HARVARD COLLEGE LIBRARY

ii byGoogle

Digitized by Google

Digitized by Google

OPHION. c·

Digitized by Google

\t\

•

THE

,\OPHION;/ 011. THB

THEOLOGY OF THE SERPE~, AND TBB

Untt!' of <l5ob. CO.PUBENDING THB CUITOMS ow THB MOlT ANCIBNT PEOPLB, WHO

WB.B INST.VCTBD TO APPLY THB SA.GA.CITY OW THB

SBRPBNT, TO THB

FALL OF' MAN. WIT"

ON

DR. ADAM CLARKE'S ANNOTATIONS ,

OX THAT IIlJBJ.:T IN THE JJOOl[ OJ, GENESIS.

Ia thiI work it is Down, from the·original1augaage, that, in eftrJ lip of the Jewilb and Cbriatillll churches, a Mouey was Dever 1IIIdentood to be the agent employed to bring about the Fall of MIlII.

-(it!" .......... '·H'· .. ' ~!IJ

SOLD Jt'f' HATCIIA'IfD,' PI~CA})ILL 'Y ; . '\V1t.L1AlIIS. ITATIONEBS'-COUR!,. LUDGATB-HILL;

A.ND ARCii; CORNHILL ; LONDON •

. lSI\:. f

,

,-__ ' __ .... ~d!:Y1;Qo~le

'. ,

I

•

.,." I ........ (~.

\'1v:~, .... .;.q: ,,,,,., ) '-.,' ~~>:' '". "! ..... / ..

'- ..-..-~- -r

I,

.. 1' '.

-'. ".;;,;...

:s o.~"Q·n.~ : ". ". . ." ..... . .. '

"

.UII'rDJY ..... ~"Y""'Y,

~.,ItII'·' Clova-r, CI~A."' •• Y ....... ,

-.: . ,1811. \

,: -j

, !

..

Digitized by Goog Le

r

..

PREFACE •.

--. THE following observations were originally

intended for insertion in the CLASSICAL and

Bin'LlcAL JOitRNAL: but as that work is

published quarterly, and as t~e whole could

not be inserted at once, it was thought best

to lay it before the publi~ altogether.

,

For satisfactory proof conCerning the things

advanced in these pages, I ha.v~ endeavoured'

to adhere'to the ~criptures, when: such refet~

~ce wu"'necesS8.ry, arid" by' the undoubted,

I'

Digitized by Coogle

VI PREFACE. •

,authorities 'of the best writers 1U all ages

handed down to us; rejecting the opinions of

men, when such have not been sanctioned

by other parts (>f the sacred volume . • , • ~ ~,/" ''t t" ( ~

":.. ~:.3' . ..... ~A

I'have also endeavoured to show, that the

Scriptures 4a~e an. .internal sanctity in them,

independent of, the letter, or history; no~

fron:tany p~onceiyed opinion,qf;:fflY! ~'rnj

but I have shown thattqe ~cqHtl:lres C~~~rql . \ '.' .... , ' .. ,

this view; that in this, co~i~~ .the~r ,s~n~t?-ty,

and frdm' which gl'Qupd _ ~nl'y: ~C(y. ")~~ ,~ • !

t;al1~d, ~ke ~ord of (lod., ,; f; \'i ", " I :',)[.

, "'r. : ' i 1 [ ,. '

I was induced to make the following

remarks~' ,on read.~g. a: ,lD()d~r~,' ,c~If\me~tary

on the third chapter o( G~ne:si~. i~i'Ypi~\l}h~; \

aut)l~r at~~pts ,to prore: ~at ~ X9n~~p~.'a~~

., no~ .a. $erpent, was th~ ageqt :eqlBl9Y~, i~ N~~:

Digitized by Google

.. P·RBPACB·. Vll

Fall of Man. This· being . a bold deviation . trom the settled opinion of. all the an.cient

Rabbies, and fathers of the Christian church,

to the present day ; and coming from a gen­

tleman who has acquired a name for learning,

(which has a powerful tendency to disturb

.the minds. of many professors;) the pubHc

have a' right to expect that such an opinion

should be refuted, if it be not supported by

sufficient proof. from Scripture.

It is natural for such as have not the ability

to judge for themselves, by a reference to

the original Hebrew, whether there be any

ground for such conclusions, to admit, that

if the people have been deceived fo~ SOOO

years, by supposing that it was a Serpent·

instead of a Mon!cey, which brought about this

business, they may also be wrong in other

Digitized by Google

viii P'RBPAC&

matters of, more importance. .. Therefore, to

prevent the serious .efFects, which might. be

consequent 'on such a supposition, I have

laid the following sheets before ·the public,

which I trust .will perfectly satisfy those, who .

may have been ,unsettled in their minds, by ,

a Conclusion of the above novel nature.

JOHN .BELLAMY .

. .

Digitized by Google

",

•

THE OPHION.

---

T HE c~mm~tary on the Book of Genesis by Ad~m Clarke, L .. L. D. is a work which has e~cited a great degree of curiosity among all ranks of Christians. It J;Ilust always give pleasure to the thinking part of the community, when they see the Bible coming from the press in so many -directions, with notes, said- to be explanatory of those parts, which have for .ages been i.nvo1ved in obscurity. But when, instead of 'cluci .. " dations of difficult parts, ~e are presented with new theories, boldly advanced, unsupportea, by the autha. rity of Scripture, or any other authority but that of conjecture; it !s "painful to the serious mind, aneL hurtful. to the ca~se, which such writers are endea· vouring .to support. I give them credit, for their well-meant intentions; but .these commentatoJTs, above all others, are called upon by Go~ and man, to be

A

Digitized by Google

2

faithful, and to advance nothing with intent to illus­trate the Scriptures, but what can be supported by their own authOlity. \

There never was a ti!De, when there was so p~s­ing a nec~ssity. for a plain, and literal translation of the Bible, as the present. The progress of Deism, arising frOlD errors, inco'nsistencies, 8lld wrong trans­lations, is af~ing'; and when we know that nothing of this nature can possibly be sanctioned by the original, we expect, when commentaries of such a descriptipn are published, that some steps are taken towards the attainment of things so desirable. But ,I am sorry to see that, hitherto, little has been done t~' remove those errors' and inconsistencies which have been, and still are, the cause of all those calum­nies, which we have so often witnessed to ha~e been brought against the Bible by, this' description of men .

. The work before us is certainly a work of con­siderable la~r~ I sincerely, wish that no part of it had called for observation; but when the Scriptures are the subject, being the common right of all men, I hope the writer of those comments will not suppose that the following observations arc made with any other view, than to ascertain what is true respecting the inost interesting subjects, which can possibly COlDe before the public, viz. THE UNITY OF GOD, AND

THE FALL OF MAN.

Digitized by Google

I know little of the author, but from his general character I believe him to .be a gentleman of'liberaL sentiments, and a sincere promoter of the truths of the Christian religion, according to his views. But JIlany goad men have been as zealous in their endea­vours,.to promulgate their opinions on Biblical subjects, trom tlle best of motives, and have given voluminous

. comments, which have been proved erroneous. It has been' the custom of commentators to condemn the opinions of their predecessors; and this is the case in· the work before us. I have learnt by experience not to depend on the .opinion of any man; the opinion of yesterday Qlay be contradicted to day, and tomorrow ~ay bring forth something new. Therefore,. rejecting the opinions of men, the Script'l,lres alone'must peter .. mine the true meaning and application of every doubtful and controverted passage: This is that rock, which cannot be shaken by the storms' of clash~ng opinions; when. this is not attende,d to, when the Scripture is not at aU times, and on all' occasions, resorted to as .coucIusive evidence of the truth of doctrines, and for the confirmation of opinions, but' . speculative theories are -substituted in its stead: -the sincere searcher for truth is altoget~er unsettled reSpecting things of the greatest importance, even those things, which relate to his happiness in tbis life, and in the future state. also. For being unsettled as to his faith, in the revealed word of God, '~e may be

I,

Digitized by Coogle

•

I

induced to neglect those things; which make for' lUi' present and eternal peace.

Let the intelligent reader look aroutld~ and 'he wiil see the thronging multitudes losing themselves ili the perplexing labyriirths of opinion; by some we are told that there ate a plurality of Gods i by others, that God is o~e in essence and in person. Yesterday we understood that a Serpent tempted Eve; to day we are told it was a monkey,; and tomorrow perhapS' the Leviathan, (that is, the Crocodile, because it is an inhabitant of the eastern counnies, and is sbpposed by naturalists to be one Of, the most crafty of the brute creation,) may be chosen as a fit1l8Cnt to bring about the fall of man. -

" We have here;" says this writer, "one of the mQst difficult, as \VeIl ~ one of the most important, narratives in the whole book of God. Th~ last chap-, -ter ended with a short' but striking account of the I

pe~ection and felicity of the first human beings; and ' , this opens with their transgression, degradation, and ruin." There is some plea!ute in perusing the work " of my author who writes on the Scriptures, whether wbat he says be ,true or false, if he be decided in his opinion. The author of these comments comes fairly , and openly before the public, and promises 1;0 give ~ satisfactory ~xplanation of tlle original text" "of the

, \

, DiQitizedbyGoogle

5

most impertant narrative in the whole book of God," . and to fix the meaniJlg, and show the propriety and consistency agreeably to the original, of the Mosaic account of the fall of man. He says, "but how,­and by what agency tills was brought about, here is a great mystery;" be app~als to all persons, ,who have read the comments th~t have been written on the Mosaic . account, whether they have ever yet been satis6.ed on this part of the subject; who was the serpent? "these are questions which remain yet to be answered." . From which inquiries we are under the necessity of concluding, that none of ~~ comments, which have hitherto been given for ·the l8$t ,000 years, bave developed this mystery; but that we are to be satisfied as to this and other important matters,· and that it is to be made known in this enlightened age, by Dr. Ad~ ~Jark~.

I ~ one of- thQse among the great, body of pro.. . fesl!ljng ChristianlJ, who remain altogether dissatisfied . with this writer's conc1usion, that Eve walJ tempted by a monkey; 8lld I ~hall sh9.w, to use his own words, that thQugll" ~e monkey goes " on all fours," yet that his statement of. this matter is very far from going ~

fC on all fours;" an4 that in this very e~tIllordinary commeQ~ "(he legs Q/ the _ are not efjUtil." I am exceedingly sorry· tlIat this ~Qthor has chosen so ludi­crous au aniq1al for one of the persons of his drama; the ~te-a-te~ of Eve, arid this s,portive creature, if

Digitized by Google

credited, would furnish abundant matter for ~it and ridicule among Deists; it would be impossible graveiy to re,commend the Scriptures to their serious' attention. I may perhaps be told, that the same reaSoning will apply to the serpent with those, who 'are disposed to cavil. If it be tr~e ~at a serpent literally tempted our mother Eve~ some part of such ; reasoning' might be so applied, but of the two, it certainly wo~ld be better to choose the serpent, as the less I objectionable. . It would also .be difficult for Christians to ~efend this part of Scripture with a serious countenance, when they recollected the unin .. te1ligible chatter, and disgusting grimace, which that animal must necessarily manifest in such a con~er­sation.

Whoever has seen a monkey m~st be sensible that, among all creatures, it is the least calculated, on

. ac~ount ~f. its ugly face, to succeed in prevailing on the woman to disobey the divine command; so tlJat 'I think the .authorhas been rather unfortunate in his choice of a tempter to captivate

" The fairest"oCher daughters, Eve:'

There are two things in this narrative, which this author has forgotten to notice, and which decidedly make against his opinion. 'It is expr~ssly said, that the serpent should go on its belly, "on thy beltv tluiu ',halt 8,0 r Jl'OW these words are more evident! y against-

Digitized by Go og le.

7

the monkey than the serpent, as an agent in this business. 'The Dr. informs us that if it,had been a serpent, it must, before the fall, have walked on its tail,-' and I contend, that if it had been a mQnkey, the divine command was not obeyed, for that animal does not go on its belly, any more thaIi the whole race of quadrupeds: And as to the tale of its w~k­ing erect before the fall, jt walked no mQre' erect then, than it does now; for the ouran outang monkey always goes erect, when it has occasion; he will fre­quently attack men, and has the power of rendering himself more formidable, by fighting with offensive weapons.

The second, which this writer has forgotten to notice with due effect, is concerning its lWeech. We. are told that it conversed with Eve, and though it had not the power of 'Walking, or going erect, which we are necessarily led to believe was the case if it were a literal serpent, or a monkey, the Scripture does not say that it ihould lose the gift of speech; though we might reasonably suppose, that if by this organ the fall of man had -been brought about, G,od would have. pronounced a curse on it, and would .have taken away the gift of speech by. a solemn denunciation to that effect; instead of condemning it to go on its beliy. Therefore whether it were the serpent,' or the' monkey, the gift of speech 'fuust . necessarily have remained, as that power, was Dot

" Digitized by Google

8

by the di\;ne command- taken away. Dr. Clarke' says, "God did· not qualify the serpent with speech

, for the occasion, "-true; neither has he proved that God fluali1ied' the monkey "with speech for the occasion/' but 'by supposing that this was the case; and supposition proves nothing. ' .

~

I shall pass over the lamentable de6ni~ion of the tree QJ'lmnwledge-eating tke forbidden .frui~the system of astrO'fKJlflY, which this writer has crammed into the pages of his Bible; and many other subjects, which would swell these remarks to a large volume. They are all as irrelevant to the grand business of the regeneration of man, which is historically treated of, and which constitutes the ~anctity of this part of SClipture; as for him to.inform us in his comment ~D the second verse of the second chapter, what we are already told was the fact, viz. that the deep sleep, 'which God caused to fall upon Adam, H was neither 8woon, nor extasy," -~~ come to that part, which is more immediately the subject of this' investigation, . viz. the agent employed in the fall of man, which Dr. Clarke says ~as the ouran-outang monkey, and nOt

, the serpent, as has been the belief of all the.churches, to the time of the dispersion of the Jews, and of aU the Christian churches to the present day.

it seems necessary, in the first place, in order to

pave th~ way for the receptiQl!,9f the mOllkey

, Digitized by 'G a ogle

·9

instead of the serpent,. for ~is writer to lessen the authority of all ,the ancient versions, which, he says, are wrong ~ to the translation of the word rz.tr~ , N«lrash, bi serpent. Even tJte. Septuagint . is included, who, he says, "translated wcra N ackask, by o~.s . aphis, the Greek word for serpent,· not because this was its fixed determinate meaning, but. because it was the best that occulTed to the' trans-

, l.!1tors; and they do not seem to have giv~il themselves much trouble ~ understand the meaning· of the origimil. And the New Testament writers, who scarcely ever quote the Old Testament, butfrmn the Septuagint translation, and scarcely ever :change a'

word in their quotations, copy this version in the. use of this word." But thii gentleman certainly has no authority for asserting, that these ancient translators . rendered the original word rz.tr~ N «hash, by oq).s

ophis, not as its " determinate meaning" in the sacred writings. Are we'to suppose that the Septuagint, who -lived 350 years before the Christian era, . during the time of the Grecian mona.rchy, which -,vas 8,U universal monarchy, and the Greek an universal language, well understood by t;};lem; and who tbemselves were tI;le most IelU'fted among the Jewish 'doctors; dirl not understand the meani~g of the word. rz.tr~ N «hask in Greek? wh.ich must have been the case, if Oq)IS

oplJis, is not literally the meaning. Surely it lllust be aduiitted, that' at this time of the wodd both these laoguages were well undentood· by them, arid if

Digitized by Google

10

oq).s aphis Cl was the best word that occurred" to them, by which to rendel; fLICT~ N ocll48k, it must neces­sarily be admitted, agreeably to this reasoning, that ttJtr~ N ochasla was und~rstood bV the sacred writers,

. and by the~e ancient trans1ators, to mean a serpent.

, I shall first pursue the subject on the ground this writer has taken, viz. ,u a simple relation of facts, ,capable of a satisfactory explanation." It ~s said by the inspired penman, that the serpent. 'Ct'aS more 'Wise and intelligent tIum all tIre beasts llf the field. He attributes five properties to the animal, in its original state, which tempted Eve.

1st. That "whatever this tLty~ Nochasla was, he stood at the head of all inferior animals. for wisdom and understanding;" but he says, "I cannot find that the serpent genus are rem~rkable for intell~ gence; it is true, the w.isdoni of the serpent has. passed into a proverb, but I cannot see on what it is founded." It is probable, that this may be the case with Dr. Clarke, that he "cannot see on ,what ,the wisdom and intelligence of the serpent is founded." In order, theretore, to show . that this animal was , selected with great wisdom by the primreval peOple, agreeably to its ,predominant passions, to signify the .sensual qualities and propensities in man: I shall;aft.er I have said a.few words on the WQrl?hip' of this animal, give the reader a short account of the wisdom,

Digitized by Google

11

prudence, intelligence, and sagacity, of the serpent, which naturalists from long observation infor~ us, are 'far superior to that of any other animal. '

It has been the custom of the most ancient nations, as we learn from the Pagan writers, to consider the s'etpent as the svrnbol'ofwisdom, circumspection, and

~ ,

intelligence, . of the sensual principle in man. In the description of· Osiris and Isis, the idols of Egypt, a' serpent is. alway_s depicted with them. Osiris and Isis

'were the king a~d queen, who, we are infonlled, governed with such wisdom and gentleness, ,that ..the . Egyptians deified them, and caused them to be attended by a serpent.

The Egyptians also gave honors to the Niolic serpent,.' i. e. the crocodile; but we are not to suppose that this was done without some degree of reason; for as the ant and the bee are used with us as emblems of ' industry, so was the serpent referred 'to by them as the symbol . of intelligence and circumspection. The same was done by the Phrenicians; according to Sanchoniathon, a serpent was always introduced in their religious rites.

But perhaps there was nothing more significant than the custom of this ancient people, who prefigured

, JEliQJl; de Animalibus, lib .. 10. Euseb. pralp. Evangel. 1. 1, c. 10, . •

Digitized by Google

..

the world by: a circle, in the centre of which was a serpent; by which the whole. was represented as animated; a symbol of infinite wisdom, by which the worl~ was created. Herodotus also informs us, that in his time there were tame serpents in the principal cities of Egypt, which were sacred to Jupiter, adorned with the most costly jewels, and that .they were so ,!Sensible of kindness shpwn them, that they never injured anyone; and when they died, they were buded in thertemple of Jupiter with divine honors.'

lElian fiays, that the Egyptians kept serpents as; household gods. The Phrenicians ~d Babylonians worshipped a dragon. The ~rabians were famous for worshipping serpents, and 'according to some, whose testimony is not to be rejected, in some .p~rts of Arabia, at this day, serpents are held as sacred, Melanththon says, ,that the priests in Asia expose to

• public view a serpent, attended' with music; the serpent is made to open its mouth, and t4ere appears tbe face of a beautiful womal1.And in Germ~ Bibles, before the time of'Luther, may be seen tQ.e 1igure of a serpent with the face of a woman.

" Oph," says' Bryant, "signifies a lerpent;. it ,was \\'oI'shipped as a Deity. A serpent was also in 'tile Egyptial1 hlDg~ge styled. ob, or-~6. We ate

• EutL>rpe, lib. it. p. 186.

Digitized by Google

\ .

13

told by Aurus Apollo, that the Basilisk ",,'88' named Oubaios ; I Ou~.os, 0 IfrT"" EAA7JII'fr' Ba.frJA&trxos.

~ . The Deity, so denominated, was esteemed prophetic, and his tell)ple.s were applied to as oracular. TI.lis idolatry is alluded to by Moses: a man also, ,or . woman, ikat lzatk a:l~ aoub, familiar spirit, or thol is a wizard; ~e forbids the Israelites eyer to inql1ire of those dmmons, Oub and Ideone. The symbolical worshi p of the serpent was in the first ages very extensive, and was introduced into all mysteries

, wherever celebrated; wherever the Amonians founded any places . of worship, and introduced their rites. there was generally some story of a serpent. There was a legend about a serpent at Col chis, ,at Thebes, and at Delphi; likewise at other places. The Greeks called Apollo himself, Python, whieh is the SatIlfll

as opis, oupis, and oub. The woman at Endor, who . had II. familiar spirit, is ',called ~N ouh, and it is interpreted Pytlwnissa. The place where she residt:d seems to have been named from the worship there instituted; for ,i"T r.v.f En dour, is compt)unded of En-.A.dour, aJld signifies Funs Pytlumis, "the fOuDtai~ , \

\ of light, the oracle of the God Adour." Kircher, continues Bryant, say~, that obion is still, among the people of Egypt, the name of a serpent, :liN DUb,

. "Mon _Python, vox ab Egyptiis sumta, qyibus obion hodieque serpentc;;m sonat."'" The iun was wor~hip~efj '0

I Aurus App. c. i. p.2.

" BQcbart Hie~. 1. ~ c. 3. p. 2~. - . .

Digiiized by Google

. ,

. .

14

under the figure of a serpent: Hence there was given to the Spartan Menelaus a serpent, for a device upon his. shield. l. The same was also depicted upon the shield and' cuirass of Agamemnon. a There was also a serpent engraved upon the tomb of Epaminondas, J

arid inclosed in the figu~ of a shield.

Olympias, says this learned writer, the mother of Alexander, was very fond of these orgies, in which the serpent was introduced. Plutarch mentions, that rites of this sort . were practised by' the Edonian women, near Mount Hremus, in Thracet and carried on to a degree of madness. Olympias copied them closely in all their frantic manoouvres; she used to be followed by many attendantS,' who bad each a tbyrsus, with serpents twisted round it. They had also snakes in their hair, and iil the chaplets which they wore; the whole was attended with, a continual repetition of the word E'Ooe, which is the same as m'1 E'Oe. "'-

In the ritual of Zoroaster, it is said, the great expanse of the heavens, and 'even' nature itself, was described 'under the symbol of a Serpent.4 The like was mentioned in the Octateuch of Ostanes; and, moreover, that in Persis, and in other parts . of the Ea&t, they erected' temples to the serpent tribe, and

I Pausan. 1. x. p. 863. a Homer. Iliad.

