Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COLLEGE
LIBRARY
ii
byGoogle
Digitized by
Digitized by
OPHION.
Digitized by
THE
,\OPHION;/
011. THB
SERPE~,
THEOLOGY OF THE
AND TBB
Untt!' of <l5ob.
ow THB MOlT ANCIBNT PEOPLB, WHO
WB.B INST.VCTBD TO APPLY THB SA.GA.CITY OW THB
SBRPBNT, TO THB
ON
(it!"
'H' .. '
..........
~!IJ
. lSI\:. f
\t\
,
.,."
I ........
(~.
'-
..-..-~-
"!..... / ..
-r
"
I,
, !
..
.. 1 ' '.
-'.
'.
I
".;;,;...
. :s
."o.~"Qn.~
'
.UII'rDJY..... ~"Y""'Y,
~.,ItII'' Clova-r, CI~A."' Y ....... ,
-.: .
,1811. \
,: -j
r
Digitized by
Goog Le
PREFACE.
--.
THE following observations were originally
intended for insertion in the CLASSICAL and
Bin'LlcAL JOitRNAL: but as that work is
wu"'necesS8.ry,
I'
Digitized by
Coogle
VI
PREFACE.
all ages
1U
":..
~,/"
~:.3'
t" (
''t
. .....
~A
4a~e
'.'
'
of (lod.,
,;
f; \'i
",
, "'r. : '
was
"
I :',)[.
i 1[ ,. '
Digitized by
..
PRBPACB.
Vll
fo~ SOOO
they
Digitized by
viii
P'RBPAC&
matters of,
more importance.
.. Therefore, to
JOHN .BELLAMY.
Digitized by
",
THE OPHION.
are
Digitized by
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~s
ing 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
this' description of men.
brought against the Bible
by,
.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
I,
Digitized by
Coogle
, 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
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,
be
bave developed this mystery; but that we are
satisfied as to this and other important matters, and
that it is to be made known in this enlightened age,
by Dr. Ad~ ~Jark~.
on
to
an4
Digitized by
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~k
ing 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
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. ' .
~
it seems necessary, in
,
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~ ,
Nlrash, 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
10
aphis
Cl
Digitized by
..
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.
~
1.
1, c. 10,
Digitized
by
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
Digiiized by
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.
Pausan. 1. x. p. 863.
a Homer. Iliad.
Digitized by
.,
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 .: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. '
'tt
Digitized by
16
Bochart, G. ~. p. 369.
Ibid. p. 295."
'",
Digitized b;
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.
Strabo,1. x. p. 746.
Digitized by
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
19
s I.ycophron. Scholia. v.
496.
Digitized by
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
Cadmo. Thus were the
acceperunt Grreci
~c
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."
Digitized by
Digitized'by
TIlE
- ...
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,
T HE
Digitized by
!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.~ Nhesh, bruen,
was given to brass, because it rese~nble$ tpe color Of
Digitized by
mew.
Buffon. Nat.lIist.
Digitized by
~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
28
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
so
.
'"
: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 sagacity, 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.
Digitized by
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.
,
as
Digitized by
, '
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 tothe 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
"
,
84
Rev. xii. 9.
Digitized by
85
all
Digitized by
Digitized by
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
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 .
or
Digitized by
~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
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
41
that. 'a Hebrew word difl'eringin form,
tennination, and orthop'aphical mYler, is capable of
lmOWll
..:>
DiQitizedbyGoogle
4!
shire, dialects. . The learned Pococ,ke, who waS
allowed to be the best Arabie scholar that ever
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.
I
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 oftongues 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
kingdom waS Babel; this was at
the commencement of the Babylonish
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.
',is
or
Digitized by
as
Digitized by
as
Digitized by
46
Iss III, a Goat.
Di~itized by Google
47
-
. .
woa
Yenicheesh,
Digitized by
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~~~
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.
Banne-.
...
TT
Digitized by
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"
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 _
~
bJikis.
,.
Digitized by
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.
,
..
Digitized by
~1
Digitized by
unto
unto
Digitized by
U. Provo 13.
25.-ch.)8~
F~
Digitized by
"
>
.,
,
go..
Targuln,
1
18.
~ Jbid. Esth 3~ 2.
.' Ibid
Targ.
Psalm, ~O.
, Ibid. Psalm.
45. 6.
,.
.,
mee
Digitized by
Digitized by
$1
~stoo,l 'Qf the East, by giving language toanimaIs, Q
well 113 language aha action to inanimate nature.
.Jub, 12. 7. But ask MTlJ the be,:"", and they skall
1ek t1l,6; and.the futJ)/s qf the air, and tkey sluzlll811
.thee~Or
to the earth, and it shall teack tna,
pnd ~ ~$ qfthe lea shaP declare Uf!JO thee. Here
:we are told. that the beas~, the fowls, and the fishes, ,
.,ak
Dot:with-
his organs to
Digitized by
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.."
"
'
,,'
.
\
.
Digitized by
'
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
Digitized by
as
o far
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
Digitized by
fU
ImJ /taJO soni, 'W1lick thing. tri trn ailcgor!J,.for tizeie
Ike tWo Cl1Oe1UJnts, Ike une.frqm, Ike Mount Sinaii.
skick gendereth lKmdage 'Whick is Agar. For tkiI
.Agar is Mount Sinai in-Arabic.
