1798. ] 
than to promote their particular intereft, 
or to enjoy their pleafures.. Such charac- 
ters are well aifociated ; they have a mu- 
tual liking for each other. “Lhe landiord 
(who ts always a brother) promotes har- 
mony, as it is called, by previding choice 
fuppers and good liquors, the effects of 
which are, late hours and inebriety; and 
thus are made up two-ihirds of modern 
lodges. What fort of rational converfa- 
_ tion, what improvement is: virtue, in re- 
ligion, or in icience, can be expeéted in 
fuch meetings? / . 
There is one thing, which, while 
it confutes one of the illiberal charges 
brought againit maionry, I cannot pals 
without very fevere reprehenfion ; I mean 
the treatment which the facred volume of 
our religion meets with in thefe affem- 
blies. This book is always kept open in 
the centre of a lodge, and frequent reter- 
enc’s are made to it, while the pious bre- 
thren around are enjoying themfelves with 
a jovial glafs, a pipe, and a fong! —This 
is not intentional profanenefs ; but I con- 
tend tat it has a greater tendency to root 
chriitianity from the mind, than all the 
attempts that ever were made by infdels, 
antient cr modern. 
I fhall, inmy next, Mr. Editor, point 
out fome curicus innovations which have 
got into Free-Matonry, with character- 
iltic anecdotes. I cannot, however, con- 
clude, without affuring you, that I ama 
zealous lover of the order, and that my 
only aim herein is, to call every brother 
to a coniideration of the danger in which 
our venerable inftitution lies while fuch 
abuies are iuffered to debafe it. Iam, 
your’s, &c. Ftp We 
London, Auguft 1, 1798. 
EE so 
To the Ediior of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
N anfwer to a letter of one of your 
correfpondents in your Magazine for 
laft month, figned M.R. I beg leave to 
make a few obfervations. He points out 
in his letter three paflages in the book of 
Genefis which he lays appear to be quite 
inconfiitent with what is mentioned atter- 
wards in the book of Exodus. But what 
he afferts to be fo inconfiftent, upon ex- 
amination, will not prove to be fo: for, 
in the firft place, the word JEHOVAH is, 
in the common tranflation of the Bible, 
rendered, in the three paflages of Genefis 
he quotes, (ch. xii. 7, 8. xxi. 33. xxii, 14.) 
not as he franflates it, but by the word 
Lord; which, by being fo rendered, makes 
she fenfe and confiftency of the veges per- 
| Attempt to reconcile Genefis and Exodus.,...Mohatz. 
93 
fe€tly confpicuous. In the fecond place; . 
I need only quote Bifhop Warburton’s 
f{entiments on this paflage, to prove how 
much your correfpondent M. R. mut 
have been miftaken in his opinion. On 
the text, Exodus vi. 3. (which your cor- 
re{pondent aflerts to be fo inconfiltent with 
the before-mentioned paflages) “* And I 
appeared unto Abraham, unto Haac, and 
unto Jacob, by the name of God Al- 
mighty; but by my name, fehouah, was 
I not known to them,” the bifhop thus 
paraphrafes: ‘* As the God of Abraham, 
{ before condefcended to, have a mame of 
diflindiion ; but now, in compliance to 
another prejudice, I condefcend to have a 
name of honour.’ ‘Tire learned prelate 
afterwards fays, ‘¢ This feems to be the 
true interpretation of this truly difficult 
text; for the word JEHOVAH, whole name 
is here faid to be unknown to the patri- 
archs, frequently occuring in the book of 
Genefis, has furniihed unbelievers with a 
pretext that the fame perfon could not be 
the author of the two books of Genefis 
and Exodus. But the affertion is not that 
the word JEHOVAH was not ufed in the 
patriarch’s language, but that the zame 
JEHOVAH, as a title of honour, whereby 
a new idea was affixed to an old word, 
was unknown to them.”” Thele obfer- 
vations of Bishop Warburton, I think, 
render the paifazes quite confiftent; and 
I have no doubt but that your correfpon- 
dent M. R. will, upon confideration, be 
of the fame opihion.—Your correfpon- 
dent, ‘* An admirer and conftant reader,” 
will, I believe, find the following to bé — 
the fituation of the places he enquires 
after: Mohoz, or Mchatz, where Lewis 
the Second of Hungary was flain, is a 
town of Lower Hungary, in the county 
of Baraniwar, feventeen miles north-weft 
of Yfeck, long, 20. 56. E. lat.45.46.N. 
—Saltzbach, where the great Turenne 
was killed, is a town of Germany, in the 
palatinate of Bavaria, ten miles north-weft 
of Amberg, long. 11. 56. E. fat. 49 
Zen IN 
By inferting the above in your Ma- 
gazine, you will much oblige your con- 
{tant reader, 
Augufi 6, 1798. S. E. 
a" ae 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
I TAKE the liberty of prefenting you: 
with the following tranflation of the 
form, by which great criminals were ex- 
communicated and put out of the protec- 
tiog of the laws, by the bardic circles, 
convened 
r 