S Pausan.L viii. p. 622. • Euseb.P. E.I. i. p.41,42.

Digitized by Google

15

held festivals to their honor,'. esteeming them, 91!ous 1'ouS P.1!'Y'trTOUS, X~I ~Px.'1j'Y0US TCUII GAW", 1 the supreme l!f all Gods, and the sUperinteridants Q[ the w/to/8 'IIJOrld. ThIs worship began among the Chaldeans, who built the city Opis, upon the Tigris,s and were greatly addicted to divination, and to the worship of the serpent. J

The chief Deity of Egypt is said to have heen Vulcan, often called 'tt .:liN 4oub-El, the serpent Ged ; there were pillars sacred to him, with curious hiero­glyphical inscriptions, which had the same name; they were very lofty and narrow in comparison to their length. Hence among the Greeks, who copied from the Egyptians, every thing gradually tapering

·to a point, (after the manne~ of the serpent,) was styled Obelos and Obel~cus, i. e. the serpent pillar. '

Sanchoniathon4 roms mention of a history, which he once wrote UpOll tlle worship of the serpent Another treatise upon the same subject was written by Pherecydes Syrus. • The title of this book was Opkioneus, the Theology td' Opkion, or the Serpent; and of his worshippers called Oph!0nidm. The

• Euseb. ibidem. • Herod. I. ii. c. 189.

3 Maimonidea, ~n More Nevochim~- Selden. de Diis Syris. Synt. i. c. 3. p. 49.

4 Euseb.pnep. Evang. I. i. p. 41.

Digitized by Google

.,

16 •

Ethiopians' also brought these rites into Greece, and called the island, where they.first established the~, EI, opia, "solis setpenbs insula, lor, the Serpent Island.'" Hercules was esteemed a chief God, the same as

Chronus, and was said to have produced the mundane egg.· He was rel>resented, in the· Orphic .theology,

" under the mixed symbol of a lion and a serpent;· and sometimes of a serpent only.1 The Cu~tesi who. were Hivites, or Ophites, i. e. serpent worshippers, settled at Rhodes, so named from Rhod,4 a Syriac . ,,'ord for a serpent. In ?hrygia, and upon the Hellespont, whither they sent out colonies very early,

. was a people styled Oq)'O')"!I"S~ or the serpent-breed;' . who were said to retain an affinity and correspondence

with serpents. 5 Thucydides mentions a people· of ~tolia, called Ophionians.6 Atiout Paphos, famous for the residence of Venus, there was 'said to have been a kind of serpent, 7 with two legs; by this is meant the Ophite race, i. e. serpent 'W()f'shipper.s, w~o came from Egypt. . The island Seriphus was ~ne vast rock, by the Romans called" Saxum Seriphium, and. made use of as a kind of prison for banished perso~. It. is represented allegorically as abounding

• Strabo,I.::i. p.6sa. • Athenmg. Legatio, p. 239. /

3 Ibid. p. 295." • Bochart, G. ~. p. 369.

5 Strabo,1. xiii. p. 880. • L. iii. c. 96-Strabo, Lx. p. ~9f • . ,

"., A ppolloll. Dyaeolus. MitabU. c. 39 ... " .. ,),., 'P' ~ '", ,

Digitized b; Google

17

with serpents, I i. e. these serpent people, and is styled by Virgil serpentifera. I t had this epithet not on account, of any real serpents, but according to the Greeks, from Medusa'sa head, which was brought hither by Perseus. By this is meant the' serpent Deity, whose worship was here introduced by people called Peresians. . Medusa's head, whIch was a human face, encircled with a number of serpents, denoted divine wisdom: and the, Island was sacred to the serpent. The Athenians were esteemed Serpentigenre, and believed that the ~hief guardian of their Acropolis was a serpent.) It is said, that the Goddess placed a dragon for a guardian to her temple " at Eleusis, and appointed another to attend on Erectheus. The Cuthites, under the title of Heliadre~ settled at Rhodes, and as - they were Hivites, or Ophites, i. 'e. serpent 'W(JT"skipper$~ the Island in consequence of it was of old named Ophiusa. These Cuihit~ priests were very learned, and as they were Ophites, whoever had the advantage of their, infor­mation, was said to be instructed by serpents. Hence it was said, that lVIelampus was rendered prophetic from a communication with these animals. 4 The Cyclops were originally Ophitre, who worshipped the

• Tacitus, Annal. I. iv. c. 21. s Strabo,1. x. p. 746.

3 Herod. l. viii. c. 41.

4 Apollodorus. 1. xii. c. 7. Plin. 1. x. c. 44.

B

Digitized by Google

18

symbolical 'erpent. They were a colony of the Egyptians and Babylonians, and were 80 named from Kux:Acmfi. "They were an ingenious people, and became famous among the Grecian poets, who, in their fables, have represented them to have beeil

m~nster's of gigantic stature, with one eye in the mid~lle of their forehe,ads." But this is as far .fro~' the truth as that a monkey tempted Eve. They were an ingenious people, who came into that part of the world, and introduced the refinements' of the learned Egyptians and Babylonians, and thus obtained great fame. The Greek poets magnified their superiority of talent into magnitude of stature, and allowed them but one eye in tQ.e middle of their foreheads; and thus have represented them as monsters, because they worshipped a solitary serpent, instead of a plurality of Gods. Such has been the nature of religious bigotry in all ages: mistakes of this kind are numerous in the Greek Mythology; Xa.p(IJIHJ~,

Charon is a compound word from the Hebrew "~.cllar, a pleasant past~e, and ll't On, the Temple of the Sun, literally, "tI,e pasture qf tke Temple qf the Sun /' or the land which was appropriated to the usc of the priests, attached to the temples under the Mosaic dispensation, which ,custo~ has been justly retained in Christian churches" as . a living for the cle~gy, who were not pel'mitted to follow any other profession.

Digitized by Google

~ 19

lEgeus,' of· Athens, ac~ordrng to Androtion, waf

of the serpent breed j a and the first king of tbe country is said to have been~paxtiJlI, a Dragon. Cecrops is said to have been a.qlU'r)s/ Q{ a. two-fold nature, 6emg .formed 'llJitk tke body Q{ a man, blended 'With IhSI l!f a serpent. Diodorus says, that this was a circumstance deemed by the Athenians inexplicable; some had mentioned of Cecrops, that he underwent a metamorpho&is~ 41r'O Gqsl!tI)~ e.s 411~ptl)1f'OIl e'A9m,· tktzt Ire tvas elumged.frqm a serpent to a man. With res pert to the mixed character of this personage, eontinues this writer, we may, I think, easily account l

for it; Cecrops was certainly a title of the Deity, who was worshipped under this emblem. The natives of Thebes, in B(eotia, like· the Athenians, esteemed themselves 'of the serpent raee. The Lacedremo­nians, . likewise, referred themselves to the same original; their city is said to have swarmed with: It!rpImts. S The same "is said ·of the city Amyclre, in Italy, which was of Spartan original. Of Argos the same, when Apiscame from Egypt, and settled in , that city. He was esteemed as a prophet, the reputed son of Apollo, and a person of great skill and saga­city. But the serpent brood came" from the very

• Herodotus, I. viii. c. 41. s I.ycophron. Scholia. v. 496.

, Mcursius. de reg. Athen.I.i. ;. 6~ 4 Eustat. on Dionys. p. 56.

S Aristot. de Mirabilibus, vol. II. p. 717.

•

Digitized by Google

20

quarter from whenCe Apis came. They were certainly Hivites, or Ophites, i. e. serpent tAJ0T'8hippers from Egypt. They were serpents of another nature, with which those cities were infested; and the history relates to the Cuthites, the original Ophitre, who for a long time possessed that country. The chief Deity of the Gentile world was almost universally worship­ped under this symbolical representation. The story of Cadmus, and the serpent which he engaged upon hiS arrival in Breotia, relates to the serpent 'llXll'ship which was then instituted by the C~dmians. So Jason in' Colchis, Apollo in Phocis, Hercules at Lerna, engaged with serpents, are histories of the same purport.

Cadmus, and his wife Harmonia, .were said at the close of their lives, to have been transformed to a serpent of stone. The serpent was understood at that day, to represent wisdom, and therefore honored his memory with this ensign, because he first intro­duced civilization, and the worship of Divine wisdom into Greece. But in after-ages, the Greeks, who

. became idolators, worshipped hilllunder this symbol. This worship prevailed in Babylonia, Egypt, and Syria; from which countries it was brought by the Cadmians into Greece: Serpentis eam venerationem acceperunt Grreci a Cadmo.· Thus were the

I Vossius de Idol. vol. 111. Comment in Rabbi M. Maimonic1em ~c slJcrificiis, p. '/6.

Digitized ~y Google

21

companions of Cadmus, who first brought ,letters into Greece, and the Giant" in Homer, called serpents. So Alex-ander 'the Great, and Scipio Africanus, were said to be born' ,of serpents, f i. e. wisdom, which they tQought to be the most honorable insigqia; every thing was loo~ed upon as divine and magnificent, that was attended ,by tb.e figure of a S81'pent J many thiJlgs in creation were dignified by this name, as trees, plants, herbs, rivers, stones, islands, t:ltp,rs. Plen, lind women."

In the Heatheq Mythology, which was founded on the scriptures, we have a description of the garden of Jupiter, i, e. J oa.pater; and the golden apples of the Hesperides~ kept by a sleepless dragon, which was evidently taken from the serpent, aud the forbidden fruit in Paradise. Hercules killing the serpent is also taken from th,e scripture account, where it is said, " the seed of the woman' shall bruise the head of tho serpent." A serpent was consecrated to A polIo, in his temple where h~ was worshipped, who was aaid to have been educated in Arabia;" but this is als<:» taken from the Bible i Moses fled into Arabia fr()m the face of Pharaoh,-- where be was forty years; and when he led the Israelites out of Egypt, he-set up the brazen serpent in thf} wilderpeslJ, not a bra~eQ monkey.

, PlIousan. 1. vW. :po tWI.

Digitized by Google

Having introduced thus much from this learned writer, concerning the origin of serpent worskip. I shall- now make a few observations on ~ natural history of the serpent, that we may see "on what the wisdom and intelligence of that animal is founded,"

_ . and on what ground it was. that it " passed into a proverb'~ among t.he priDHeval people.

Digitized'by Google

TIlE

SUBTILTY OF THE SERPENT • • 1

-...

T HE whole tribe of serpents rest with their ey~ open, and are perpetually on the watch duriQg. the w hole of the winter season; this property of the sel"Pent became famou~ among the serpent W01'shipper.s as an emblem of the Deity. Homer borrowing the

. idea, from the ever-watchful eye of the serpent, describes the Gods, at one time, as asleep,

" Allbut the eVl'T-wakcful eye of Jove."

Among the whole family of serpents, there appears . to be but one, which answers to the description given in the sacred writings, as being that creature so frequently mentioned in the woeful narrative of the fall of man. The Niolic serpent, the leviathan, Qr crocodile, is described by the prop~ets as a creature superior to others of its kind, for strength, intelli­gence, and, patience; he enjoys, says Buffon, more

Digitized by Google

!4

absolute-rule than either the king of the forest, or the sovereign of the skies, and his dominion is the more. durable as it belongs to both elements.

This terrible creature bein~ a native of that part of the world where our first parents were placed, when they came from the hand of the CreatOr, it is reasonable to conclude, that our inspired progenitor Adam, who gave names to the creatures correspond­ing with their natures, would not have given the name r.t') Noclzaik to any species of the simia genus, as it does not express anyone property of the monkey, but is most admirably descriptive of those qualities, which the ancients found by experience the whole tribe of serpents were more famous for, than all the beasts Qr tke field., The prophets pelfectly agree in. describing this animal to be a native of both elements; Amos, ix. 3. and though they be hid frmn my sight

in tke bottom '{f tke sea, thence, C?~?~ WIJ~;:t n~ n;gt~ I' will cunimand the serpent and ke sJuzll bite .them. Here the word ~~ N ockash, written :with the same vowels, signifies a serpent which Uves in the sea, as

. well as on land; but which certainly cannot be applied to mean the monkey~ In Chaldee, and Rab. Hebrew; it has the same meaning as in t4e pur~ Hebrew.

Some are of opillion, that tUp.~ N«hesh, bruen, was given to brass, because it rese~nble$ tpe color Of

Digitized by Google

a sel'pent; but there is no certainty in this etymology, foc there are serpents of different colors. ~~ N ac1l.e'h was used to signify brass, in allusion to the living serpent; for as the color of brass is yellow, and the metal pernicious, so the fluid, issuing from the little bladders of serpents when they bite, is yellow. These prirnreval pe{lple ha~ better reasons for giving names to things, which, as abQve, were descriptive of their natures; which power of description is to be found in the Hebrew language only, and which is one proof of its divine origin. The word ~~ Nachasll. primarily signifies to eye, to 'View attenti'Vcly, with a peculiar quickness; and as this is more particularly the case with the serpent's eye, than it is with the eye of any other creature, it has been applied to

mean a serpent. The Greeks derived Apa.xWII, a dragun. or serpent, fr.om 8epxlfll, to mew. and o~'S,

a s,erpelit,. from 076'J'OP.4', to s.ee. Among the eastern nations this word was applied to those whQ were keen in their tramactions, who saw things with .quickness, and used this gift to the injury of others; oi', in other words, those who prostituted a good understanding to had purposes; so that the phrase, f1, serpent's fJye, be~me proverbial amopg them.

N atllralists I inform us, that the Niolic serpent ~nJpports the dignity of his rule with clemency; his

~ Buffon. Nat.lIist.

Digitized by Google

..

•

power ~ not combined with cruelty and rapine, and is only exerted for supplying his urgent necessitie~, but is never actuated by ferocity. When he is pinched by hunger he covers himself \\'ith mud, 011 the slimy banks of rivers, and appearing like the large trunk of 'a fallen tree, remains motionless, watching with asoonishing patien~ 'for an opportunity to seize his prey;· his stillness, color, and fonn, impose on fishes, sea-fowl, oortoises, and other animals, 50 that they approach without suspicio~. While swimming along great rivets, he seldom raises his head above water so as to see around, seeking to surprise any of the larger animals that may come close 00 the shore; when he sees any approach 00 drink, he dives, and 'swims craftily under the water, till he gets near enough to catcl\ the creature by the legs, then drags

•

it into the wat~r till it is drowned, and devours it at his leisure. . He is· much more dangerous in the water, which seems to be his favorite element, in which he enjoys the whole of his strenbrth with greater advantage than on land; notwithstanding his vast si~, frequently thirty feet long, he moves about l\ith great swiftDess; he often waits contentedly at tbe bottom of a deep river, looking atrentively for his prey above, and often attacks boats, uSIng his tail to overturn them, in expectation of procuring food, which is catTied, ffom one place to another, I and will pursue his prey with great velocity to the bottom of the sea. Such is the wonderful sagacity of this .

~i9itized by Google

27

animal, which' we are at present acquainted with; but had we in this region, so far remote fi'om the !lative place of this serpent, as complete a knowledge of its natural history, as the people of those countries had at the' time, when the arts florished among them, wheu their I)aturalists, philosophers, and literary ~en well knew from observation, more particulars concerning the subtilty of the serpent, we should, no doubt, have more proof of the intelli~ence 'of this creature, ;f more were necessary, to prove, that it is more subtile, int~lligent, and sagacious, t1um all Ike beIue. Wtkefield,

It may appear wonderful to many, how it was possible for a creature so disgusting to become an object of worship; of all the beasts in creation, a more ungraceful idol, as to the external fonn, could not have been chosen; we shall, however, I trust, have a more favQrable opinion of these ancient serpent-worsh.ippers, when we know the true ground why this worship obtained so universally. This circumstance was, perhaps, not thought of by this writer, or it must have had its degree of weight in convincing him, that the mmzkey had nothing to do in this business. The adoration which was paid to serpents in all the nations of the East, from the most remote times, and is even continued to 'this day in some of the Eastern countlies, is a cOl1:yincing proof, that it took' its rise from the' serpent in Paradise;

, -

Digitized by Google

28

ana ·like a flood spread over the surrounding nations, when the cures done by the In-a.en serpent in the wilderness were confirmed, which must necessarily appear to them to have been done by infinite wisdom, prefigured in outward nature by a serpent. These ancient people had another reasOl1 for preferring the .. erpent in their figurative representations to any other creature; they considered the first cause of things to be without beginning and without end; and that as the serpent, when it is at rest, forms a circle, with its head in the centre, so they supposed it to be repre­sentative of the Deity, worshipped it in the form of a circle, and fixed an eye in the centre as descriptive of the cmmiscience of God; the latter emblem is often used at this day, as represe1ltative of ~~ all-seeing ey~ of Providepce.

Digitized ~y Google

THE MONKEY •

. -.

IF we contrast the character of the monkey with that of the serpent, we shall find that the author of nature has not raised the f~l'Dle'r so high in the scale of instinctive sensibilitY, as he has· many other creatures; and that it cannot be put in competition with the serpent, whose intelligence has been allowed­in all ages to approach the nearest of any other­creature to the lowest degree of reason il\ man. N ejther shall we find that any . property of this sportive animal, the monkey, answers to the meaning of the word 1fCr~ N achash, as gi~en by the sacred writers.

According to the best information from those, who have resided in the countries where the ouran outang monkey is a native, all concur with the best writers of

Digitized by Google

· ..

'"

-

so natural history, in declaring, that this animal goes erect natur81ly, I and not on "all fours," as is asserted by this writer. The pongo jocko, of Java, and the interior parts of Guinea, which is from five to seven feet high; the great' gibbon, which inhabits India, Malacca, and the Molucca isles; the great black ape of Kiangsi, in China, and all the kinds of the ouran outang monkey, walk erect, which is the natural posture of this animal. The female calTies her young in her arms, and leaps with the greatest agility from tree to tree. The structure of the hands, feet, and other parts of the body, when, examined with mecha­nical exactness, p~ove, in the opinion of, those best capable of judging with accuracy on the subject, that ~he animal was designed by the Creator to walla erect. & "Man, and the ouran ou~ng, are the. ouly animals who have buttocks, and the calf of the leg,.­and of course are formed to go upright. But, never ... theless, though this creature approaches" nearest· to the form of man, it is incapable of thinking consistently with any degree of reason, like the. serpent; " for if - the principle of imitation," says .Buffun, "by which he mimics human actions, were a l"esult of thought, he would ascand in the scale of.

• Vide Voyages, of Pyrard, tom. Ii. p. s:n. - Purches'. ,­Collcction--:&nd Dcscript. Historique du Royaume de Macreur p.5l.

• .Encyclop. Brit. vol. :ltVII. Edin. edit.

Digitized ~Y Goog~e .

S! beings above every other beast of the field, which is not the case. This animal possesses instinctive saga- ( city, like other brute. creatures, but does not manifest any marks of intellectual operation like the serpent;.

. it approximates something near the human form, ll:ithout possessing any of the faculties of the human mind." Its faculty of imitation is singular; '~ut not more so than that of many other creatures, some of which can be taught.articulation, to give answers, and ask questions; but all the ipgenuity and application of man could never teach the ~onkey to articulate a single word.

It appears strange, that the author of· these comments s~ould have neglected the consideration of the natural histqryof these anilll.als, on a subject so

novel as this he has introduced. For it is right to conclude, that God acts consistently, agreeably to rationality, and probability; that' there must have been soine natural qualification in this animal, which is said to have been employed in this business, supe-. rior to all others, which intitled it to this pre-eminence. We find throughout the scriptures, that when any thing of importance was to be done, or others' significantly represented, that such persons were always chosen by divine wisdom,' who bad proper qualifications by nature for the undertaking; and sucb things iDtroduced as bore some resemblance to

. the subject intended to be made known. Tb~

Digitized by Google

S2

Moses was prepared by being first skilled in all the learning of the Egyptians and the Arabians; therefore a proper person for the office he was appointed to. Joshua was trained up as .the leader or general, to settle, the people in' the land, and to destroy idolatry ; and therefore a proper person to govern Israel. The princely prophet Isaiah was chosen as a fit person to

prophesy to the king and nobles; and the learned Paul to preach to the polished Gentile nations. .Blit it was only necessary for an unlettered shepherd to be sent to the lower estates of the people of Israel, who . delivered his prophesies agreeably to the simplicity of his education. Such must have been the consi., deration of the subject before us; the mtmkey was ~ot frained with those natural qualifications which would a~thorize the inspired writers to apply them for the representation Qf the things mentioned in the sacred text. But the serpent has been deservedly. noticed in all ages for its intuitive knowledge; he plans and executes with all that order, foresight, and certainty, which is not to be equalled by any of the 1Jeasts qf the field, neither as far as the habits of its nature extend, is it inferior in wisdom and intelligence

, . to man.

