, whether they be perfectly hard or foft, and this is the principal object of the prefent enquiry. The expedient our Author has devised for arriving at juft conclufions is, to examine whether in fact in the collifion of two non elastic soft bodies no motion be loft, by their change of figure; and this he has effected by comparing their motion with the motion of perfectly elaftic bodies after collifion, in which our fenfes convince us that no motion is loft. With this view, he conftructed an apparatus by which bodies perfectly elaftic, and non elastic foft bodies, were made to impinge, and the effect of their collifion could be accurately meafured *. We must abftain from entering into an account both of We cannot, however, omit obferving, that the directions given by Mr. S. for placing the marks y z in the middle of the arches vw, |