Gre
vi. 'Wile, to
"
Jhem
Digitized by
Google.
was
. ; .,.1
Oigitized by
Coogle
Digitized by
..aea
Digitized by
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
Digitized by
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, hasbeen involved in doubts and difficulties
for ages: Celsus~ one of the .first opposers. of the
Gospel, trea~ with $8.tir.ical merrimenl the l~tory,Qf
Adam's formation, and of ~ve rn~e, from- his'rib, of
the commands that were given th~m, an~ of tht:;
serpent's cunning in being able "to evadethe,effect en
those commands. Origen, in ans,,'cr t9 him, ',says,
that he does not treat the subject with candor.. but
~ide.s :what he oug4t to .havell\ade kl)O:n, ~. that
all tJys was to be unperstood in a. figurative sense,
not ,,givIng the words, wi;lich would have,~onvinced
him that,tbey_ were spok;n: a'legorica~ j ,Origen also
repli~ to C:elsu:s, ..efeni~,him to :the~~,.own, writers,
theolpgjQ.ns. Q.Qd !p,.\lilo~H~ers, .~ho frequently; <;on1mu7
~i.cated tb,eir dQfJtrine~ .iff: tb.i&. represtmWiy~ style.:
'~SttallCe~ ,pc. which.':-\le.,giye~,fronl Hesiod anJi. P.la~J.
~h.ich, .were.: all interpre~d in a figurative seqse by
~eir, followers, and' concludes by o~s.erving, that;it is
WlrCllsonable to deny ~ ,Moses th~~sses~io,n Qf
truth",under the veil pf"allegory, whWll was, then ,th~
pmcti~ o~ all the east~m .natio~.1
.' ,
~.
,....
".
l .
Digitized by
,0
'EusebiUI!I' ihforms us, th,at there were two sorts ,of
Jews, the learned and the 'Unlearned: Theunlearned
were confined to the literal observance of, ihe"la'W's
but the learned were admitted to the contemplation
of a'mQre refined philosophy., That tlle interpreters
exPlained to thell,l the:; bgunni.ve,: sense;' which h~
eonnrms, not ~Jllly hy .the 'authority of :Arlatobulus
and ,Philo, but, by the constant' practice of that 'strict
'sect' of -the 'Je\vs, the Essenes,: who always"folk!ntEM
tbi~ allegorical'inanner'~ expOUnding, whieh"'tl"as'iii
the' d~ys er Aristob'ui~$, 500 'years before Christ,
called aneierit. .
';
,;'. :.";
"
' :; ;'.1
Jt
to
ana
Digitized by
to; be
signify
-.. Xl.
: .. :r \'
l~ed ~, M~onides,'
;'"
sap, u., ~
....
.'
I ~
: ' .
0'::
.::'
.:;
Digitized by
ZEROR' HAlfMOR,
is
:"'1
,'.
."
the '
is
Digitized by
every one,
Put'
Digitized by
....
74
.. :' " ;
. .;.
- ' , .'
! . .:
,J
.,'
". :.
:,
\..;
:'
wij'h,.,.
Digitized by
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 :ofEve 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 .thecidlX>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
Digitized by
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 othermeallsof 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, ,thallthis 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
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 itto 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 shaltt/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.
Digitized by
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,
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
80
.1
Digitized by
81
'.
"
Digitized by
82
.. 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 tkef07biddenfruit.
. 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
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?
Digitized by
85
. DiQitizedbyGoogle
.86
.'
, :"!
'
IT certainly
Digitized by
87
concerning a plurality of Gods, a charge which 'those
who call themselves Vnitarians, 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
Digiiized by
88
the
".
. '
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
ofthis 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,
Psalm
Digitized by
Coogle
,-
.-ch. SO. 3.
at
..
Digitized by
=""
ments.
'
Digitized by
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 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.
~ ~~
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
D!'
Digitized by
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'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.
I
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.
Digitized by
.11
'!t
m~-i1
t
8.
Digitized by
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 FLYINGfrom 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
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. ]
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. ,
T. '
5:
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.
Di9itize~ by Google
Go
their langunge.
nni
and
Digitized by
99
urr.
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 ourBible, 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
Digitized by
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
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,
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 rendt: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 "'19 N'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.
,0
I,
Digitized by
'105
I
English in conformity thereto. The following passages, 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.
con,'.
Digiti;ed by
, 106
Digitized by
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
D'r::
Digitized by
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 Wthe 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.
Unity of
The first verse in the Bible begins with
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
~Nl:t they created; which would
person plural,
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 pas-
ture.
Gen. 2~ 2. ~~, God ended his work-to grOw.ch. 6. 1g. 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.
is
Di9itiZ~d by Google
111
"mantle.
all
Digitized by
II!
Digitized by
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
,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
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 enor? 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
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
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
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 per-
Cic. Ph;edr.
Lucr.
Digitized by
-II!)'
Digitized by
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 FATH Elt,tllIOtlle'r
of tke SON, and another of the HOLY SPIB. IT. But
the Godhead of tke FAT 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, hldepodently 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.
Digitized by
12~
Digitized by
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.
Digitized by
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
1~6
THE END.
, ' .
tau-
Di9i;ized by
Goog Ie
Digitized by
Digitized by
Coogle
---
~-
- - - -
--
- --
or ......" . . . . . .. . .
Digitized by