Having said as much as I think i~' necessary for my purpose concerning the qualities of the serptmt and the monkey, and, I trust, sufficiently proved, that the wisdom of the serpent in its' acts approaches

Digitized by Google

, '

85

nearer to the reason of man than any other creature; and that this has been Jlie universal opinion from the beginning. I shall no~\' answer this writer's observa­tion where to prepare the mind for the reception of the Monkey in the business of the fall of man instead of the ,se'rpent, he has attempted to cast a shade on the translation of the word Tt.~~ N achash; hy the septuagint, who rendered it by the word (JqJ'~ opms, ,a serpent. He says, "from the septuagint we can expect no light, nor from any other of the ancient -versions which are all subsequent to the septuagint, that the Arabic -may oe expected' to afford some help, fi-om its . great similarity to·the Hebrew, and that a root in this langUage very nearly similar to that in the text, seems to cast considerable light on the subject., ~ Clumas, signifies he departed, drew tdf, lay hid, seduced; from this root came~' akhanas, '......l:.:. khanasa, which signify an ape, 01' saty­rus~ or any of the siIbia kind, or ape genus: also from the same root comes ..,..U=;. khanas, 'the devil,' which appellative he bears from the meaning of ~Chanas." _ But if all the ancient versions were subsequent to the septuagint, as this writer asserts, what neces­sity was there for him to ~ubstitute the Arabic? why

... may we not go to the septuagint version, in prefer­ence to the Arabic, as the septu'agint is allowed by him to be more ancient? A.nd there, as I have observed, those translators' rend~.r the word rJt:T~,

Nacluuh, by oqJ's; m-pe1lt; and the New TestQ.mont \ c

Digitized by Google

" 84

, ,

writers have also chosen the word o~'G, serpent, to ' signify the ancient ser~nt 1fCr~ Nackask. I have before noticed the great absurdity of supposing that the septuagint, by rendering 1fCr~ N acluuk, by o~'S oplzis, serpent, did not make use of a proper word;

,this objection has no founda~ion in truth. Neither have the New Testament writers erred in following the septuagint in the adoption of this word to signHr tdIJ~ N acluuk i for we certainly are under the neces­sity of allowing, that Christ and the A postles under­stood the true meaning of tdIJ~ Nackask. If this be granted, then it amounts to the same, whether the New Testament writers followed the septuagint or the Hebrew; for as o~'s oplzis, is used by them to mean 0 o~'s 0 apxa,os, ° XaAG'Jp-.1I0S .d"l,~OAOS, that old serpent, called tke de'lJil and salmf, I al~uding to the serpent in Paradise: it certainly is a convincing proof that tdC'~ N acluuk, was originally understood by. them to mean a. serpent: and consequently it is futile to suppo~, that a root in Arabic which has but a very remote meaning, should ~'cast any light on the­subject,"

This writer labors much to show, that the Arabic. language'is to be resorted to when we are at a'loss ,

, to determine any word in Hebrew; he says, " because the deficient roots in the Hebrew are to be sought

I Rev. xii. 9.

Digitized by Google

85

for in the Arabic,'* this' would be ,8. ~ery dangerous _plinciple to act upon. For ins~nce, suppose a person who understood a little Arabic, and had but a trifling knowledge of the' elements of the Hebrew, but meeting with words ill" that language, the meaning of which he could not ascertain, were to incorporate "'ith' -the Hebrew' such words from the Arabic as he thought would elucidate any passage; we 'might very soon have the Bible crowded with Arabic words, and meanings from th9 Arabic. " Were the Hebrew a complete language," says this gentleman. Is it pos-

, sible that an expression of this nature can come from' any on~ that pretends to understand th~ Hebrew language? the Hebrew is so complete a language, that there is not any necessity for us'to seek in the Arabic, or in any other lan~uage, for what he ,is pleased to 'Call "defective roots in Hebrew." The Hebrew is so complete a language, that I believe it'is allowed , by those who understand it, to he the most complete and, comprehensive language in the world. The English language is capable ef enabling us to express

. our thoughts with as much· elegance, power, and precision, as any of the European languages; but it certainly is not possible in the English language to

clothe our ideas in so rich a dress, attended with IUch energy of expression, strikiug imagery, sublimity~ and simplicity in all its variety of applicati~n, as' is to be done in the Hebrew: no one learned in Hebrew can be at a loss to expres"'any ,.c:tion, or, to

Digitized by Google

describe. any idea, which the mind is capable of. concelvmg. That simple copy of nature, the history of Joseph and his brethren, even as it is \n the translation, canno~ be read without touching in the

, moSt sensible manner the soul of those feelings, "hich dignify human naturer it is the finest picture

I

• I of embodied affection that was ever dra!n in ,any . language: but in the origiual, it is a~m08t affection speaking in a v isible form. The picture of the horse­in Job, where every nerve is repres~nted as being alive, was never equalled by the finest poets; nor have the sublime productions of David, and Isaiah,

\

according to the opinion of the most learned oriental scholars, oeenequalled by the best writers in' any age. But in order to establish it. as a rule, .when we observe any word in Hebrew for wbich no root .can be found, (which is impossible) that we may find these deficient roots in the Arabic, he says, "If a mall meet with an English word, which he cannot find in an wvple concordance or' dictionary of the Bible, he must of course seek for that w~'d in a gene­ral English dictionary.. In like m~t>J', if a particu­lar form of a word in Hebrew occurs, that ,Cl;1DIlOt be t~ced to a root in the Hebrew Bible, it is expedient, it is pertectly lawful,and often indispensably necessary, to seek the deficient toot in the Arabic.," . This, as is observed above, would be a very «langeraus exPedient, because every wri~, who 11l~s mape a greater pl:Qgress. 10 8C9,uh'iliL a ~nQw~edg«t of aqy _. of tb.e. ealtem,

Digitized by Google

87

languages than he has of the Hebrew, no\ having acquainted himself with the meaning of certain words,. may contend in like manner, that 8uch or such a

.. language with which he is more familiar, must be , resorted to in order to find the root which appears to him to be deficient in the Hebrew. . So that the Coptic, the Ethiopic, and even an the languages of the east, may on this principle be called in to aid us in getting a knowledge of the will of God; as revealed to man .

. Dr. Clarke is nOt williag to commit himself by saying, that the Hebrew was derived from the Arabic, though he says, there are great authoritie~ on both sides;' he tells us a great truth, vit.·" either' the ·Arabic was derived from the Hebrew, or the Hebrew.' from the Arabic." One could hardlj'suppose tlmt such a wild notion could ever have been entertained: by anyone acquainted either with profane or sacre4 liistory. The Jews, from the di!persion to' the, present ,day, remain a people; and the He~ is a distinct language, in. which the Jews' write Ilnd converse. ' So fltt the Hebrew is a living. language, though the Jews are in a state of non-cxist;. enre as a nation;. But the Hebrew is no more lost than it was during their captivity. in Baby­lon. Almost all the aneient profane writers give testimony to the priority and descent of the Hebrew, lRIlguage. It appears that it· was the language

Digitized by Google

of ancient Egypt, whE'.Il the sons of J aeol>. went there; the natives spo~~ it, and when they caRie toJos~ph, they were ~so understood: for h.

. does not "ppear that he spoke to them by an inter., preter. The verb 10 speak dGes not occur in the ariginal, neither does M~t' Meelit&, mean "an inter­preter." Now when there are living testimonies in all nations, which confirm the' antiquity ~d descent of this language, in regular historical successio~, as' co~tained in the Bible, which reaches far beyqnd the· history ()f any nation; it is wonderful that 'a suppo­sition ef this nature could sugge!!~ itself to so illtelli­g8hta man.'

. This writer continues. " If, for example, we· meet with·a terin'.in our ancient English language, the meilining of which we find difficult to 'ascertain; com~ moo sense teaches us that we should seek for it in the: Anglo-Saxon, fr~which our 'language springs; no person disputes; the legitimacy' of. this measure." Thism . a:dmitted, as far ~ it is applicable to the English which springs . from- the Anglo-Saxon; ~d: from other languages; but this reasoning cannot be allowed as applicable to the Hebrew. The, same "common sense teaches us that" as the Hebrew did not spring fro~ aoy other language, no

. other can be, resorted to' fo.r anelu.cidation of tWa primreval language, whose .very root is in nature.'

. It w~uld' be like examining the hl1i~che8 of a tr~ tQ find some~ui>pose~ ~efect in the root~ -'

~i9itized by Google

59

It must appear evident, that no comparison can be made as to the infinitude of expression between the Hebrew language, whith has thirteen vowels for the variation of sense, and the certainty of application; near fifty. pauses, for giving force to words and sentences, marking rapidity, simDness, graoity, love, anger, and the various passions by which they are to be delivered: and the Arabic, which has properly

"but tI1Jo vowel~. For the vowels Fatha, and Casra, are the same, which are only known to differ in pronunciation, by being placed above or under the • consonant; and the vowel Dammtl, which forms ~ diptbong 011: yet did the Arabians, 'with this unmu­sical two-stringed, ding-dong l~guage, sounding like ha, bou, communicate their ideas in a simi-, larity of sound. But tile Hebrew, on account of its number of vowels, necessarily becomes, when rightly pronounced, one of the most musical, as it is, one of the most comprehensive, of all languages. And yet we are told by tins writer, that " the Arabic is the most comprehensive language in 'the. world." From these considerations it will also appear, that this well-meaning writer should not have been so . hasty in his conclusion, where he says, " the whole of the Hebrew language is lost,"except what is in the Bible." He has not supported this assertion by any proo£ Does not this gentleman know that -the Hebrew is no m~re lost than the Arabic? that pure Arabic is no more spoken either in Arabia

Digitiz<l.d by Google

40

OF 1:urkey, than ~e pure Hebrew is ~mong the Jews ........ that the language of these countries is a kind qI

Lingua Franca, a mixture of the languages of other nations with Arabic-that the Koran, which is writ­tell in pure Arabic, is esteemed to be the holy language of the Turks and -Arabs, as the Hebrew is of the Jews and Christians? and does he not .know that the Hebrew writers are- far more numerous, and their writings, now extant, far more voluminous, than those of the ancient Greeks and Roman~? how ~hell can it be said that the Hehrew language is lost, except w hat is in the Bible? .

But" adJIlitting this were so, that cc the. whole of the Hebrew language were lost, except what is in the' Bible,," no persoll having a conception of the spirit, idiom, or exclusive properties of the Hebrew, could make the following 9bservation: " As the English Bible d~es not contain the whole of the English language; so. the Hebrew Bible does not- contain the whole of the Hebrew language." .There is a degree of plausibility in this remark, I DlUS~ acknowledge, but.such r<:asoning is ~uperficial; it argues but a scanty knowledge even of .the rudi­ments of the language, and will not apply to the case before us. .

It is impossible for, a comparison to be .made be~ween tJ.le' Hebrew and any language, when it is

Digitized by Google

41

lmOWll that. 'a Hebrew word difl'eringin form, tennination, and orthop'aphical mYler, is capable of such variation as to meaning. ~nd application, that it would supply sufficient words to fill an octavo page ~ -the English, or in any of the European languages. The Hebrew, as it stands in the Bible, is the language of nature in all her variety of ideal conception, which is capable of such an infinitude. of expression, as to supply words that would stock a moderate library in any of' th~ modem languages. This is sufficiently known to the learned Hebraist; abundance of examples might be given, but this is enough for tHe present.

By applying to the Arabic for an illustration of the Hebrew language, this writer supposes that either the Arabic was the original language, or that the Hebrew is de~tive. This error of supposing the Arabic to have been, more ancient than the Hebrew, is not

. new; others have entertained a similar opinion, as he informs us; but then the cause has originated in not having a sufficie~t knowledge ,of the Hebrew, which has been so ,neglected among the learned, that it has not been made Q. necessary part of collegiate. education. It is a ~ere delusion to attempt, through the cog,nate ianguages, or dialects, to elucidate the

. IIebrew, from whence these languages had their origin; as well may we attempt to elucidate pure English by a quotation from the Lancashire or York-

I

. /

,

.. :> DiQitizedbyGoogle

4!

shire, dialects. . The learned Pococ,ke, who waS allowed to be the best Arabie scholar that ever

I

Europe produced, and who, on account of his know. ledge of that language, was admitted to read the ehoice 'manuscripts in the Emperor's' library at Constantinople, candidly says," that he never could get any information from the Arabic, which would enable him to elucidate any part of the sacred scrip­tures.

We may \ perhaps be told that Moses Was the, writer, that the Arabic language was known to him~ and therefore he might mean that rDI;~ N ackask, and ~, akkanas, i. e. the monkey, were the same, and that the former might be derived from the latter; .but this C3nnot be admitted. It would be more plausibla to attempt to prove that:l~ .Ab, fatker, was derived from the Arabic ,,:,' A,.b,/ather-:l, Raah, God, from yt, RaaIJ, God--r::Jr'J H fl'IIIr, kot, from r:' Ham, hot -" Rad,great, to subdue, from JJ,J Bad, great-or M.;)? Kara, to call, from!1i Kara, " to call, or collect together;" which, with grea't numbers of words in the' Arabic, are only Hebrew words in Arabic letters j' than to assert that fLItY~ N ackask is derived £tom, has the same me~ing, or ~'is similar" to U""l,b klumas, becaus~ this word in Arahic means the Devil. This' method of proving the relation .af one word to ano­ther" is what we may caU, in a familiar phrase, ftJr.:

fetched. . .

Di9itize~ by Google

43

. It would be altogether unnecessary, and perhaps impossible, to show, a~ what period of the world the Arabic language took its rise. The only <Jata. ~g have to guide us through the mazes of antiquity, is, when what is called the confusion of·tongues took place; but it is absolutely ne<.'essary for us to know, that prior to this epoch there was but one language, and that this was the Hebrew.

The wFiter· of this cotnment does 110t seem to have attended sufficiently to this part of the history, for it is expressly said in the lOth chapter, and 11 th verSe of Genesis, two thousand years after the fall, and • beginning 'If ',is kingdom waS Babel; this was at the commencement of the Babylonish or ChaJdean empire, and the first verse of the next chapter says, and the. 'W/J,ole earth was Q{ One language and Q/' one lfjJeech. This. tme language and one speech, was the· ancient ChoJdean Hebrew, so named from Eber, the great grandson of Shem, in whose days the earth was divided. That is; the 'Whole' EARTH which fDll8 qfone language, and Q{ one speech, was divided, or sepa;' rated into distinct patriarchal governments; for so the word n~?rt~ Niphilegailk, signifies. Eber being the supreme patriarchal head at the time, when these divisions'of the land among the numerous descendants of N oab took place; the language w~ stiled after .him, Heb~w;· which descended in a direct line to.

Digitized by Google

Abraham, 81ld from him to Moses. When Abraham left U r, of the Chaldees, he spoke the ChaJdean language, and was understood by ~he people, f!£ Canaan and Egypt; consequently, the ChaJdee ~ust have been the. language' of Canaan and

. Egypt, at the titBe . of Abraham. Notwithstan~­ing, it is said in the translation, that Joseph spake to them by an interpr~ter, the word Y'~f? _Meelits, does not mean an interpreter, as will be shown in the CLASSICAL JOUllNAL, to which I refer the reader. Now, . unless this commentator can prove, that this' one language and one speech,' was the Arabic, lellas not any authority whatever for supposing that­~~ N achas', is derived from the Arabic; which he must suppose,' if there were ,: a root 'in that language very ~early sinlilar to that in the text, which casts light on the. subject;" nor that any word in that langnage Casts light . on the subject. But we' fiud that this one knguage and one speec1t, which was at the .' time of the building of Babel, the universal,

. the only ,language; Was the Bab!Jloniskw CAa1defJ'!l Hebrew, which as abmeJ took its uame from Eber; and descended pure from the begin~ ning of the kingdom of Babel,. at the time of Cush, U1e grandson of N ORb; and continued to the t}Ild of that monarchy. Fr&n which it 'is . unde­niably evident, that the Hebrew was the langtlage spoken by. N oih, ~nd the Aptediluvian patriarch$;

Digitized by Google

eonsequently that, in which God spake to Adam, befQrethe Arabic, or any other language was in existence.

This writer says, . that " a root in the Arabic language, very nearly similar to that in the text, seems to cast considerable light on the subject.'" -1 hope we shall find in the course of this inquiry, that we want no light from the sitnil81ity of roots in any· language, to cast light on this, or any other passage I

of the sacred writ. Were this the case, it certainly could not he applied here, f~r this writer cannot mean that ~ Cka1llU, is similar to wr;r~ N achash; as to the literal fonn of the word, there'is oot the least similarity between them: And on the other hand, if be supposes that QC:lcause '-""'~ kkaniJ.s, from ~ ClUma.f, 'vhich signifies a species of the ap~ genus, is a.pplie? by the Arabians to ~an the Devil, that there 'is a'

similarity between this root and ~~ N ackas//., because . of'~ ophis, from fDtT~ N ac/lash, is used to mean figura- -

tively 0 o<p,~ 0 a.px.a.~OG, 0 xa."1I.oUP.!IIOS .,d,a.{30"1l.oG. that old le'l'fJenI eke Dl!vu. it adds no force to pis reasoning; it is only calling the Devil by the name of an ape, and does Dot prove that a monkey tempted Eve. The Devii is called in the Rabbinnical writings ~ m7!n MALECH HAM~IOUTH, the angel Q/' death, y", -'1' J EZE.R HA RANG, the corrupt nature. RAAeu' HATTHUKA, the U'IlClean spir#-HESHER, the O~ HAItItELEF, the Dog-, CHAMOR, an ASI-SEfR

Digitized by Google

46

Iss III, a Goat. SAREF, MEAsEr, tke fiery .flying : serpent. But I no where find in the writings of the Rabbies, either ancient or modern, that he is called. by the name of a IIONKEY. 'Now,- if the name of the Devil in Arabic, were derived from that of' a monkey, it certainly does not pr6ve that a mtmkeg ,

was the agent that brQught about the fall of man, allY more than being called by the name of an Oz, a Dog, a Goat, or an Ass, in Hebrew, proves that any one of these animals was employed to bring about this woeful b~siness. '

Had this novel writer made choice of any of the above animals to have tempted Eve, as an Ox, a Dog, a Goat: or an Ass; he would at any rate have had the authority of these ancient Rabbies, to have supported him in asserting, that the Devil was called by such a name, which is not the' case in any of these writings. (He might, certainly, with far greater propriety, conclude that ocp,s, a serpent. or ~pa.xw~, a • dragun., which a~e used by the Septuagint, and the New Testament writers, to mean that old serpenitlu: Devil. we~' the animals that brought about the fall of roan, from what we learn concerning the subtiltyof those creatures. In the sense he has given, every language oil earth, in which is a' word tha~ 'means, the, lJe'Oil, is similar to tUIJ~ N ackask; in the text; but, neverth.eless, like the Arabic word ~ Ckanas, no. light is cast on the subject" on this account. . I believe, '.

Di~itized by Google

47 - .. I

if D~. Clarke recollects himself, he will find that ;ti /caaz, is the Arabic name (or the Devil.

: But if this root in Arabic, which this writer. wishes to exchange I for fLiC'~ N acfzash, were "very nearly similar to that in the" text," then there would be no necessity for going to the Arauic, in ()rder to illustrate it. I ~ould ask, if he can point out any difference between TLt'~ . N achash, and ~'Clu1:nas1 jf ~

" c~, ~eans, to seduce, to lie hid; woa Qackaih, means to deeeive, enchant, or fascinate; and so ii applied to the serpent, because of this peculiar property wh~ch it possesses. S,,:btile observation from selfish motives. See, 1 Kings, 20 .. 3:3. ~td!J~~ Yena­chashou, now tke men did diligently obserbe, i. e. to seduce, or flatter Ahab, for when they saw. that Aha.b spoke favorably of Ben-hada~, though he was the great enemy of the king of Israel, they said, thy brother Ben-hfldad. The same occurs, Gen. so. 27. '~~~ Nickashthi, I ko:oe learned b!J e.rperience, which

. should be rendered, I kavejlattered, or deceived, but the Lord hath blessed mefdr thy sake. That this was­

Jacob's true meaning, is obvious: after the very next tlial, Laban deceives him again; for J acob ~ys, yOW' " father hath deceived me, and changed my 'Wages these, ten times. To enchant, 2 Kings. 21. 6., Tlirm Yeni­cheesh, and enchantmelltl, 2" Chron. as. 6. -TlitT~l Yenicheesh,

• Digitized by Google

48

To divine,Gen. 44. s. Tdm Nacheek, kedivinelA. Ano­ther form of ~e word Tdr;T~ N achask, signifies brass, the -metal in an unmanufactured -state-.n~~~ Banne-. cllCshet, 'in Brass, 1 Kings, 7. 14.-2 Chron. 2.- 14.­Exod. 31.4.-Joshua, 22.- 8.-1 Chron. 22. 14:­when it signifies brass in a manufactured state, ~t is thus written '~~~ Nechusktlii, Lam. 3. 7. my ckain-. ~~~ N echusktham, tke brass Q/' them, 2 Kings, 25. 13.-Jer. 52. J7.-te''P\'~ Neclausktlum, i. e. a piece l!f brass-J udges, 16. 21.

- But when a living serpent is si!:.tt1ified, th~ word-is thus written TdrJ~ Nacluzsk, Gen. 3. 1.-49. 17.­Job, 26. 13 . .....;Psalm, ,;8-. 4.-Numb. 21. '9. rdnl

. • ... TT

N ackash, a serpent had- bitten.

Thus do these branches of the root rhJ~ Nackask, ~ accordingly as they are applicable to things signi.

'Ded. and are always written in conformity to ,~he idea intended to be given, as to deceive, seduce, observe di'UgentI,J, enciumt, di'Vine: brass unmanrifactrired, and brass in a ~!ffactured -state; which words, are ~l as distinctly different frQm each other, as the tl)ings they represent. But unless they, \Vh~ attel.!tpt to interpret' th~ Heprew scriptures, attend to the­orthography of the language, written with the true oriental vowels, which some, for want Of knowing' better, caU points, they will find it altogether impol-

.• ibl~ to determine the "true sense of scripture. '

Digitized by Google

49. . . Dr. Clarke bas given us a proof of the truth dfthia·

ti'bservatioii; he says; "We have already seen, that the New Testament writers have borrowed the won\ from the 8ep~oini, arid that the SeptUagint them­~lves rise it in a vast valiety and latitude of meaning; ibld surely the dtb:tzn..dUiang 'intmkey is as likely to be

~

. the animal in question, as ttft'~. Naeluu". and of" bJikis. are likely to mean at once a snake, . a croco­dile, a "ypopoltimuS, jiJrnicatlon, a chain, a # Q/ fttter.; a piece td' brus, a pide fd'steel, 8' cmguror, for we Lave seen above, that ,n these are acceptations of the original word." By the words, "we have seen that the New Testament writers have borrowed the word from the Sepb,lagint," we' mbst Conclude it to be the opinion of this writer, that (on account of this ~certain mode of borrnwing words at random, with which he Charges the New Testament. writers) the New Testament is the work of man, and not inspire4 by the spirit of God.·· Here is a proof also, that he , has not attended to the orthography of the language. whicb alone, as in all other langulloaes, determines the true meaning and application of words. For as the most learned Septuagint have used this word, "in a vast variety and latitude of meaning," it is a proof that they were perfect masters of the Greek language, when they gave the translation of the Hebrewm that toogye~ For the reason why tbey used "of.s ~ . in.a vast variety and latitude of meaning," was u,. , a)oformity I:D. the .ortbograpbjca1 .... ~9IJ. oi _

D

,. Digitized by Google

..

50

Hebrew, as above, but which appears to have heed neglected by. this writer, and which accounts for this,. and other serious mistakes in his voluminous

comments.

,

. Ftom which it is plain, that the New Testament writers were right,· had they borrowed ~e word frout the Septuagint: and as Dr. Clarke must allow that the New Testament writers were inspired: he must also ackno~ledge, that this borrf1Wed'tlX1ra oql.s DjJlzis, a serpent, is the true mea~ng of tm:'~ N «hash, because" it is cOllfirmed by Christ aI1d the A postJes-

" Such a creature," continues Dt·. Clarke, "answers to every part of the description in the text." But I think, from these, and the following observations, it will be acknowledged,. that the· ouro,n.qutang rnonke!h does not answer to any part of the description in the text whatever.' The text says, tlum art cursed aIxJoc all cattle, . and abmJe every beast f!f Ikefield, upon lIzy hell!! shalt tkou go, and dust shalt tIwu cat till the day, f!f tk!ll:ife. .And I 'Will put enmity between tkce and the 'WWItln, and betu'een th§ leed and her seed.. But the monkey is not cursed above aU cattle, and above every beast of the field. A moment~ reflection will 'Convince "any wtiter, that this ·cannot in any sh&pe' be applied t'o the. monkey j so far is. the monlte!J from, being cursed above allca!tle,.4U ~ ~1'!1 beast tf' the :fold, . that .. we find this. animal is

Digitized by Google

~1

blessed above m~st of the beasts of the field, in many things, and in others, he is not inferior ~o any.

Followin~ the Doctor on the ground of the letter, as applied to the munkey, we find that this animal accomplished the bu::!iness of the fall of man; and, ~erefore, o~ that account, is c~rsed above every ~east of the field. But we are not to affirm without scriptu~e authority, that the serpent walked erect, or because it is ab!!urd, to suppose this, that we are to change the !!erpent for a munkey. Neither are we authorized to say, that because the munkey had done this, all the rest were to be cursed, being innocent. But to be serious, this writer must necessarily prove, that the munkey is. cursed· above all the beasts W the

field, which is altogether impossible for him to do, 'before he can lay. any claim to it, as ~eing the agent in the fall of man.

Th~ second judgment on the animal is, on thy belly thou shalt go. This writer supp.oses, from the expres­sion, ON 'l'HY B~LLY TH0U SHALT .GO, whatever it was that tempted. Eve, it must necessarily have walked erect. He is not singular as to this opinion,· and being sensible that the serpent could not walk on its tail, he has endeavoureclto get rid of this objection, by introducing a monkey. But by getting rid of' one . difficulty, he gets into a worse, for, as is proveft .• . above, if the munlcey were to walk constantly on ., all

/

Digitized by Google

fours," It could not with any degree ot truth, be said that it goes on its belly, any more than the whole race of quadrupeds, which go on " all fours." And

. he is under the necessity of pro~ng also, that the monkey eats dust as food all 1M days f!f Ida life i and that it accomplished the business of the fall of man without the interference of Satan, for it is not said, and tIt.e Lord God laid unto Satan, but, expressly, tmd t1IeLord God said unto tke SERPENT, because 1'HOU luut done tIzis j all which is impossible for him to do. Therefore so far the monkey does not answer to this part of the description· in the text, as he does 110t go on his belly, or with his belly touching the ground, but walks upright, and sometimes to suit his own convenience, on " all fours," like other quadrupeds.

There is. a word in the original of this passage, the true meaming of which has escaped the notice of this writer, and which has not, when truly rendered, the exact meaning it has in the translation, this is the

, "'ord 'flh~ r;eclwnke, rendered bell!J. For the satis-. faction of the' reader, 1 believe, I have examined aU ·the passages in which . the words occur, that mean the belly. Numb. ch. 5. !i. ~~h. 25. 8. Deut.

. is. 11. 53. i=f.o~i?:-Judges, S. 21. ~~~r. 2i • . .,.,.. S. 12.-1 Kings, 7. iO~udges, IS. 2. S5. 19.,

17.-eh. iO. IS. 20. iB.~h. 32. 18, 19.-ch. 40. l6. Psalm, 17. 14.-2i.IO.-31.9.-5S. S • .;....13! •.

Digitized by Google

U. Provo 13. 25.-ch.)8~ 8. 20.-ch. iO.,i7. 30. ~i. I8.~. ~6. ~~. Cantic. 5. 14. l'W-Jollah, 1· 17.-eh. 2. 1. Dan. 2. S2.Cantic. 7. 2. '!J~~ Isaiah, .6. S. Jer. 1. 5. Ezek. S. 's" Jonah, 2.2. Mic. 6. 7. Hab. 3. 16. Jer. 51. 34. 'iv,?-In all these passages, which are used to signify the belljJ, we

never meet with the word '!T.l"~ Gechonke. I believe, it is only to be found in one place in, the Bible, besid~s the above in Genesis, viz. Lev. 11. 42. what-3oet'e1' goetk upon ti,e bellg, which though it is not ~ltogether contrary to the sense of the passage, yet this branch of the root calls for a different mode of expression. I shall, therefore, say a few words oil this verse, wbich will lead us to the true underst&.Iid~ ing and application of the above word in Genesis. 1h~ Gechon, is a very ancient word, used among the Chaldeans before the language obtained the title 01 Hebrew; it was in use from the beginning to the going forth of the 'children of Israel, but when they were established in the land of C~aan, it was, discon-:' tinued by the sacred writers, having become too fami. liar in their verbal communications, by being quoted and applied in a way of sensual levity; a(Jd the noun ,;n~i?lZ: AkalltuLtkoun, was adopted, which means perverse, 'UJrong, cro(Jked. Hab. 1. 4., ~ rvrtJJ¥, the .Septuaginto"FP.P.&~q~" and the V ulg,ate F­Ismah, 27. 1. 1V1~ tt.t'i crooked ~t, Job, 26. 1~. the Septua.Wnt tTxo).GW, V ul~ate IDrtu.osutn. 1t ~means , to bow, bend, prostrate, ,incli'(le ~ ~Iion, C1'fI(JketL

~ I

Digitized by Google

As a substantive, inc,inatlon, it is used in this sensa by the Rabhies. and uy Targumists, 'rI!~\ buw~d. I ~.:lt1~. th~ are bent. & ~~, Mor~{ cai did nol

illemselvesl4 b07!J do~. s

It means one who is fond of ind~lgil1g the appetite of kifl(t~ to e~cess, the appetite, one

who has a natural inclinati~n to indulge 11'1 sensuality~ tUust be ev'ident t~ every He~raist, tl;at the won) 1'!n~

Geclw,un, cannot be applied to mean'~ the belly j '1~~~ A llouplt', instrucrion, comes from I:)~~ A lleeph, tu teach, dJ.-guide; so lin! Gechan, inclination, propensity, come~

Gachee~, to . in~lin~, 'to I~ust cxter~ nal inordinate concupisccncfs of the flesh_ The above observatio~s be by learned, prove that the word tln~ Geclzon, should be rendered as it is

. . .. .,.".... .. " ,

th~ Jewish wrilers~ w~o at that must > have perfectly ,understood t~ue meaning. thus, t~

bend, inclinc., des! 'e, which, as it has respe~t t'? the indulgence of sensual pleasure, is properly ,

signify the disordcrlygratificati~n of tl:~at internal

desir~, by cOInpa~in& it tha~ most sen~ual a~i~a~, ~he serpent:

l now com~ to ap'ply this to the p~H;~age b,efore us., ,?'lJ '.1h~ 1'! rendered, on belly thou shylt go..

''!J?'J] , Theeleek~ literal~y, ,thou 'U'ilt go or pursue, Gen. , '4. ,39. Psalm, 97. "48. the clause

" i..: • . , , • .•

I

~ Targuln, 1 18. • Targ. Psalm, ~O. ~ Jbid. Esth 3~ 2. .' Ibid • , Ibid. Psalm. 45. 6.

•

, will then truly read consistently 'with ·the understand·

ing of the original writer, as confirmed in the \Vritin~ .

of the learned Doctors aIJlOng the', Jews, to the time

of their dispersion, qfIer t1z!J desire thou 'Wilt follow, . or agreeahly to English syntax, thou 'Wiltfollow qfter ,

th!Jinolinaticm. Now, as it appears that ~~Nachash was a serpent, and not a monkey, and that the serpent goes as it 'did from the beginning, the words, 00 t/1!J /Jelly 8halt thou. go, could not be intended as a curl:ie

on that animal; and as they could not be applied to

the monkey, because he does not go on his belly'any

more ~an the rest of the quadrupedlt, ,t,!ley must have

been, used by those p~imreval people ~o signify some. Wng to which they could be applied. • , .

. ,

The third sentence on this animal is, Diest shalt thou eat all the days Qf thy life; but this assertion

concerning the 0UTtZ?1 outang mookey, does npt answer -to this part of the description in the text, "tor he 41005 not eat dust," or live upon dust; it is universally

known that he-lives upQn vegetables and truits~ .t\nd it is also worthy of remark, that this creature is rather mee ill the choice of his food, for he picks out \What is­good, an~ throws the bad away. It m'QSt be allowe4

that there, is not any thing nutritive in dust, ~t were aD animal tp ~t the dust as food, it, wou'ItJ, instead

of supporting life, lie as an inel't m,$S$ ill the stolllaeb~ and soon produce death. It is a1sQ cQnfifl;n~ by n"tQralis~ that he will DOt eat the dust a~ all an, l)1O(e

Digitized by Google

than other creatures, therefore this cannot ~ Fondt . dered as a curse -..boye any o~her lJcast or fepP.Ie J ~ it might, wiJh m~~ propriety, he ~pplierl tq JDOle~, wonps, f!,ud Inany otber crea~qres th~t bu~ in the ear~, so !Qat the mqpke!! aQsw~rs tp n() ~ne of these essen~i~s. N either doe~ ~e wonkey gathe, the fruit from the groupd, , H which " the f~on," says this writer, .~ that ~hey lH'e ~j~f~ly qbliged tq eat dust," for they ~p'uJlt ~e tr-ees, ~d ~ere ~ anc! ~~ ~e fruit. ».a4 Jhi~ lJeeo $q~ c~~, fha~ t~ \Vere literally oblig~d to ea~ fhe rll,1st, be~a118e it ~igh~ adhere ~o d,le fruit, WpCIl i~ f~1J qpon the 8rQPpd, all . pther creatures that gather ~he fruit fooJP the groun4 ~

Plight also ~ s~4 W etl~ ~~e qus~ ~ welJ ~ ~~ PloJlkey,

But th.a au~oJT says, H h~ (Ule Il1Pnlsey) was

endued lV'~ ~l~ ~fl; of speech, for 11 conve..satipn ie ,here ~l~ be~ween him and ~~ wowan," alld hence he infer" tpat the rnonke,y was q. QlO~ J~ely ~re ... ~ .~ Sp~8~ ~hl¥l ~he ~erpent. It dpes pot folloW, ~at because " ~ conversatiop is ~l~~ between t~ ~, and $e ",~map," ~at elther the ~, or the fM1'~ c,quld Ip~~. In ~r~ef ~o refute i~i8 ~$er" tion,we 1D1lS~ sp'ifer ~e scrip~ure t9 pr9du~ tll~ ( like exaqtples, and :yet if must be allO\~ed ~at $.ucl\ ~reature~ 4id p~ por were ever supposed tp haye ~ad ~he gif~ ~f ~peec~. He forgebJ ~a~ ~ $acreq "'liters colDmunica,t~· informBqon weet!-bly to. ~~

Digitized by Google

$1 ~stoo,l 'Qf the East, by giving language toanimaIs, Q

well 113 language aha action to inanimate nature. .J ub, 12. 7. But ask MTlJ the be,:"", and they skall 1e«k t1l,6; and.the futJ)/s qf the air, and tkey sluzlll811 .thee~Or .,ak to the earth, and it shall teack tna, pnd ~ ~$ qfthe lea shaP declare Uf!JO thee. Here :we are told. that the beas~, the fowls, and the fishes, , were a1pabl~ ~f spe~ng,of giving answers, ~d were

. ~so ,aid to be~able of~a~hing man: nay, the earth itself ~ sai4 ~ ha.,ve the power of teachiQg when asked so. to dQ. But no II1BD on reflectioQ. will say Jhat t4;s is" a relation Qf a fact capl;l.hle of a satis .. factory expl~tion," , I;I.ccording to the letter.

It is general1y allow~d by those best capable ~ Judging, yiz. those who haft' attended to the anatomy ,~f thjs ~ture, ~at according to the constructi~n of his qrgalJS, t~e is farther removed frolll the power c6 speech t4ao any other quadruped. . On being . jnformed ~at an ingenious and learned gentleman, ·Mr. M,aSol) Good, in some lectures he had deliyered "t the Surry Il1~titution, had introdu~d ~is. 8ubj~ ~d ~ad giveq It variety of satjsfllctory proof, that ~. creature pever waS intended by the 'Creator to ~ulate; I applied to him, ~nd he kindly afforded ~ ~ foll~wing ~fQrm,a~on;

f' rl~fJ.t t~e natural I!mgnage of the ~, Dot:with­.~djng t4~ gelle~ ~blance of his organs to

Digitized by Google

58

those of man, appears to ~e more confined than that" of other quadrupeds. Buifon, Danbentez, and other naturalists, and o\{ery comp~~tive anatomist who has accurately examined his vocal organs, has declared him to be physically incapable of artioulatiop, from the peculiarity of a bag, in some species of tho animal single, in othera double, immediately con­nected with the upp~r part of the lar-ynx, and into

\

which the air is driven as it asce~s from the lungs through the trachea, instead of being driven into the glottis, where alone it will acquire an articulate power. From this bag it afterwlU"dai passes inta the mouth by a variety of small apeltul'e$, or ~SiUrea. by which the whole of its force, 8qd consequelltly of ~1:$ oral effect, is lost .. " " ' ,,' .

. This peculiarity of formation appears first to have been noticed by Galen, but for the most correct account of it; we are indebted "to Camper, who in a paper published in the Philosophical Transactions fOf

] 179, minutely desctibes it as it exists in the ouratJ

tlUiImg "fIIIlmkey.

HenCe" the (JI,W4n outaflg monkt?J, though more eapable than any other animal of im~tating the actions of men, is far less capable of imitating his voice, thaD the parrot, or the jack-daw. While he approachts "Dearer to his 'fonn;' he is further removed from ~ speech than any other quadruped.

• . Digitized by Google

This cQmmentator is hard put to it ind(.ed, to make the mtmkey hnswer to the" description given in the tex't,'~ and after all his 'labor, he cannot make it gu "ON .ALL FOURS," He seems to have no con­~eption of the sanctity of scripture! or why the scriptures are called sacred I he reads them 8S an ," historical relation of facts, capable of a satisfactory explanation," on which account he is under the ~ecessity of leaving a great par~ involved in obscurity, Qr tc! use his own words, to " leave ' the. passage ~mong those which are inscrutibJe;" and he tells us, " if it be an allegory, no attempt should be made to ~xplain it." The scriptures contain not only an account of literal things as historically related, but by ~his historical relation the sacred writers conveyed things of a spiritHal nature, ~s is confirmed by the frophets, by Christ, and by the Apostles, This sense, by a relative connection of things chosen from animate and inanimate nature, and applied to the mind of man, ,at the same time that it gave them a most comprehensive view of the knowl~dge of all I

natural things, it ~nculcated the principles of true reli­gion, and constituted the sanctity of scripture, On this ground only the scriptures call be called sacred; ~then\ i,se they would be no more sacred than natural history, or than the hjstory of any country.

~,

The fourth deClaration is, and I '(till put enmity , . '

/Jettreen Ike and Ike 'W011fan. Here, without contio-

Digitized by

..

·' ",ray, we are at issue; there is oat aoy enmity put in -~ pgaj~t the rnonke]J, any PlOre than there is ~st any other hBrolles~ beast; theyare even kept for ~musemeDt by many people. The monkey .xci~s ple~antry, but never indpire. PI with {ear, wherell$ the very figure of a ~erpen' fills us with horro,. 1 appeal to this writer, alld to all ~e world, whether there is not-a deadly enmity planted iQ man against the serpent above every other QllimaJ. How

-then can he say, that the monkey" fUlsWers to every part Qf the d~s(:ription in the te~t?"

I am really ashamed to intrude so much on ~ time of the reader, by at~ending to 'the views of this writer, <,>n a subject too absurd for criticism i but I have, as I promised, fQllowed him on his OWIl

ground, viz. that of the letter. And from what has bee~ said, it must, if conviction be not stifled" _ have i~s due weight iQ convincing him, that' the lerpent is far superior to the monk(JJJ, or any other creature in subtilty, agreeably tp the scripture; and therefore a more proper subject tQ be used by the sacred writers for cOlweying their views, and fol' .impressing the mind with the nature of that prcdomi .. ~an.t sensual principle ill rpen, of which it W~$ the ~ost proper representative in ou~ward nature. 1 bave also shown, that the monktl!J does not " answer

. to any part of the description.m the text. " Yet if we were to.go no farther than ,this ~utWaN -~gure .of U-

Digitized by Goog Ie

61

Itrpent,' m~y might still remain in 11 state Ofuiieet4 tainty respecting this transaction. If nothing mote had been iutended, than a " simple refation 'of histo­nea) facts, capable of a satisfactory explanation," the whole sanctity of scripture would be gone :at once, It would be of little consequence whether it were a .erpt:!li or a mt1II/eey. by which our' first parents fell in such case, only the latter is better mlculated to sharpen the wit of Deists, who are generally disposed to ridicule the scriptures. From wh~ consideration it appears, that it is only contending to change one animal fOr another, and were we to stop among these belkaarly representative figures, we should imitate the, old Egyptians, who quarrelled with each other because they did not worship the same serpent.

Bryant, the learned inquirer into the Mythology of the Heathens, does not appear satisfied With the -definition, which has been given for so manyap concerning this transaction. He thinks there is something still to be attained with regard to the origin of this ancient veneration for the ~erpent; otherwise he would not have said, "It would be anoble tHlder~ taking, and very edifying in its. consequences, if some perSOll would go through with the history of the serpent."· I am of this learned author's opinion; but if we " go through with the history of the serpent,"

1 Bryant, vol. ii. p. 219.

Digitized by Google

o far as i$ neCessary for otir preseilt design, or the , true theOlogical meaning and application, as under .. stood by the primreval people, which is the meaniug of this leamed writeI': it must be done by attending to the scriptures. Neither words, nor roots, pre­served either in Arabic, or in any other language, can be 'of use bere, no information from' ancient writers can be allowed ~ sufficient authority to ascer­tain the true meaning;. Profane customs can only be introduced as a guide to direct us to a rational understanrling of these things, when they agree with the manners of the people in those remote .ages, as re~orded in the Bible. The proof already given of the high veneration which the ancient pagan nations.

, had for the worship of the lertpent, carries that con­nction with it which must prevail on every thinking man'to conclude, that something of a recondite nature Was ,understood by' the original writer in these passages. I shall therefore endeavour to give, in the language and obvious nJeaning of the Bible, ')\'hat appears beyond the possibility of contradiction, to

'-have been the original meaning as ~nderstood by the first race of men. We shall, I trust, have sufficient ·reason. to conclude that they were not so ignorant as Iaas been supposed by Deists, and those who go no farther than the shell of scripture ~ but that they had. far higher views of this' transaction, and yet consjst­ently with what is said concerning this animal, intr~ duced by the sacred writers in the tall of man.

Digitized by Google

,

DfI.· Clarke says. "The whole a~count is either a simple narrative of facts, or it is an allegory." If it be an historical relation, its literal meaning should be "Sought out:. if it be an allegory, no attempt should be made to explain it, as it would require a direct revelation to ascertain the sense in which it should be understood." What! if it be an allegory, is no attempt to be made to explain it? Have we then­arrived at a period when it is asserted that we are not to attempt to explain, or understand the allegori­eal meaning of the scriptures, and that it is impossi­ble to do it without" a direct revelation ?"

,

Are all those humerous allegories, figures, emblems, symbols, or representations, we meet with,which are given for our instruction and edification, involved in such clouds of darkness, that they are not to be understood ?-What should ,ve say of the divine revelator, if he had given his word to man in such an enigmatical way, so obscure and ambiguous, "that no attempt should be made to explain it." Are we

. to reject anY,part of the scripture, under the delusive notion that there is not any explanation to be given concerlring tho~ passages which are allegorical? It is expressly said, that Agar was mount Sinai in Arabic. The apostle says; that the things under the law were to be understood allegorically, Gal. 4. i 1. 24. Tell me, !Ie thattksire to be under tlu: 'la'II1; do!le nol hear 1M law! for it is written, thai ,A.llra1uJm

•

Digitized by Google

, I

"

fU ImJ /taJO soni, 'W1lick thing. tri trn ailcgor!J,.for tizeie Gre Ike tWo Cl1Oe1UJnts, Ike une.frqm, Ike Mount Sinaii. skick gendereth lKmdage 'Whick is Agar. For tkiI .Agar is Mount Sinai in-Arabic.

Weare encouraged in scripture to search; sed lite scriptures, to learn to Underliand the dark 8fI:Jfow, vi. 'Wile, to receive ike instruc:tion lQ'Wisdom. By dark sayings and parables, Solomon evidently refers to the first ages. David does the same., but he informs us, that he had gained a knowledge of the meaning of those dark sayings of old. Psalm 78.2. I 'Will open my mouth in a parahle. I 'lDIil utter dark 8Il!fings/lf old. 49. 9. I";ll open my mouth in dark Mllin,rs upon Ike 1larp. Surely the Psalmist did not mean that he would utter dark sayings of old, which

\ he did not understand, fOl' he addre8ses low and higb, rich and poor, saying, mg,11WUlk skall8plf4k q/ tDisdom. It is written, 'lI1itlwut a parable (allegory, or similitude) spalce he ~t unto tIzem. Now if we IeIl'ch the scriptures for an elucidati~n of these para .. bles, allegories, or similitudes, as we are directed to do, we undoubtedly shall be able to gain a. know­ledge. of their mean,ing. The scriptures alone, with­out . "a direct revelation to ascertain the sense in which they are to be understood," will explain Jhem •

. .u~ the ·.creatures welle to be c~rs.ed em ;accoUnt of

Digitized by Google.

the tranagression of man, either through the serpent or the mtmkey, how on this ground are we to believe that the divine being is a God' of impartial justice, to cur~e the innocent for the. crime of the guilty? Again, were it the Devil that inspired either ilie serpent or the monkey,' where was the necessity for this observation, now the serpent 'Was more subtle than any beast Q/' the field j as in such case' it must have been Satan and not" the serpent that transgressed the divine command. But this is plainly denied in the address to the serpent, viz. dust slzalt tlzou eat all tlu: days Q/' thy life, which certainly could not be applied to Satan, because he is an immortal spirit. This is not a ." simple relation of a literal fact capable of a satisfactory explanation." The curse on the ground of reason, and the justice and wisdom of God, could not be applied to a literal serpent, or a monkey, because, had this been the ease, the creature must have been under the necessity of committing' this crime through the mighty influence of a superior ' po,!er, "'hich could not be resisted. We may be told, that these are some of the dark things of God,

. and that we are not to inquire into what we'cannot comprehend. Thus ignorance is. subsii~ted for piety. To such I answer, these things' are revealed f01" our information, and i there certainly .can be nothing dark or, hidden in what"i&- re~ealed, otherwise it ceases to be a revelation. ' .

. ; •. ,.1

Oigitized by Coogle

Luther complains, that none of the ancient fathers or bishops-, who were men eminent for knowledge and piety, had explained this pusage as it deserved. He says; that the principal articles of the doctrine of the gospel are cootained in the history of the fall ef man. But the ancient fathers and bishops explain.e<l the words, lie IIutllllf'uile thy leead, to refer to Christ. Therefore Luther saw that there was still something, whi~ was not explained concerning the serpent. Sometlung more is to be understood here, says Witsius, than metely restricting this address of the Deity to a beast incapable of reason) and intel" ligent only in its order above other beasts.

The ancient Hebrews, according to the custom of the east, spake and wrote hyperbolically when they .aid; the titiu rvere fortified unto ke~ by which

. nothing more WRS intended than that the walls were so high, that it was impossible to scale them. So that in this sense they were the same in e1fect, as if they bad been built unto heavel;l, had such a thing been po!lsible. This method of' speaking and writing allegorically was so customary in those ancient times among all .the eastem nations, and it ·was so well understood by habitual (:'Ommunication, - that the sacred writings abound with allegory and metaphor. In Judges, ch. ix. when the people of Shechem had made Abime1ech king; Jotham spake to them meta .. phorically, in order to convince them of their follJ

Digitized by Google

and injustice; and informed thtm tbat the trees went forth to choose a king, when a personification is introduced, and the trees converse with eac;h other. Bui this is 'not" a relation of a fact capable of a,

, satisfactory explanation, ", agreeably to the Hteral acceptation of thin~, or ~eeabl l' to the letter; for. it must be a,dmitted that the ~s could not speak, it is contrary to that 'order which God has established in nature. Sampson spake to the enemies of brael in this allegorical way. Nathan came' to David with an allegory; and J 0Iili, king of· Israel, sent a figurative Dlessage to Ahaziah, king of J lJdah. The prophet.Isaiah spake to the people in allegory wheu be said, "'the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid, the young lion and the fatllng together, and a little child shall lead them; the cow and the bear shall feed, the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand to the den of' the cockatrice." Ezekiel spake to ~e ~plein {lllegory, when he informed them that he was shown the unclean beasts pourtrayed upon the wall in the chamber of imagery; which was an allegorical reprQ­~ntation of the abominations of the house of Israel.

This was again confirmed hy divine authority when God condescended to show the apostle all 1IUlIlDel'. of ..aea ·crlllhlre. which descended from heaVeD, ,nat they signified, not ooly ~ the genp}e nati9~

. - ,

Digitized by Google

,

68

but, agreeably to the declaration of the apOstle when he was instructed to know the meaning, he saw that the unclean creatures ·signified the unclean qffections of ma~, which were to be putified by fearing God and 'Wllrking 'righteousness, For it is evident, that by the clean beasts, neither the nation of the Jews, nor the gentile nations were signified, but such : among- the~ as lived in uncleanness, or in unclean affections, and who were to be cleansed from their Blthiness, by redemption and newness of life, or in the apostle's words, 1 perceive that God is no respecter qf persons, but in every nation, be that ftareth God Il1IIl 'WOrketh righteousness, is accepted Q/' kim. 'Ve­. are also told by Rabbinical writers, that the Messiah should speak in metaphors, .which was t1'ue, for when he came, it is said, without a parable spake he not unto them.

The learned Maimonides says, in the preface to his More Novechim, that. " this was the method by which, in ancient times, they instructed the people,

, 'aud .which at that period was well understood by them." N ow if the ancient wise men and poets com­municated knowled~e by figure and metaphor, as' appears, above, and as is also known to us from the

_ writings of that master of figure lEsop; is it not as reasonable to suppOse, that by the serpent's convers-- ~

. ing with Eve, some~ng more is inteDded. to be con- I veyed to posterity, .than that ,which ~ppea~ on the

Digitized by Google

69

face of the. letter; as to conclude that trees . literally held a conversation together 'which of them. should govern the rest.

The literal lDterpretation of. the fi~st part. of Genesis, has·been involved in doubts and difficulties for ages: Celsus~ one of the . first opposers. of the

Gospel, trea~ with $8.tir.ical merrimenl the l~tory,Qf Adam's formation, and of· ~ve rn~e, from- his'rib, of the commands that were given th~m, an~· of tht:; serpent's cunning in being able "to evade·the,effect en those commands. Origen, in ans,,'cr t9 him, ',says, that he does not treat the subject with candor.. but

~ide.s :what he oug4t to .havell\ade kl)O»:n, ~. that all· tJys was to be unperstood in a. figurative sense, not , ,givIng the words, wi;lich would have,~onvinced him that,tbey_ were spok€;n: a'legorica~ j ,Origen also repli~ to C:elsu:s, .. efeni~,him to :the~~,.own, writers, theolpgjQ.ns. Q.Qd !p,.\lilo~H~ers, . ~ho frequently; <;on1mu7 ~i.cated tb,eir dQfJtrine~ .iff: tb.i&. represtmWiy~ style.: '~SttallCe~ ,pc. which.':-\le.,giye~,fronl Hesiod anJi. P.la~J. ~h.ich, .were.: all interpre~d in· a figurative seqse by ~eir, followers, and' concludes by o~s.erving, that;it is WlrCllsonable to deny ~ ,Moses th~~sses~io,n Qf truth",under the veil pf"allegory, whWll was, then ,th~

pmcti~ o~ all the east~m .natio~.1 .' ,

• Cont .. Ct;k~ •• -iv. p.139. ~. ,.... r ~ ". l .••

Digitized by Google

•

,0 'EusebiUI!I' ihforms us, th,at there were two sorts ,of

Jews, the learned and the 'Unlearned: The·unlearned were confined to the literal observance of, ihe"la'W's but the learned were admitted to the contemplation of a'mQre refined· philosophy., That tlle interpreters exPlained to thell,l the:; bgunni.ve,: sense;' which h~ eonnrms, not ~Jllly hy . the 'authority of :Arlatobulus and ,Philo, but, by the constant' practice of that 'strict 'sect' of -the 'Je\vs, the Essenes,: who always"folk!ntEM tbi~ allegorical'inanner'~ expOUnding, whieh"'tl"as'iii the' d~ys er Aristob'ui~$, 500 'years before Christ, called ·aneierit. . ' ; , ; '. : . ";

" ' :; ;'.1 , • ~ I • J t • ~ • ;

. " Philo a. says, ':it isa maruteM! prOOf of ignotance 'ld S'rIPpOse that God -really' was' employed six day!!i~ the prddltCtioh loft things. '~'ji !And· "Origen" . says;' ; "wliat ' ratiotialoo w11t, believe," ~hftt the 'ntst,::secdnd; atid third' flays;' lahd'1he' : eveftmg~:a:nd ~rlgs; r>asi!ed "ith~ut' toel stiti;' moon~' arfd' ~tlits'; i !~tid 'the 6r~l ~venJ iog witlibiitihe heavensP who, ~ SiUyas to isJp~i . diat G Jd;. lik~ an hU5bandW~?planied a garden, ana m' it' a' rear; ~tee -of life, ~o; 'be' tiisteH·; by- cOrpOreal teetll'?:nl'"thht'the' knbw\~dge;' af~good'l1nd ';eVir~v~! to ~' obtait1ed: by -eatibg tlie!ft~ tit atiothertt;ee? arid 'as 'to·~ !voice of God~ :walldrlg 'in: the' garden, and Adam hiding,himself'fr8m'ihiin among the trees;

I Euseb. Pnep. Evang. 1. 8. S Vid. Sixt. Senens, Bib.lioth, 1. 5. p. 838. I 0rig.:Pbilo~4. d.li; P:!2' ..

Digitized by Google

no man can -doubt but that tb~ ·things . are to; be ~dersf!Ood.PPrativeW, and not literally, to signify ~_ Qlysteries, or recondite s~es.

. . St. AQ$tiD, in the preface to· bis twelve books of

the li~raj interpretation. of the three first chapters of Genesis, says: No CJJristian will say that they are not ,

to be understood figuratively, when.pe recollects that the Apostle :declares, bow all these .things happened to them in a figure.. Phi\o explained.~l the allego.­ries of the Mosaic law, and in a treatise on the form· alion of the world, aCtoCding to )Joses' account of if;, l~ says, CC. the.se .~ .I)ot t\lbulous tales, sucb as 'lk-e pot$ ,make ~ ()f;' bat ,~ey are figurat,ive descrip­~QP,.II, leadipg. U8 to allegoriqal ,and ~oqdite s~S@, ,. ~hiqb,if any one ratio~ly at1;ends, Ijae,''f~ll s~,tJ;14~ the se~ 'i, ~~ for tbe eJDPleJn . of J~ pIe. . .

-, .... \ : .. :r \' ! ;'"

-.. Xl. l~ed ~, M~onides,' sap, u., ~ ~ h.:T~ ~ the m.ind ~f man,~d.tba$ ~ ~~'Mwunt t.bp.1; .~.~ven ,of the creation, ~e ap.ae.t .prs~ ~om th~ ~ ,Qf M«*.'s, held ~ these thinp ,w;tbe.6,rsJ; ~ters of Genesis Were,.Dot to be ~t.erall1 ~ ,.'~s . .A~aQdrinus,who liv~ in . . ~,~ ~tury, WN ~ of.the.same.opiniop,. . ....

. • I . • • .' I ~ •• :' •. 0':: .::' .:; ;

• In More No"~., jC~. ~ax. p. 26S, 27'.

•

Digitized by Google

In the Rabbinical worK called ZEROR' HAlfMOR,

it is said,- " the adversary, which is the serpent, satan, and corrupt natut't:,' who by his smooth ,~ords,

, smootb~r than oil, mislead our first parents, and entices all' creatures to him, in the pursuit' of sensual deligkt."Also in' NISHMATH CHASIM, I " For Messias 1\-"ill purify the uncleimliness of the serpent, by '\vhich'is signified; that Messias shall destroy the serpent~'''' In:tbe Avodath Hakkodesh, it is written, ' ., The serpenithat is' the Devil is the f!vil p"art."

. , , . !

': -'.

: In the work,' Skene "Luclrotk HflhberitA,' it is'said, ~, The'evil nature, or the c6N'1IIpt natu:t-e (as, in Zeror Hammor) he is Satan; Meleeh' 'kamoth; the angel Of death. And again, in,the Zcror' 'Hammor," because Jacob tarried on his way, 'he' was bit; 'by :tlie: old ser'pe~~: which' is l"'tn ,~, ,ike -Cf»'1.upt nature.';

:"'1

We read in the R~velation, ch. xiii. 11. And 1 'beW~notker rbe~i~'up ~tQrtlee'eart;", 'and lie 'kail' 'tWd /tOms k'ke a tt:nnb, and 1te sPake as a ilrfigon. This is not '~, an h~storical fa~t c~pable of asalist8.ctory explan~tiSn,'~ according to the literal'mettning o~ :th~ words:' ,,\ Smde i ;the 'commencement: -of the ' chrisiiata

,'. . . • • • f ." •

'rera; , "'e 'have never heard of' dragmts aftd '8erpm'fl that' coUld speak. 'This is eVidently anallegorYi btit is' " no attempt to be made to explain it without a

Digitized by Google

~wrevelation?" It lnm:t'be oh\ious to every one, tha't this was applied' to' ,'the apostle, agreeably' to anCient custom, to signify that principle of circum­spection in man, which is capable of putting on a ,cloak of hypocrisy to deceive or ensnare th~se, who are unsuspecting.

, The anci~nt' fathers knew, that the hisiory of this transaction did' not contain " a simple relation of facts capable of a satisfactory explanation," according ~ the', litera~ acceptation of tbings~ This will appear 'evident from ''''hat follows. In the } Sth verse, it ,is said, 'H And I' will' Put' efmiitjJ '~tiveetP ,thee 'IrIZll 'tM W011l41l ... ' That the' whoIe 'is' allegoric~I" is 'plain; of 'What' cdnsequeuce could it be to' man for himto hate a'stfrpent, or forell~nity to b~ put' betVi~en'man ami '~&e 'serpent! or betwecti man and the 'monkey!' fur tbo'ugtll man' naturaliy hates a serpent more 'tl1an' an, Qtlier"ereatUre,' yet this ~uid be Of very'little conse:­quence, as he is, not 'troublOO ,~ith' tI\flt; creatute! This enmity here spuken of, which was to be put .f>ehVeen1ttie seed ,of the serpent"and the 'womal'l,~iU ~ best explfrinedby 'the apost1e~ fur it' cannot· be

. "a: $i~ple- relation' of a fact 'capable of' a salisfactbr; explallation.~' :It, is': asserted :by Ukn, I~S well asbJ . the:aiicient Jewish doCtors; to <m~n\'the'carnal' serlsiuil mibd ;bf man, :~'hreh: is eninity·again<;tGod.'Roln~ ·8~·".. because ike clrHlal .min'd IS enmity 'against God. EJibf$. i. '16, nt. 'hIJtting abolUhed inltisjlesk tke emni,!,

Digitized by Google

....

/ .

74

tiat 1uJ might reconci1s hot" t.tnI!J God in (1M iJodN, b!J the cro~s, kmoing slain Ike en:nUtJi thereby., Anq ,agreea~ly to this style of writing.and speaking, ,in th~ days, of.our Lord, this d~cription of men are adl~ a peration of 'lJiPers, or serpents. But what puts this matter ou~ of the reach of contradiction, and prov~ it to be written agreeably to the' custom of the prime-' ~l people, wbo,introdu~ed,the serpent as a 8y~qol to

rep~SiCntthe ,wisdom, intelligence, subtility, ~r

pcpdellce of..tQ~.;sensual principle inman, is that of ~e apostle, ,~'~or. 1 t. 2. , But I fear, :lest by any mean:s, a,s, 'V1.e serp~~ begl,lilec,i »pc through ~ ~1Ii#!h ,60 YQ1!3' ntinds, shquJd be cU/'"!-pled from tIu: Fnplicill tkql, is in Christ. Thus qoes ,the 8pP$tle

live ,tile,: true qleaniQg of the allegory, $ig~ifyiog, in plain language, that, Eve was ,beguiled,', or sedp.,c.e,4' ~~ ~ .n~~iveI5iDlplicity, by',giying way',tp ~lg~ ~tj0l1' ;o( ~. ~~~, pJ;h~ciple,:: s~iQ~l ~~:, ~~ jen!i1,l~1~~~aJ", by .,.hlch, mlpr~r. indl,llgeDG6!,tbey

~9b:eyed.l~ qivine ~<UD~~~d., . I :, J :'

.. ~ :' "; . .;. . • -', • .' ! . .: : ,J .,' ". :. ( \..; • t

!,i JJ~I~ ,wri~r ~y say, th~y.~W~ cre~ ~ ~thQJlt, ~inl: hP,w then could ;tiu,y be' u.d~,J,ly tb~ f~tnu~l; prirtciPJ.e, to ,trAAtigw~~?, J answer.. ;J;~ is ~ AVij, in t~e ~~nst,tal,pri~le, j A(lam ,:WIt$· ~ wij'h,.,. ~ pri~p!e" or :"Witl,\ a ,power ~f~j~yiJ)g lIl~tlle p~e~~es of the 6~S; : ~ witlll tbosa feMafIJ .~cJ-I~at!qns, without ':which\~, ;W9MktJ\~h~ ~Q-

, t~·.~, ~e :p.~~ 'of ~,~ns~ 4~~Q~ tJlAt-lt'je

Digitized by Google

75

lrirth to! sin in our first parents, and which C08stituteS sin a.t thi8 day.

. ".

" " This ,waS the prohibited fruit of which they were not m 'eat. ,~his was the fear whi('h Paul expressed, viz. 'O',"JOCi" ike 1zJonner, yaur.miRds sJwuld.be conrupted, 116 the:1IIind : of Eve 1MB corrupted b!J die serpem,. i. e. the sens~al passions represented by the serpetlt: and this was:the sense in which the Corinthians understood him" . otherwise the compariion would not ··have .been at all" applicahle,unless they had ·understoOd tho serpent to lie tbe symbol of the sensual prin'ciple in man,;,asme most ancient Jews did beforerthem ... ,: .

: .;" :.- .... ' . ., ;'

. Thus.it appears that 'it,has . been .the··cidlX>m,afthe IIlOSt.primeval.people,!. and,sf the'8ocients',befortJ, and from the'time of Mose&;:to,cionsidel'>these'pusa!'is ai eootaining' a . figurative, !'C!Iescriptibft· of the. sensual pase10ns ··in 'man; by. compa1ling them to those,.tural propensities in >tlie 'serpentwhich is. the most.seDSuaI~ (lS: weU as the moatsubde~t~~. ' .. ~, " 1.\1 .. 'iit· j " .1 \ -

. >I; Every' clause : ~nnS'l·the se~, opiniGn ..r ·the ancierlt christian. fathers, imd .doctors aDlODg thti·J8JVS, I

that .tha·rwbole~ account .is: sl1egoriclll. " It.slMi' brIIiia th!J:1reail.;:ratid ,dum ,bait 11ruise hi8 'iced, hut.t1iis~ii

not the· true ~g, 'the muculHae pronoun singblai of the third person occurs, NIII'"t there is no neutral pronoun in Hebrew: . it reads, 1Ie.,h4ll bruise thy heal.

Digitized by Google

16

I suppose this writer will admit, that t~is .is: not "a simple relation of a fact capable of.1l satisfactory explanatioR," on the literal ground he has taken; and that these words convey something w:hich docs 'not appear, nor can possibly be understood, in.the letter.: How in, the name of common 8~nse C8D it, be said· that the monkey shall ~ruise . the heel of man ?"thoSkies are never· remarked for aoy such thing, whereas the sea"pent,has scarcely any othermealls·of defe~ce, than by coming bebiud and biting the heel. : To come to the point, this 'wliter must necessarily,iu:lIriit, that this

was the first manifestation of the mercy of God to man­in his fallen 'state, that this ,,:as the. first promiSe of

the coming of the great deliverer,. the ~; Shi1o~ the Lord ,of David, the Iinmamiel of the prophets,: and the redeemer of men. '. Ndw, i( these words 'co~cem-­ing the serpent. ,,,erato ,be· understood as . literally as this gentleman has taken' them, ad that ·this ,,~.,r not a figure,or allegory,. to.~en, fr()Dl animal natnre,; wh~ the 'propensities of tbemost .sensual beast in. :erealion are figuratively. applied. te> man in. a natuml.state; being in perpetual. enmity to the seed, or offspring of Christ, I, . the serpent .bruiser· in· man: ,he is: UDder the neceSsity; of showing, ,thall·this was; all ;fulfilled.1iter.ol .

aIly.:"'\ 1j'obuUt must ~ alU>w.ed.lthat.tb$·:rerers to ChriSt,. serpent must ,of CX)urse.lm:v.e\liter&.»ybi~

bis.he6~ .andhe mUst-also have. liter.all.y' bruised ~ ,. , .

• . :~~..: ~'.

..

Digitized by Google

77

head of the serpent. . And everi then, this would bring us 00 nearer to the 'meaning, because thousands since the time of Christ, have literally bruised the heads of scrpents~ and tll?usands have :been bitten by them; so that this would apply to man in general, instead of Christ. Therefore as the wordS, he sJudl bruise Illy head, cannot poSsit>11 he literally under­stOOd, and. as all christians must . neCessarily believe that they were originally applied to Christ; I leave it for them to judge, whether we are to say with Dr. Clarke, that we are not to look for an-explanation, or credit. the Apostle, who not only admits it·to bean allegory, but also explains it, by applying this prophesy of bruising the serpent's head to Christ; who was to

bruise this principle, i. e. the head of the serpent in . man. I say, every clause confirms the settled opinion of the ancient christian fathers and doctors amonp; the Jews, that the whole account is allegorical. The allegory 15 also plain from the words. dust shalt·t/r.ou 'eat all the dIllJsQftkylife, for as is shown above, theSe words cannot be applied to Satan, because he· is an immortal spirit, and does not eat dust. But as the serpent in going over the dust and burning sands, having his head next to the earth, unavoidably takes the dust 'into his mouth; so the life or delight of the sensual passions are represented by the serpent, as closely' connected with, and moving in the dust or earth of the body: they being placed the very lowest

Di~itized by Goog Ie

78 of all the pas&ions in the order or composition of'the internal man. They are evidently applied to man iD' a .tate of nature, signifying that his delight or life is . in the low gratification of the sensual'passions, which are meant by the dust. ID this allegorical sense, the

, word is used throughout the scripture-Amos, 2. 7. That pant qfter tile dUlt Q[ Ike earth on tke 1zefIJl qf flu: poor, and tum aside 1M 'IIXl!J fIf tile meek, and II man and his fatMr _II go in rmto the IIlme maid, to prqfbne my holy name.

Hence it appears that this was the belief of the most ancient people before the time of Moses, of the learned Jews to the time of Christ~f Christ himself and the Apostles. And lastly, as it was the universal opinlon of the venerable fathers and bishops who succeeded them; no man can be justified in saying,' that " if it be an allegory~ no attempt should be made to explain it, as it would require a direct revelation to ascertain the sense in which it should. be under .. 'stood;" . it has been 80. understood and explained froIla . Adam, to the establishment of the Christian church for the first three hundred years after Christ: It has only. been involved in darkness and uncertainty &om the time when men began to understand this part of scripture, as " a simple· relation of facts capable of a literal explanation," instead of a representaiive 1igure, taken from', that creature in whom th~ natural subtilty ,

Digitized by Google

79

of the sensuaJ principle was more apparent, than in any other beast'of the field, and applied by those wise ancients to signify that principle in man (as above). '

. From the above observations, it appears manifest, that the primeval people first worshipped God in purity, and understood that all visible things in nature represented something in man, as is evident from the S8.(.Ted Scriptures which I have shown ill the prophets, where this is expressly said to be the case, and which will not admit of a contradiction without denying sacred writ. And in this wise application of visihle things, and of the passions arid propensities . of the animal to the passions and propensities in man, consists the wisdom and sanctity of the divine writings. But ill process of time, 'by little and little, their descendants departed from the purity of divine worsbip( when they began to prefer sensuality to

innocence, and instead. of looking on the things in outward nature as' copies of natural propensities in themselves, which served as visible indexes to remind them of the necessity of restraining inordinate passion, I

sbowing them the beauty of virtue and innocence; these representative thinlJ8 were worshipped, and their figures set up in temples: hence the origin of idolatry. 'Like streams issuing from a pure fountain, which are rendered more turbid the farther they are {mm their original source: so the Mosaic histolj concerning the CREATIQN 01' THE FIRST PEOPLJ:-

Digitized by Google

.1

80

of PARADls£-tbe FALL OF MAN-the SEB.PENT­

and NOAH'S FLOOD, which are plain aud easily understood when the above-mentioned style' is attend­ed to, has been rendererl ~hscure and unintelligible, by forsaking the obvious application of these things, in which consists the true sanctity of the sCl'iptures j and by supposing what is plainly.contradicted, that these things were " capable of a satisfactory explana­tion" by the letter of sCI,'ipture, whicl;l is proved to Ue altogether. impossible, and contrary to the obvious meaning of the sacred miters. .

This style of writing was preferred among the ancient Grecians. Pegasus, or the flying horse, was feigned by them to be the winged horse of Perseus; this has been received as a fahle, but it is not so, as there is a significative reality. in the object, and as it is true in its application. Perseu~ was a man famous for wisdom and understanding; ,he 'was industrious in applying his mind to the invention of arts and sciences, which were useful to man: for that reason, his understanding was colIlf8rcd to the horse, on

. account of its utility to man, and its quick transition from place to pla~e. Thus the horse . of Perseus is said to have broken ,open . a fountain with his hoof, and that this fountain was afterwards consecra~d to ~Et nine Muses; hy which we, understand, agreeably to this' significative mode .of speech, that the hoof of the horse meant the. industry, and the wjngsJd horse

Digitized by Google

81

'. the undeilitanding of Perseus. So 'thatthough this has been received as a fable, it is a beautiful allegory, and as such, had a real existence, agreeably to the style of the eastern'languages, and the method by which the ancients communicated knowleage to POi­

terity.

The understanding is the rudder of the mind; it makes a swift transition trom one place to another, it giJides and directs all our actions,· and on this account is of the great~st utility to man: in like manner these ancient people, to prefigure the undel'-standing by a similar likeness .in animal nature,· as is " customary throughout the Scriptures, in theil' emble­matical representations, .gave win~ to the horse, that animal being the most useful to man, and the swiftest of all others, if we calculate on tim,e.and distance, and­henee a fit subject to represent the qualities of the tmderstll:nding .

. Now, after all this author has said concerning the necessity of a "new revelation to explain this alle­gory," we find to a demonstration, that it is Ilnalle­,-orical ezpression founded on a cmnparison Q{ things in nature, witlt tire passions and CfOections in man; not according to notion or lYpinion, but confirmed by other parts Q{ scripture, and tllat tltis· circumstance C(YflCerflI.

ing tltefoll Q{man, conveyed to us in tire sl!Jle Walle. lory, fl€Teeably to. the custom W the eastern. nations,

F

Digitized by Google

82

impresses the mind' 'With a rMre ratiOnal 'lJietW Q/'t~ real cause Q/' that departure from tke commands Q/ God, and gives us higher and mnre dignified sene;.. ments ~mu:ernillg tIre saiu:tity Q/' tke scriptures than 'We

can possibly have by understanding that a literal serpent, or a ~ke!l tempted Eve; consequently his assertion conceming the "necessity of a new revel a-

· tion to prove it ~n allegory, ,. falls to the ground.

I refer the reader to the questions asked by this writer, . where he says, "how, and by what agency was this brought about? Here is the great IIiystery : I appeal to all persons who have .read the variolls comments that have been wdtten on the Mosaic account, whether th~y have yet been satisfied on this part of the su bject, though convinced of the fact. Who was the serpent? of what kind, in wltat rvay

· did he seduce the first happy pair? These are ques­tions which remain yet to be answe'red~" ,

.Referring then to these questions, I may be allowed · to appeal to all persons who have read the comment

he haS" given, "·w!tether they have been satisfied with what he pas said on this part of the subject?" whether they can give credit to his assertion, that the monkC!J was th~ agent that brought about the fall of mall? I believe he stands alone, the solitary promulgator of some new tking~ which has no tendenoy to give us a rational view of this transaction j . neither does. it: .

. . -Digitized by Coogle

83

answer to anyone "part· of the description in -the text.". And as to his inquiry, ". in what way did he seduce the· first happy pair?" though he says, "thil is a question -which remains yet to be answered;" he has ~ven us no answer but what is given in .the text, viz. that it was by eating tkef07·biddenfruit.

. I have, however, in what is advanced in these pages, . scrupulously abided by the meaning of the original word. And in show~ that the singular properties of tlris beast WEre applied by the inspired writers to those principles in man in a state of !l~ture;

. I have suffered the scriptures to prove, that this was the' Co khid" of serpent which was the agent in the fall of man, and that in this way he "seduced the first happy pair." The scripture is my authority, which is. also confirmed by the universal consent of .all the ancient Hebrews, and by the venerable fathers and bishops of the first C.hristian churches (as above). I appeal to all persons, if this view of the serpent be not calculated to satisfy the most obstinate objector, . who, as he feels those propensities in himself which are- prefigured in outward 'nature by the serpent, must necessarily feel his mind impressed with the wisdom of these ancient peopl~,' and' with the truth and sanctity of the scriptures .

. I now ask this gentleman in. his own words-, whether his assertion concerning the monkey,. is

I .. Digitized by Google

84

" such as becomes the oracles. of God j" are these reflections of his, _ " properly indu~ve reasonings on the facts stated, or the doctrines delivered j" how is he justified in saying, " through the flimsy, futile, ~d false dealing of the immense herd of Spirit'MlliZeT8, Metaphor-men, and A llegorist8, pure religion has been disgraced :" when, as is' proved above, a great part of the scriptures are written in allegory or meta­ph()'l" What is more calculated to' bring pure religion into disgrace, or to ~sist the Deist in defaming the scriptures, than supposing that a monkey was the agent employed in the fall of man?

It may proba~ly be expected that some proof should be given, that a great part of the scriptures are written in this allegorical style, by which, things in outward nature were chosen, and applied by the inspired writers to signify the passions and affections in man:

I to illustrate truth by the application of external things, which bore some resemblance in their nature, to the subject introduced; and which only can lead us to a true knowledge of the sanctity of scripture. . "

~ Th~refore for the satisfaction of those, who are desirous of seeinp; something of the ancient method of communicating information to the .mind by means

. of sensible objects, as is the. case throughout the scriptures: I refer the reader to the CLASSICAL and BI BLICAI. .T Ol'R.N' AL, where it ia 8ho\\-0 frOID the

Digitized by Google

85

scripture ~t a great part of the aacred volumt tannot be understood unless this be attended to. And that thi~ emblematical representation, by figures .chosen from nature to si~ify the passions and aft"ec· tions of the mind, was well understood by the patri. archs and the prophets, from the beginning of time

t to the end of the Is~elitisll church.

. DiQitizedbyGoogle

.86

.' , :"!

THE I UNITY OF GOD~ . ' -

\

~ -

IT certainly is a matter of the first· importance to have proper viewlS of the object of our adoration. To enter into a' desc,ription of that ineffable being who spake, and the universe was created, would be pre­sumption. , We' cannot define what is not in the power of mortals to comprehend; but as much as God has' revealed of himself in the divine human person of Christ, the promised Shilo and true Mes­siah,_ is within the grasp of our understanding.

In every age since the time of the, coullcil of Nice, the _doctrine of ~e Trinity has been held 'forth by those who have been esteemed sounc;l in their views of th~s' great essential of faith. That there is a Trinity IN the divine nature, no one can deny in truth, but it appears that those who have hitherto contended for a trinity of persons, have supposed a trinity OUT of the divine nature. H~re has arisen the obj~ction,

Digitized by Google

•

87

concerning a plurality of Gods, a charge which 'those who call themselves V nitarians, always bring against the defenders of the divine Trinity. But to wor~hip a· Trinity OUT of the divine nature, is certainly not consistent W!th the sCliptures, nor with the doctrine of the Church of England. Those who worship a Trinity out of the divine' nature, or three distinct persons co-eval, co-existent, and co-eternal with each other, all partaking of the essential principles of Deity, do not worship one God in Trinitg, and Trinitg in Unil!J, according to the, scriptures, but ~on.found tlte persons, and divide the substance. But if we worship a Trinity IN the divine nature, " then the Goclhead of the Father, of the ,Son. and of the' Holy Spirit, is all one: the glmy equal, the mqjesty co-eternal. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, the Holy Spirit eternal, and yet (hey are not three eter­,nals, three incomprehensibles, three uncreates, three Almighties j but one."

Those, Qn the other hand, who maintain the unity of the divine Being, reject a Trinity IN the divine nature; and do not in their addresses personify the Deity, must necessarily attempt to worship an unlmt:mm God; like the Jews of old, they 'WOrship they knuw not 'llJhat, an infinitely extendedmetaphy­sical being, like infinite space, which cannot possibly be au o~ect of worship. An essence cannot exist but in some forni, therefore to addre~s a divine heing?

Digiiized by Google

88 I

nr essence, without that being existil)g in 8 form, must be to addl'css a non~entity. Such. consequently, cannot worship a 'Go~ at an; it is a vain phantasm, an airy appearanc~; it is a God of their own forming, which only appears in their imagination. But if they ,have any object of then' worship, they then must attempt to personify the infinite and incomprehensible essence of Deity, or the Father, to the exclu.sion of the person of Christ; such worshippers are truly followers of the Sabellian heresy. This was also the doctrine of At'ius, or anti-christ, by which he ~aused a schism in the church, but the great body of christians at that day, rejecteel this heresy, by ~'hjch we learn that one God in Tri'llitg, and Trinif!J it1. 1J1Uty, was the doctrine of the apostolic clmrches.

To' confirm the doct~~ne of three persons, ora plurality of Gods. Dr. Clarke attcmpts to prove that the word C~;:1~~ Ellzmm, God, is a' plural' noun; l\'hich he says, ",io; certainly the plural form of ;~ ~l. As' this plur~li~ ~ppears in so many parts of the sacred writings to be confin<->d -to tk,'ee persons, hence the doctrine of the Trinity.!' But being aware that this n~un is joi~ed with ~ verb sin~ular, he defines' his subject as follows. "The verb Nl~, he crea,ted, being joined in the singular number with this plural 'noun, has been consider<:d as pointing out; anel not obscurely, the unity of thcsc divine persons in this wor.k of creation.. In the ever blessed Trinity, from ". I • , . • • M • . ' • • • ~.

Digitized, by Goog Ie

89·

the infinite and indivisible unity of the pe~us; there can be but one will, one purpose, and one infinite and uncontrollable energy."

As Dr. Clarke must have formed s,ome conception of this mystery, he should have told us how these three persons were connected in" one indivisible unity," and, by familiar examples 'have shown, how these three infinites, these tlm~e eternals, could be actuated " by one will," and not by three \Vills; "by one infinite and uncontrollable energy,'" and not' by three infinite and uncontrollable energies. These are high sound-

. ing words, but I must candidly confess that they conv~y no information to my mind" nor can any

, person, from such a definition, possibly' understand the doctrine of the Trinity.

I cannot find that the view which this ,,'riter bu given of the Ttinity, " has formed a 'part of the creed of all those, who have been deemed sound in the faith, from the earliest ages of Christianity." Faith has become so familiar a word, ,that we find it applied, in all cases, to things which t.'8Ullot be under ... stood. It is not possible for us to have faith or belief ill that which is impossible to enter into our comprehension, however it may be the confession of the lip, if the door of the understanding be not opened to receive' it, no conception can be formed concerning it: collsequently there c,nnot be an object (){ faith.. . /'.

Digitized by Coogle

I,

We may be asked, if we can comprehend God? jf by comprehending God, be meant his infinite perfections; the answer must necessarily be in the nega,tive; and . the reason is ohvious: that which is finite cannot possibly extend it!; researches to that which is if!:ft1lite. When we are told tpat there are three distinct and visible persons OUT of the divine nature, aiuf in· the same breath, that these three persons are one, it never can be comprehended, because it is inconsistent

~ witP scriptu~· and common sense, and «,:an never form a part of our faith. So far as God has made himself known BY TH.E. PERSON OF CHRIST, so far God becomes 8n object of our faith in Unity i and thi4 ~nity "has formed a part of the creed of all ~Qse, who have been deemed sound in the faith from the earliest ages of christianity."

-In order. to obviate the plain and incontrovertible aeclarations which prove that the noun C';:;;~ ElIwim, is not a plural, but a singular noun, Dr. Clarke refers . to the following passages, noticed by Parkhurst, who Jays, "let those who ha've any doubt whether C';;?~ Elhoim,· when .meaning the true God, Jehovah, be plural or not, consult the following passages, where they will find it joined with adjectives, verbs, and ~prQJlouns phtral." Gen.~. 26.-.ch. 3. 22.-11. 7. -:-£0. 13.-31. 7. 5S.- 35. 7. Deot.4. 7.-5: 23. ;Josh. 24. 19 •. 1 _Sa~. 4. 8 .. 2 Sam. 7. 23. Psalm 58. 1 i. _ Jer. 10. -I ~-cl,1. 23. 36. Also Prov.9.. 10,

Digitized by Coogle

,-

.-ch. SO. 3. Psalm 149. 2. Eeel .. 5. 7 . .....;12. 1. Job. 5.}. Isa. 6. 3.--.54.5.-52. 5. Hos. 11. .lfl; Mal. 1. ,6. Dan., 5. ].8. ,20.-7. ] 8. 22. To all thesp. passages we, are referred by. Dr. Clarke for proof that the.wor.d C'r;;~,ElJwim; is a pluratnoun, because Parkhurst. and be say, it is connected with­" adj~ctives!'. verbS,. and proilOu'DS plural." 'Twelve of the 6r$t .are . noticed ,by .Parkhurst, in which the word c'r;;~' Elkoim is found, but in the .remainder .. which are added by Dr. Clarke, C';:t,~ Elhqim, doe~ notoccut. at all, except in one passage, and ~ Eloekea, in two. And' eVen if it did, the (ollowing, clauses, '~tf' 11'N~ ~~ tke Lord Q/ Hosts is HIS

'lame. N)t. Y12!i'1 ,~ ,~1$. 1M God Q{ thJ:, 'llJ1uJ/4 ' earth. shall HE be called, could not mean that· t:l~~ Elkaim, is a plural,' noun. The' learned Abarbanal, and the most eminent Rabbies say; that c't;t,~ Elkoim, and ';:1'~ EkJekea, have the

, sarpe meaning, and the difference in form arises from this" that:?tP~ Eloekea is· conjunctive, or in regimen, which is b·ue, 88 'Psalm 1. .:i~\1'~, God Q{ Jaeob- . ;~~ 'm~ .. God' W I$rael---l:J~Qttr; "="~ God qf Heavcm-lHit that Q';:t?~ ElMim, is' the . absolute form .

. I shall now proceed to examine the above passages' where the word c",~ Elhoim~ is found, aud which we are told, H that as it is connected with tUijectioes, wrN, and pt'untf1111,8 plural, must be plural alSo." .

,

, I

Digitized by Google

,

In Jer. £5. :J6. and ch. 10. 10. we find the 'word c~ ElIwim, God i but it does not follow because it is connected with· C," Hayim, life, that it is a plural noun. o~ !Jim, does not form the plural, as I Shall have occasion to .sh()w in the course of this investigation. The same word is rendered " running water, orlivingwater," Lev. 14 •• i. ="" ~; alsoGen; .~17.46. D~,,?,mJJlife tome. Job, JO. 12.t1wu1iaSt grunted me ~~;:r, lifo and favor. .

Psalm 58. 12. verily he is a O'tp~ ~, God tluJt judge/A; but D'rp~iD Sk()JJhetim, is Dot plural, there­fore the word D';P~ ElIUJim,canno~ on that account be Considered as'a nOU'n plural.

2 Sam. 7. 23. Q'ij~~ EUwim, God, 'is connected with 1'I'r=ri1~ lipheddotk, which means "to redeem," ~t

, -translation . is consistent with reason and sound speech, viz. 'llJhom Gad 'llJent to redeem: but if C'rp~ Elkaim, God, were to be rendered as a, plural· noun, it would be; ~. G~ 'Went to redeem. The same reasoning is applicable to Eccless. 5. 7,'jear tJum God, ·cb. l~. 13. fear God ~d keep his ~d. ments. '

18t Samuel, -4. 8. In this verse the word ~ ElIwim, God, is supposed hyPal'khurst and Dr. Clarke to be plural, because it is c;onnected with' D¥1~ 1uuMldirimJ on the hacknied gro~nd of' tho

Digitized by Google

93 '

plural terminatioll; but this cannot be allowed, as will he shown. The translation of this verse, as it stands at pr.esent in our 'Bible, is, Woe unto us, 'll)ko sMIl deliver us out qf tIre leand t!ftkesemigktg Goth, tJrese. are the Gods that smote tke Egyptian. 'With all the JHaofY1lel in Ike 'Wilderness. Had the Dr. attended to the original, he would not have been so h~ty in concluding that Elhoim, God, was a plural nOUll; he,must certainly have been sensible that the Egyptians were not smitten u:ith the plagues in the wilrlerness, hut in Egypt: and that for this reason there must be ~ome error iri the translation of this passage. There are three words in the original ,Hehi-ew, wJ.tich are not truly ~nderCd, and which are only noticed by the word these, viz. D!' ~ ~~ which ought to be rendered as in Gen. :39. 19. qfier , this 'iIlanner, or nith these things, 'I Kings, !lg. 11.'

The word i'9~ mak/taak, is also rendered plagues, bu't as the plagues w~re inflicted in Egypt, and not in the ~ldemess, as observed'; neither. can it be' tnily rendered. This word is used' here as in many other places, to signify slaughter; see the passages where the same word o(.'Curs, and is thus rende~ed. Josh. 20. 10. W. Jud. 11. S.-IS. 8. I Sam. 6. 19.-ch. 14. SO.-ch. 19. 8. 1 Kings !l0. ~l.

2 Chron~ 13. 17. In this chapter we are informed, that the ~hilistines and the Israelites ",ere opposed tQ each other: they had heard hO\v God had 'inter .. posed in their behalf, when they [eft Egypt at the

Digitized by Google

/

red sea, they had heard of the ark 'of God~ an51 of the destruction that took place on the Egyptians, when it was carried out of the sea to' the Israelites. And now, at this time, when they heard a great shout in the ~amp of Israel, and were told that the llrk of God ha.d arrived at the C/imp, ·they said, Woe unto us, who sJudz deliver us out Wthe- hand Q/' tki", mighty God! after' this marmer God smote the Egyptians with ,all the slaughter in the wilderness. From whi~h it appears, that Elhoim, God, is not a plural noun, and 'tha.t it is most incorrectly rendered by the translators. ' '

Joshua, ~4. 19. D~ ~~', a kol!J God. This is the Bible translation, and it will puzzle Dr. Clarke to mend it in sense. D~ is not plural. it is truly

, rendered by holiness, and' connected with Elboim, God; it reads a God Q/'holiness.

Deut. 5.' 23. God doth talk with mart, and he I

i'Delk. Here again is no proof that ,ElIwim, God, is joined with ~ plural. c~;;r Adam, ,is a noun singular, but admitting it were plural, the Dr. should have recollected that the n he, prefixed, is not noticed in the trartslation, it is emphatic, and is to be rendered by the, this. He also shoul~ ,have remembered that God did not speak with man, in the

. plural,_ but ttJJith the, man. They indeed heard his voice, but God spake only-with Moses. The CIauae trulY' reads, God doth talk with tJze man, and he liveth.

DiQitizedbyGoogle ' - ---- ......

95

leh.4. 7. ,~ Elohea: God, which is evidently. sing:ular, is joined with O'~~ Elkaim, God, but had D';:t?~ Elkoim been plural, the venerable writer could not have committed such a blunder, as the verse would read thus,for 'What nation is so great. hath Gods so nigh unto them, ~~~ ~~~ as tile Lord our Gods.

Gen. 35. 7. .And he built there an altar, 'tlnd ealJed the ploce El-betk-el. becaUle there God appeared unto him, tJJhen he jied.from tire face 0/ his brotker. Here we are told agai.n that the word ~rt?~ Ellwim, God, must be plural, as it is connected with a plural verb. ~,~ Niglou" is no douht plural, but it is not connected with ~;p~ Ellwim, therefore it is no prool that it is a plural nonn. This writer should have

'told us that the translators ha~e err~d in theapplica­tion of ~,~~ Niglou, as well a's in the translation' of that word, for it is rendered as the third person singu­lar preter of the verb in kal; whereas it is the third person plural in Niphal. And instead of being applied to God as appearing to 'Jacob when he jierI

from the fO£e qfhis brother, it is in the original, neces­sarily applied to Ja~ob and all his house, when they

. removed from Shechem to Bethel. It must be . acknowledged, that if ~;p~ EZhoim, God, were a plural ~un, the clause should be rendered thus ~ Gods appeared unto him. .'

/

, ,

Digitized by Google

.11

~~ Niglou, is the third pers011 pluml preter of the verb in NiphaI, to appear, be disc{)'()ered, re'Vealed; ((} he removed--captiviW, Sam. 9. 14. ~~~ N'n ani tlley luroe not discor:ered, Ezek. 23. J J. ~~~ iWtj tlrese dis~ wcered, Jer. 13. ~2. thy skirts ~~~~ are discovered.

The words ~~ n~~ '!t El-lJeth-el, ~hj~h are tIlUS

retained in the translation, confuse the passage; they truly read thus: the mighty' one W Betllel, and the :J lie, prefixed to c~;:t~~ EUlOim, wllich is omitted in the translation, and not noticed by Dr. Clarke, is as necessary' a word as any in the passage. I t is emphatic, and is the same as the Greek 0, and the Latin hie. literally tlze, tllis, viz. D'j:"~iJ TIIIS GOD, in oppositilln to the strange Gods, which his family had broulZht with them. . '" ,

I • m~-i1 Bebarcho is rendered in the translation 8. t •

the third perSOll singular prcter, viz. 'lJ)/len lie fla, but it is properly the infinitive, and should be rendered in his flying, or qf llis jlying. The verse. "ill be rendCl"ed consiste~tIy with ,the Hebrew as fQllows. An~ lie built there an altqr, and called,the place, tIle migltty one l}/ Betlzel, because tllere they 'tzppeared ~~~~ (Jacob and Izisfamily) bifore him, tIle God, Q/ Ids pying .from tlte face qf his brotlier. From which it is plain, that this' passage is consistent ' . without making c';:t~~ Elhoim a plural nOUD, admit­ling it were connected with ~~~ lYiglou, J aoob and.

Digitized by Google

97

his family ceased to worship the idols they had h.rou~ht with them, and they appettred before, or

'worshipped before tr;:r,~IJ, this God" the mighty one of Bethel, the God, who protected him IN HIS FLY­

INGfrom theface of his brother.

Ch. 31. 7. D'i'f.'~ 'W;1~ N":! but God would not suffer kim, here ~~Elhoi~, God, is plural we are told, because it is connected with ~1l1~ Nethano, which is

T. '

supposed to be plural. I shall pursue my usual method of suffering the scripture to speak for itself. UO!3 NtJlhano, is, as it stands in the translation, trul,. rendered by suffer him, See J ud. ] 5: 1. but her father would not 'l!'~ suffer him. 1 Sam. 18. 2. and would not iltQ let him return. Ch. i3. 14. tleli'tJered him not; the.:efore it is no proof that ~~' Elhoi~ is a plural nobn. ,

Gen. 31. 53. The God if' Abraham, the God tff Nahor Judge. This is perfectly right as it stands in the English Bible. !!fO~ Yishiphetou is plural, ... ·ery well; but ~ Eloehea is not on that account to be rendered as a plural noun, it is only a noun singu­lar in regimen.

There are in this verse two Gods mentioned by Laban, vu. the God of Abraham, and the God of N alwr. Abraham was a worshipper of the true

, God, N &hor was an idolater; so that Laban, 'who

•

Di9itize~ by Google

worshipped after the manner of his fathers, calls his God to witness, as well as the God of Abraham~ Therefore the passage is correct, without supposing ~ Elhoim to be a plural noun. .

Ch. 11. 7. Go to, let us go dO'{Cn and confound ~ their langunge. Parkhurst and Dr. Clarke should have pointed out the noun or verb p~ural, which they say is. connected with O"ry;~ Elhoim, God, in this verse. ~!t Elkoim, h~wever, is not to be met with in the whole chapter, so that this commentator must have copied it from Parkhurst, without examining eithet tlie chapter or the verse. It must therefore have been an oversight in both these good men, and consequently cannot be any proof that C'i'fJ~ Elhoim, " is a plural! noun. . ..

The whole of this narrative, concerning the confu. sion of tongues, is very incorrectly rendered in the translation; and I am sorry to find that these writers have not given us any information on'this impOl1ant subject. An article on this miracle of Ages is intended to be sent to the CLASSICAL JOU:&NAL,

"to which I refer the reader.

Ch. 8. 22. And the Lord God said, behold the man lMJ .l'ro nni ~l~ ",tt~ :-1!i'J i8 btct»fie a8 ,..

0/ ru to. kn()'{J) good and e'tiil. There are two things' in this clauae whic.h· require our serious' attention,

Digitized by Google ..

99

yiz. to whom the words ~~ ~~ ~1 is become as one f!f us, are applied: and the true meaning and application of ", .l,r,o l'1l!"1'z to /m()'(t) good and evil. It nfu~t be admitted that Adam knew good and evil before the fall, otherwis~ he could not have been an accountable creature; 'evil to him would have been as good, and goorl the same as evil. "This pas­sage," says Dr. Clarke, "on all hands is allowed.to be diffioult~ and 'the difficulty is increased by our translation." I have no doubt but that the errors which have crept into many churches respecting the unity of God, have arisen from this rendering, and from that similar one, Gen. ]. 26. The word ~.lI~,? Mimmennou, is rendered in all the European 'transla­tions, as the oblique case of we, but,its true meaning is to appoint, see Job, 7. 3. and wearisome nights, ~ Minnou, are appointed to me. Also to number, ' 'Gen. 13. 16. n~ sholl be numbered.-i Chron. 5. 6 .

• T·

urr. Yimmaanou, be numbered.-Dan. 1. 5. and the Z) mem prefixed, forOls'the comparative. It must be admitted that Adam was appDinted to know good and evil; let the conb-ary for a moment be supposed, and he becomes incapable of thinking or acting rationally. Adam was blessed with all knowledge intuitively, he understood the natures of the animals, , their passions and affections, and gave them names agreeably there­to; 'thus he was appointed to know good and evil,' but the great difference is between the knowledge of good and evil, and the rejection of iOOd b.y the aetu&l commission of evil.

Digitized b; Goog le

100

The verb :'"'1!!1 haoyaah, which is in all the Euro­pean translations rendered, is become, is tlie preter,. and not the present tense of the verb; it ought to have been rendered, WAS: the passage will then read agreeably to the literal sense of the Hebrew, thus; behold the man WAS '1tJ~~ EQUALLY THE

SAME APPOIN'I'ED to know good and evil. Though this text is' " allowed on all hands to' be difficult, and the difficulty increased by our translation," this view of the subject relieves us fro~ the difficulty altoge­ther. It clears the moral character of God from the imputation of blame, by placing man in a situation so as to be ignorant concerning the nature of good and evil, as we understand by the words in our Bible: the man is become as one 'If us to lmow good and evil, and with Dr. Clarke, that heoniy knew good, viz. "he has added' (says he) to the knowledge of the good, the knowledge of the evil;" it finally silenc~s this old objection of the Deist, and shows' us t~at. Adam, in his primary state, was not ignorant concernipg the nature of evil, but that he was inno­cent as to the commission of it, or the transgression of the commands of God. From all which it is· evident that C'r:6~ Elhoim, God, by being connected with u~~, mimmennou, which has been erroneously considered as the oblique case of we, is no proof. that it is a plural noun.

Gen. c~~ 1. 26. I now coine to notice one of the. most difficult passages' ~n this subject ~n the. whole.

" DiQitizedbyGoogle

101

. scriptures. The translation of this verse, as we"have it in our ·Bible, and as it stands in all the European translations, has laid a foundation for endless disputes. The unitarian contends that God is One Only, while others are led from this renrlering, to believe in the existence of a Trinity in distinct personality out of the divine nature. I ain constrained to reject all the translations hitherto given o'f this important passage. which I have seen; and to abide by the literal mean­ing of the original words, as rendered in other p~rts of scripture: It will therefore be seen, that I not only reject any pre-conceived opinion of my own, but all others, when such opinions are unsupported by that unen-ing authority, the sacred scriptures.

The passage in the original is as follows: ~~1~ ~~m o:'tt ~ ~~ ~~ And God ~aid, let us make'man in our image, qfter our likeness. Dr. Clarke says, "the text tells us he was the work Of the Elhoim, the divine plurality, marked here more distinctly by the plural pronouns us, and our: and to

show tliat he was a master-piece of God's creation, all the perso~s in the 'Godhead are represented as united in council and effort to produce this astonish­ing creature." Alas! to what a state are we'reduced, if-this be the doctrine of the Bible on the creation of man. .' 'V ere we to tell this lame tale to the Deist, he would show a 'warit:of intellect indeed, if he did 'not expel it with a bhlat of ridicule,· He would tell

Digitized by Google

10'

. the Doctor, that if all the persons in the Godhead 'Were called together, united in council an" effort at the creation of man only, for the production of this wonderful creature, to show that he was a master­pieCe of God's creation, as we mWlt understand by his own words: then it would follow, that all the persons in the Godhead were not united in council, or effort .to produce other astonishing creatures which . also in their order, are master-pieces of God's crea­tion. It is impossible for words to mark more strongly this wliter's belief in Polytheism, Qr. a plum .. lity of God's, distinct persolls;, all actuated by "one will,. and one infinite uncontroulable energy." I would rather write three. words to be understood. than a thousand which convey no information on the subject. It is impossible for the· Doctor to under­stand his own definition of the Trinity.

Moses was here instructed to communicate tQ the Israelites, the know ledge of the creation !)f the world; and of man. And in the whole narrative he speaks of-the procedure of the Divine Being in tlut irnpera ... live, or commanding, style, which adds a grandeUf

, and dignity to the subject, that is not in the transla· tion, which only says, "and God said." The obviou$ reason was, when God spake to man, ha\1iog 1lQ

equal, this style of speaking was observed, as appottarf throughout the Scriptures, when lUngs commanded the la.ws to be obeyed, or when any thing w.as \0 bt

•

, DiQitizedbyGoogle

108

done ." hich required the interference of supreme authority.

'The word ~~ Vayomer, as applied to the Suprem~, in this sense means, literally, he commatuled. Chron. ! I. 9.7. ~ ~ The Lord commanded. Ch. £2. 9.. "1'!! ~ and David commanded. 2 ehron. 14. 4. ~~ ~ and commanded Judah. Ch. 29. SO. ~ ~ and Hezekiah commanded. Ch. 81. 4. ~ ~ And he commanded the people. Ch. 32. Ii. ~ "9~ And he commanded Judah. Ch~ SS. 16. ~ .And commanded. Esth. 4. IS. '~ "pN-.l Then Mordecai commanded. Ch. 9. 14. '~'""9N-:l .And the king cMMnanded. Dan. 2. 9.. And the king I

r:~mmandetJ. I have examined upwards of two thou-- sand places of Scripture where "9MIIl Vayomer occursj

and I find that the word thus writum was always' used when God . commanded j' also, by kings, patri­archs, and all, in every situation, exercising authority,

- in the imperative, or commanding style. Thus, when any thing was to be dOlle, which required the intec­ference of a superior power, as when God co1lUllands J aoob to go to .Bethel, and to build an altar to him ; 1ll1d, ill the next verse, where Jacob commands his household to put away the .strange Gods that were among them, it is written .,~ Vayomer, and is UBi-

_ versalt.y followed by its' corresponding npun. But, when ~ Va!JOflUlr, occurs, it never is understood

.. ill. tM iBJperative style, it is always used as the third

Digitized by Google

104

person . singular preter of the verb, to prevent· the too frequent repetition of the noun. I have . examined some hundreds of places, where this word occurs, ,0 written, and I find it to be so throughout the Scrip­tures. Thus it appears consistently with other parts

· of Scripture, where the same word written: with the · $~e vowels, can. have no other meaning, that tfle words Q';P~ "~N-l Vayomer Elkoim, should \)e ren-

· dt:red in contormity with the above passages, taken in· connection with the following word ~~ Nangasek,

.of which below. From what has been said, it will be · allowed by the learned, that this word "'19N'l Vayomer com'Vrehehds "Q*'l Vayomar. hut. the latter doe,S not comprehend the, 'former; which cirC\lmstance alone

, proves, ·that this word conveys an idea of supel'iority, and therefore 'is always used and applied in that sense

throughout the Scriptures. I,

. :The next word in this verse, which' requires' our

notice, is ~~ Nangasek, which is rendered, let us . make. I have selected, I believe, all the passages, where this fonn of the word occurs, whicb is rendered in the first person plural future of kale I shall there­fore show. that the word in these places may be ren­dered . more consistently with the Hebrew, and more ·agreeably with the idio~ of ·our. language. I do llQt ·mean to contend that the word does not compreheQd, .in its e.t, the plural; but, Ido assert that, as ,it· is

the paSsive, of kal, it ought to be rendered iq the

Digitized by Google

'105 I

English in conformity thereto. The following pas-sages, being rendered as the first person plural future .in kal, read thus, 'We 'loill do-what shall 'We do­through God 'We shall do ;-but as the verb is .in Niphal, there must. necessarily. be a distinction between the futures of the two conjugations; and we finn that the ancient Hebrews always attended to' this distinction, as is evident from the dijference in tlu: orthography. This word is properly rendered thus: let be made; which will make a material difference as to the reading of these passages. They will read thuS': 2 Kings, 4. 10. LET THERE BE lIADE a little cham­ber. Cant. 1. 11. Exod. 19. 8. all that the Lord hath spoken, SHALL BE DONE.-ch. 24. S. v. 1. Numb. S2. S1. Josh. 1. 16.-. ch. 9. 20. what shall be done.-eh. 20. 9. 'lohich shall he done.-ch. 2.1. 7. WHAT SHA~L BE DONE for, 'lcl'ces.-ch. 22. 26.

v. 16. let there be prepared. 1 Sam. 5. 8.-ch. 6. i. 2 Sam. 16. SO. 2 Kings, 6. 15.-~h. 10. 5. N:eh. 5. 12. Psalm, 60. 12. for God 'will do '()aliant~.

-108. 13. Cant. 8. 8. Jer. 18. 12.-ch. 42 .. ~.

--eh. 44 .. 17. -- eh. 44. 25. our '()OW8 'SHALL • BJ:

PERFORMED. Isaiah, 26. 18. shall be wrought. 2 Chron. 20.12. 'a'hal SHALL BE DONE. Jud. 11.·10. if there be not done.

These I believe are nearly all the places where this word occurs in the Niphal form, which I have

se1ectedto show that. this reading is not <;>nly con,'.

Digiti;ed by Google

, 106 I

tent with, tM grammar of the language, but also, &hat it reads much better than. the present translation of the above passages. This will justify me in so render­ing this word in the passage under consideration, viz. Gen. ]. 26. ntgit-. Nangaseh, let he made. From :which proofs: it:wlll be seen that this passage cannot,

eoDsistently wiih the original, be read as ii is in the tl°anslation. viz. and God said, let us make man in our i1llllge, after· OU1' likeness; but, a~eeably to the meaning of the inspired writer, who was commanded to communicate to the Hebrews, and to posterity, the knowledge of the creation of the· world, and of man. Now, as in this narrative, Moses was speak­ing with the people, he informed them, that God ereated man in their image, viz. '!lg7~ in our image, says !\foses, which image he obviously applies to

themselves. , So that, though the word ~~~ Betsal: fIZ«1K)U, be truly rendered, its application is wrong, for it is represented in the translation, 88 though it were applied to God, whereas it was applied to the lsraelites' by Moses. Thus: and God com'li'tanded ~ to be 'made in otlr image; or thus: and God laid~'et man be made in our image. Hence it appears that o'i;t~~ Elhoim, God, is not a plural noun, by hei()~ connected with ~~ Nangaseh, whi£h has' Ileen rendered by the plural U8, ever since the time of J erolDC, the first translator of the Hebrew Bible into ~e Latin language, but which was understood as above

Ity the Hebrew legislator, and 'aU the ancient

Digitized by Google

107

Hebrews before the tlispersion. This rendering of the word Q'J-:t?~ EUwim, God, as a noun singular, is also confirmed in the very next verse, where the word is connected with the third person singular of the verb, and the pronoun singular his, viz. c~;:t;~ N'-1~ so

GOD C1tEATED man '07~il in HIS image; in the image

~~ C';:t~~ of CTOd cre~ted HE him; which, agreeably, to our idiom, may be thus rendered, as the yepetition of the noun is consistent with the rules of the lan­guage: so God created man in his, man's image, which image was created in the similitude of God. J

Now as it is expressly said, that man was creat~d ~:r in the image of God; and it is prov~d above that D'r:: Tse/em, refers only to the external visible

. image or form: it must be admitted, if Scripture be allowed to decide this important matter, that ~H

. . Elhoim, means the external visible form of God~ which is said to be that of man. If it be contended

~ that the infinite attributes of the Supreme Being in all their distinct existence in him constitute a plurality, this must be allowed; but tIps was not understood by the ancient Hebrews as constituting a plurality of vis~ble persons, . any more than the finite attributes in man constitute a plurality of visible -persons. The difference is: in God they are INFINITE, in man they are finite and circumscribed. And it must appear obvious to the unlearned, as well as to ·the learned, that the attributes, or properties canilot be

Digitized by Google

108

visible in their Oligio,· but can only be known to exist by their effect. We know by 'experience that the attributes or properties of the soul of man are not seen, they only operate by means of the visible body.

Having thus shown that ~~~ Elhoim, God, by

bt:ing connected with verbs, nouns, and atfjecti'Oes, which have been supposed to be plural, is not a plural noun, I shall refer the reader to such passages, as will incontrovertibly prove that this word is uSed as .a noun singular, which will establish the scriptural doctrine of the unity of Go~.

We cannot underst~d from the writings of the ;Apostles, or the venerable bishops during the conti .. nuance.C?f the 'Apostolic churches, that the notion

, of a ·plurality of persons existiuAf out W the di'Oin~ fUlture, was entertained by them. In the time of-the prophets, the unity of God WQ.$ the esta~lished beliaf of .the whole nation; and Moses was commanded to

. say in the first person singular "!111$;'~~ "!'7a, I am, that I anz. The same doctl"ine was given to Abrar ham. Exod. 6. 3. M?~! AND I APPEARED unt.q 4brallam, unto I8aac, and unto Jafob, by the 'lame oj God Almi,ghty, '~o/"' hut hy MY.name Jehq'Otffl

'f:W1i~2Vas I NOT KNOWN to them., Hera also the pronoun of the first person singular is .. used to signify the Unity of-God in Ol\e divine person~

." ,

. DiQitizedbyG.oogle

109

. It is an invariable rule in the Hebrew language, that the noun agrees with verb number person. The first verse in the Bible begins with Unity of God: In the, beginning C';;;~ 'N::~ GOD CREATED

the Ileaven and the earth. C'~~ Elohzm necessarily' agrees with N?~ he created. But if Elhoim, God, were to be rendered as Dr. Clarke supposes, N'H Baara, could not have been written and rendered as third person singular preter the it must have been writtm and rendered as the third person plural, ~Nl:t they created; which would incontrovertibly have established polytheism.

The same order was always observed by the inspired writers. . It is never said C'~~ ~'9N'" and Gods said, but c';:t~~ j~N~ and God said- God Sll1D

Psalm, 100. C'~~ N~iT :ViT~ W! in~Q 1~ '~lt !JYI~~ Na,., !J)i;'l! ~iT, Know ye that th~ Lord lIE God, zs that hath 11lade and not we ourselves, we are HIS people, and the sheep 0/ HIS

pa,vtU1'e. Here pronoun the third person sin­gular ~~ N~iT HE is God. ~iW N~iT HE hath made us; and pronoun possessive '!:i:IJl people, 'I.n'.V;Q H IS pasture; regularly occur; but if C';;~ Elhoim been plural, these pronouns must neces­sarily have been plural also, which must have been rendered, know that THEY GODS,.

it is THEY that hath made 'Us and not 'We oursel"el~

,

110

IVe are THEIR people ant! the sheep 0/ THEla pas­ture.

Gen. 2~ 2. ~~, God ended his work-to grOw.­ch. 6. 1 g. D"~~ ~ qnd God looked.-ch. 17. 3. and God talked '{oitlt him.-ch. 20~ 17. and God healed Abimelech.-ch. 31. 24. Levit .. 18. 4.­eh. 19. 2. Deut. 5. 6. v. 9.-ch. 6. 4.-ch. 7. 9. Psalm, 78.59.-81. 10. Isaiah, 45. 21.-ch. 44. 6. -ch. 4. 6. Jer. 10. 10. Hos. 13. 4. Jonah,~. 6.

I could cite hundreds more, but these are sufficient. In all these passages, and uniformly throughout the Scriptures, the word .~~ ElllOim; God, is joined with 'Oerbs, at/jectivta, and p"onou1Is, singular, except where the translators in two or three places, have erred in the application, as noticed above; which is unquestionable evidence that the word ~~ ElkQim, God, is a noun singular, and, consequently cannot refer to a plurality of persons existing out rf the divine nature.

There is one passage, in which this word has been evidently Dlisu~derstood by the translators, 1 S~. is. 14. 15. And the king said Ull.to her, be not t(raid; for what stest thou? and the woman said unto him, I BarD Gods ascending out of the eartn. ' 4.lId he said unt9 her, what form is HE tff? and she laid, an old man cometh up; alui HE i, cO'Oered with

I

Di9itiZ~d by Google

111

"mantle. Here again, the pronoun of the third person singular occurs, NlIi'1 HE, viz, what form is HE

of, HE is covered with a mantle, whiCh shows that ~~ Elhoim, God" should have bem rendered a noun singular. Dr. Clarke says, Cf \Ve have seen that the word D';:;;~ Elkoim, God, is plural ;." and thu is the opinion of many well-meaning writers. But, on the contrary, if the original ·scliptvres are to decide the matter, we have seen that this .word was used by all the sacred writers as a noun singular, to denote the unity of God.. '

N ~ither is ~e word ~;:t;~ Elhoim, God, plural" because some have supposed that it has a plural ter­mination. I have before observed, that c~ !Jim, was not a plural tennination; Bnd I h&.ve given the. reason. There are great numpers of words whic~ have the same termination, and which nevertheless are singular; on which account, these might be said to be plural also, as C~!¥7.?, Eg!JPt-I:J~~~~, the Hea'Ven-I:J'~ ~1! D'~ t face to face.. And though

, \\'e are told, that "both the noun and the root of D';P~ Elhoim, God, are preserved in the Arabic," I assert, without the fear of contradiction, that. this word' never had a root, because it is not a derivative, but a compound word from ~"i Jehovah, and ~ El, viz. the i'1' Yod ·and he, comprehending the uistence : of Deity, ~d ~~ EI, his jJ07IJer, strength, might, whi~h ill ita meaD~' in all the Scriptures; by whie"

Digitized by Google

(

II!

manifested power he created the world. These together form the word 'iP~ Eloehea, God, and which' is the same as the word O'r:t'~ Elhoim, God; only , it regularly occurs in regimen, as observed; but when the D Mem is added, it forms the absolute, by which it is distinguished from 'ljJ~ Eloehea, the rela­tive.

This word being a com pound word, there is not any necessity for us to go to the Arabic, as Dr. Clarke thinks, to find a supposed root for it. a1S' .Allah, is no doubt the common name for God ill Arabic, which is literally a copy of the Chaldean jlt~~ Elaall, God.

It is for this reason, as is ohserved by the learned Abarbanal, and others among the Rabbies, that the words ~~ Jehovah, and o~~ Elhoim, God, ali

·they always are to he met with : either together or separate when any command or prophecy . is given, and ~ever any of the other names of God; therefore that the one signifies his E88ence, the other his iriflu­Clee, . or external manifestation. From what has been said on this subject, there cannot be any doubt but that ~~ Jelwoak, means" the unsearchable and incommunicable principles of Deity." Therefore, to inculcate that degree of sanctity and reverence, which the ancient Jews entertained concerning the ineom- . mumcable nature of Deity, they Dever wrote, nor

Digitized by Google

Its

pronounced the word Ml~ JekO'Dak; but with regard to the word O'rPM Elhoim, God, it means his esSence, . , joined with his almighty powel· in visible existence, as by ~i8 power God brought forth all his wQrks in visible ,creation. Therefore, in the first chapter of Genesis we always meet with the word c~~ Elkoim, God,· but never O'rP~ ~~ Lord God, as in the second chapter; for the first chapter relates to the -existence, or most external manifestation of God, opera~ng from the essence, or inmost ground, for the production of created things: hence it M said, In tl4e beginning o~~ Elkoim, God created the heaven anti Ike earth.

Now ~~ JghO'tJah, the essence, being self-essent, and self-existent, it ~ust appear demonstrably evident that one self-essent, self-existent being could Dot possibly produce another self-essent, seJi:.existent being; cODSequeritly, there cannot be two beings of the same self-existing essence. Therefore from" the wonl D'~ El~oim, God, to infer the doctrine of a Trinity of persons OUT of the divine nature, co-eoal, co--equal, and eo-eter1Ul1 with eaeh Qther, ~ust appear as inccmsistent with reason, as it is with Scripture .

... As I do not wish to go beyond ~"hat is written for

our information in Scripture, I shall attend to the literal and obvious meanin~ of the inspired Wliters,

B

•

Digitized by Google

,114

in the following passages, and leave every man to think for himself. It is said, Gen. 1. 27. So God created man ~~~~ in his mon image, in the image W God created he him. 'o~~ Betsalemo, is a noul) substantive, and with this form alld ',construction, throughout'the Scriptures, is applied to the external form, or ima~e. N mnb. 32:. 52. Destroy all their images. 1 Sam. 6. 5, 1 L make images. Ezek. 7. flO'.

hut they made the images if' their abomination, i. e. the external form of the idols they worshipped. Which evidently proves, that the same word was in this first chapter of Genesis applied by the venerable penman to the external form, outward appearance, or figure of man, which is said to be in the image of

, God. This is continued in the 7th verse of the next chapter, where a distinction is made between the body and the soul ,and,the Lord God formed man of the dust if the ground, and breathe¢' into his nostrils the breath if life, and man became a living soul. This form of God is also confirmed in various parts of Scripture, where the language cannot be metaphoIically understood. Ezek. 1. 26. And upon the likene8S qf the thl·01le, was the likeness as the

. appearance qf a ltIAN above, upon it. Dan. 7, 13. 14. AlJd behold, one like the Son qf l1uin came with the clouds if'heaven, and came to the ancient of days; am tlleJ/ hrougkt him 11ear b~fore him. From which itis.evideut, that God appeared to the. prophets in,a human fOfm, which form refers to C';:6~ Elhoim,

115

God, or the externally visible m~ifestation of the Deity. '.

This explanation, here gi~en by the prophets,con­cerning the manifested form of God, will but ill agree with Dr. Clarke's notion; for he does not allow him to have any form at all. He says: "God is an infi .. nite spirit, and cannot be confined' to any form, so He can have no personal appearance." Now, as

\

the prophets declare him to be in the form of man, whether are we to believe the prophets, or Dr. Clarke, who has fallen into this en·or? If this were true, what a lamentable state should we be reduced to! for, though God is infinite, if He could not manifest Himself in His own form, which is the form in which He created man, we could have no idea of God, any more than we can -of ilifinite Space; and it brings us to the Socinian notion adopted by Dr. Priestley, that " we ,can have no idea of God, but that of infinite space." God is 'the object of worship, but we cannot worship a God, if we cannot form some determinate conception of such a being. If then "God has no , ~rsona} appearance" but is like to irYinite space, as infinite spa<;e is not an object· that comes l\'itbin the limit of our comprehension, neither could an infinite and incomprehensible being be an object of our wor­.nip,' -unless he condescended to manifest himself in human form, because there would be no object for our adoration.

Digitized by Google

118

I come now to the application, viz_ .to shaw from tfle express letter of Scripture, consistently with what has been said, who we are to understand this D';:r,~ Elhoim, God, of the Old Dispensation, and. the 8Eos: Theos, of the New Testament, to be. The Apostle, speaking of the Israelites, when they came out of Egypt, and tthe mighty things that~" Elhoim, God. did for them, says: that'this Elhaim was the rock that followed them, and that THIS ROCK WAS

CHRIST. -Isaiah says, concerwlIg this Elkoim, hehold, II 'Cirgin shall conceive, and h60r a. 80n, and ,hall tall his name Immanuel, God 'loit/, tao The Apostle l\fatthew confirms it: Now all this fDal done that it mig/It . be fu!filled which was spoke'll '!f the Lord (i. e. Christ) hy the prDphet, 86§;1If!, 'Behokl a 'Oirgw ,-hall be'l~itk child, and: shall bring forth II S01I, and 'ke!! shall call' hi, ;,ame Immfm:u.el, 'llJhi.ch" ~ tNJerpreted, i& " Godwith tis." Joh..n, ch. i.. 1 .. calls' him tHor, God, which is farther oonirmed by the Apostle Paul, who says, in him d'W8Iktlt. ALL t~,.

julJneas of the Godhead bodil# • . Now,' if. '~an the fullness of the GodlD.ead bodily dwells' in Christ," whc::re are we'~ direct our views in divi~ wor.sht~ but to 1;Iim in whom tIle ",,·hole fullness of the God~ head dwells.? -'

Having proved from Scriptur~ that the· v~ ~tation of Deity is Christ, .or, which is the same, that the manifestation of Deity in lu.untaA fona

Digitized by Google

117

is Christ, I may be asked the same question as \V85

put to me by the late Dr. Priestley, viz. "if Christ be God, was heaven without God, when Christ was upon the earth?" Such reasoners suppose that God possesses perfections in common ,,·ith themsel ves. They forget that He alone possesses ukifjuit!J; that He is o~'Ilipresent and omniscient, and therefore the Supreme Being can manifest Himself in all places at the same time. Now as God only can possess these infinite perfections, I hope there is not a member of the Church of England, or of any other church. who believes in the divinity of Christ, but that also believes in his uo;fju;t!j. However, as in all these cases the

\

ScrjptUl'e-is. to determine the matter, we will tum to

'that authority. Christ, in plain terms, informs us,. that He po~sses these infinite perfections" and that He manifests Himself in all places at the same' time. John, 3. 13. And no man hath ascended up to heaven, hut He that came down from heaven, even the BOil of Man which is in hea'l:cn.

That there are three visible persons out of tilt: divine nature, " united' in council and effort," is not only asserted by this writer, but has also heen the belief of many of the learned in former ~aes. I trust it will appear that this view of the subject is not icripturaJ. That there are three persons in tile divine n~tur.e is the language of the Scriptur~. But ,this must be underst,ood agreeably to the true and

Digitized by Google -.

118

ancient meaning, and application of the' Latin word PERSON A, from whence comes the English word person.

, This en'or has no doubt been confirmed by the very' improper ullderstandin~ and customary appli­cation, of the word persona, which, in ancient Lati. nity, was never used in the sense in which it is now understood. When the Latin was a living languag~, the word persona was understood to mean the. quali-

. tics of the mind, as constituting a character, either good or bad; but it has so far degenerated into tangible materiality, that, instead of being used as anciently to signify a character, ojJice, or pe)'sonal

,qualities, it is applicd to mean the material body of ' man. That it was originally applied to signify per­sonal qualities, particular ~on.stitution of the mind, a character, or l1Jic:e, is confirmed by the following authorities: Sustineo unus tres personas, meam adversari judices. 1 Persona tragica. a Eripitur per­sona, manet res. J Magistratus gerit personam civi­tatis.' Ad tuendam personam magistrat6s. f From which it appears that the word persona, in ancient Latinity, meant a character, and not literally a person. in which bense it is now comlI)only understood.

Hence it is certain, without any controversy, that the true doctrine of the Scriptures on this subject is:

I Cic. • Ph;edr. I Lucr. 4 Plan. 100. 'de Or. 169.

Digitized by Google

-II!)' I

That there is one God, operating in three distinct characters; that the ineffable Deity cannot be known, or seen, only as He has been pleased to embody His glory in the divine human of Christ, who, in His divine body, .. is the visible manifestation of God, in visible human form, independent of created mat .. ter. The visible medium IN whom the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodilY-THROUGH whom He made the,worlds, and BY whom He redeemed man. This is the view, which the Apostle had of the etermu TRINITY IN UNITY, in one divine' human form, even Christ, who follO'Wed them through the wilde'I"­'fleas, which he confirms in those ever memorable words,for in Him dwelleth ALL the fulness W·Ole Godhead bodily. Thus he understood that the God­head was the Father, who dwells in Christ, as the soul dwells in the body of man; my Father that dwelleth IN ME, He doeth the works. So that, con­sistently with the express declaration of Scripture, if I may be allowed the expression, and it were pos-

. sible to speak with that reverence which the subject requires, the body of the FATHER is the SON, the divine essence or soul of the SON is the FATHER, and the HOLY PROCEEDING from the FATHER and the SON, which creative influence manifested the visible creation, and by perpetual influx supports the universe, is the HOLY SPIRIT.

Digitized by Google

liO

. Thissctiptural definition of, the divine Trinity' IN

the. Supreme Being, will perfectly agree with that copy of the genuine faith of the Apostolic churche$,' which is calle4 the Athanasian creed. It becomes plain to the meanest capacity, that we rvorSkip OM

God in Trinity, and Tt'znity in Unity; neither co. fDUnding the perao'lls, nor dividing the sOOstance. For' the'l'e is one character of tke F ATH Elt,tllIOtlle'r of tke SON, and another of the HOLY SPIB. IT. But the Godhead of tke F AT lIE Il, ttl the SON, anti '!I tke HpLY SPIRIT, is all one, the Glory equal, th.e Mtdesl!Jco-eternal. The FATHER UN':REATE, tk~

SON UNCltEATE, and the HOLY SPIRIT VNCREAT:E ..

The FATHER ETERNAL, the SoN ETERNAL, and the HOLY SPIRIT ETERNAL; and yet there are not tkreeetet'1lais, but'ONE ETEltN.AL. ~

. The ¥athe';8 God) the Son is G(Jd, and th~ HDly Spirit is God. And yet they are not three GodS, lmtoNE GOD. Before I conclude, I think it ileees~ sa~y to say by way of cautio:p, that, whoever may he disposed to cavil, on the ground of their own under .. MaRding, hldep€odently of the authority of Scriptnre, to which I have uniformly attended for proof of. what is advanced in these pages, that they do not charge me with inconsistency because I ·have said God maD~ fests Himself in human form, that I mEtan He is pcceSiarily confined to that one human form iIi one

•

Digitized by Coogle

1tl

place. I again repeat what I before said, that, such personS form ideas of God similar to those they form of man; they forget that He alone possesses ubiquity; and that, by this attribute, inco~ceivable to us, He is omnipresent, agreeably to 'the words of Christ him-

.. self: no man hath ascended up to hetl'Oen, but He . that'came downfro1n heaven, EVEN THE SON OP

MAN;, WHICH IS IN HEAVEN. This is He who declares himself to be the FATHER and the SON.

Philip saith, Lord, show us the Father, and it suf-ficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, have I been so l(jng time with you, antl yet hast thou 110t knonJn me, Philip? he that hatl, seen nle hath seen the Father, ontl how sayest thou then, show us the Father. This is He who declares himself to be the Father, Son,

. and Holy Spi,.it. John, 16. ]7. Nc"certiteless I tell !IOU the truth: it is upeliicnl for !lUll, that I g" trlOQY ; for if I go not «way, the coniforter 'IJ)ill not come unto you; but if I depart, Iw ILL SEN D HIM

unto you. This is He who declares himself to be the omnipotent. Matt. 28. 18. A lid Jesus come flnd spake unto them, saying, ALL POWER 1S GIVEN .. 0

'liE in heaven and in eartll. Omniscient, Matt. 9.4. A.nd Jesu.J, kno'tl)illg their thou gilts, said, 'lt1herefore think ye e-cil in your heart.,? John, g. 24. And Jesus did not commit himself unto them, becau.Jc HE KNEW ALL lIEN, and He needed not thatanyshoult! teatif!J f!! him: for HE KNEW WHAT WAS IN :&IAN'.

ch .. 6. 64. For Jesus' kne'lD from tile beginlling, 'to""

Digitized by Google

12~

they were that helieved rtOt, and who sho~ld lJetrlJ!J him. That He forgives sin, Matt. 9. 6 .. that ye may know that the Son of -'Ifan hath power on earth to forgi~e sins. Luke, 7. 48. tlzy sills are forgiroen. And, lastly, that He gh'es eternal life. John, ]0. Y. 1. £8 • .If,fy sheep hear my.voice, and I k12O'tJJ them, and they follow me. And I GIVE UNTO THE)r

ETERNAL LIFE, neither shall any pluck tltem out .tlf-.my halld.-ch. 17.2. As thou hast given him pO'loer over alljlesh, that HE SHOULD GIVE ETER­

)l AL LIFE TO AS MANY AS 'fHOU HAST GIVEN

HIM.-ch. 5. 21. For as the Fatlzer raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them: even so the SON quick­eneth WHOM HE WILL.

I shall conclude these remarks by observing, that in what this. indus·trious writer has hitherto sajd, I c:annot find that he has illustrated any difficult or controverted passages-nothing hitherto is advanced to silence the objections of the Deist-no contra­dictions, nor inconsistencies, as they stand in the translation of the book of Genesis, reconciled ;-no satisfactory attempt to'remove the veil of sophistry and false philosophy, '" hich the enemies of the BiblB have <;lrawn over the face of truth; he has not so far looked over the gloomy mountains of error, by con­tending for the faith delivered to the Apostles, FaUters, and Bishops, of the Christian Churches, respecting the Trinity; but he calmly swims down the unruffled

Digitized by Google

123

stream of popular oplDlOn, except in the solitary instance of adopting the monkey for the serpent, to

bring about the faU of man.

These remarks are not made with a view to inte­rest, as according to appearance the author must 'be a c<;>nsiderable loser by writing and publishing them. He can say of a truth, that they are made only with a view to restore as much as possible the true read­ing, ancient meaning, and application of the Scrip­tures, as understood by the inspired writers. Yet he has found that the publishers of those things, against which he has thought it his duty to speak in favor of the truths of the Bible, have been offended, though what he has said has been acknowledged by them to

be consistent with the original Hebrew. But, in this Augustine a~, in this truly liberal and noble .nation, where the Bible is in the hand of the school boy, and ,all sects are protected alike in the worship of God, agreeably to the dictates of their cdnsciences, truth must finally of necessity prevail: like a hidden fire, which, though it may have been smothered, for a

"time, it will break forth from the humble solitude, lmd, with all the energy of its pure nature, the sacred flame will asccnd unadulterated to its native heaven.

If thc' author of these commentaries should feel the truth of any thing here advanced, and should see a greater beauty and sanctity ill the Scriptures by

Digitized by Google

124

acknowledging what cannot be denied, without reject­ing the solemn· declarations of the inspired \liriters, and ,also of the ancient Hebrews before Christ, that the above particulars respecting the serpent are to be understood in an allegorical sense, as descriptive of the sensual prineiple in man·; it will be a proof of his candor, and that he is open to conviction. A's truth appears to be his object,· though he may feel unpleasant on having suffered himself to have been so hurried away by opinion, as to contradict the plail1 assertion of the sacred writer,. who says, that these things are to be understood allegorically; and to attach blame to,those who do not see with our eyd, by applying to them, in a way of contempt, the epithets of "Spiritualisers, Metaphor-men, and Allegorists, who have disgraced pure religion." I say, as truth is his object, he will be as thankful for information that leadft~ out of the labyrinths of error, as the weary traveller, who, baving lost his way, is directed into the path, which leads to his habitation.

In his voluminous comments, he has introduced a variety of languages, but I cannot see that these Janguages cast any light on the original Scriptures. It can be of little consequence to know, that "the ~nglll;h word· woman comes from the Saxon word wODlbman, or a man with a womb;" that the word " loaf comes froUl hlaf, bread;" and of less conse­quence in an elucidation of the Scriptures, to be

Digitized by Google .,~1~-

12.5

informed, that our English noblemen were once very hospitable, and kept open house, where all strangers were at liberty to enter, and eat. . as much as they would. These things appear to me altogether as unnecessary; when giving a literal interpretation of Scripture, as for him to introduce a system of philo­sophical chemistry, and as inconsistent with reason, as to suppose that the sun is a habitable world.

It was reasonable to expect from such a display of various languages, -that we should have had many mistranslations in. the book of Genesis rectified, and the Scriptures in those places rendered something nearer to the native beauty of the original. But ag this is not the case, it' is another proof that the Hebrew language can interpret itSelf, and that other languages cannot possibly give us any information so as tO,elucidate any p~rt of the divine \nitings.

These observations will be attended with a greater degree of conviction, when it is recollected that God gave his word to man in the Hebrew language, (as above) therefore, if the Hebrew Scriptures, ill which God made known his will to nlan, were so incom­plete, so defective" or so difficult to be understood, that we were under the necessity of ft'sorting to all the:-EaStem languages, which were not th~n iii exis­tence, in order to pn a knQw~ge of the will of

Digitized by Google

1~6

God; it would cast a shade over infinite wisdom, and prove that his will was never known fi'om Adam to the time of the birth of languages at Babylon.·

THE END.

$ ,'.

l'RUITEO BY A. I. V ALPY, -TOOJ('S COUB1, .-. COAII.CERY !.AIi}!,. r.olioo~,-

tau-

(" Ir. ,'~ '-:'

Di9i;ized by Goog Ie

Digitized by Google

Digitized by Coogle

---~- --------- r

THE BORROWER WILL BE CHARGED AN OVERDUE FEE IFTHIS BOOK IS NOT RETURNED TO THE LIBRARY ON OR BEFORE THE LAST DATE:ST AMPED BELOW. NON-RECEIPT OF OVERDUE NOTICES DOES NOT EXEMPT THE BORROWER FROM OVERDUE FEES.

or ...... " ...... ...

Digitized by Google