-LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 ived September., / s so . 
 
 Accessions No.^~^^-^ J Shelf No. 
 
 
 
 U- 
 
THE 
 
 OPHION 
 
THE 
 
 OPHION; 
 
 OR THE 
 
 THEOLOGY OP THE SERPENT, 
 
 AND THE 
 
 of 
 
 COMPREHENDING THE CUSTOMS OF THE MOST ANCIENT PEOPLE, WHO 
 
 WERE INSTRUCTED TO APPLY THE SAGACITY OF THE 
 
 SERPENT, TO THE 
 
 F-ALL OF MAN. 
 
 WITH 
 
 Critical Hemarftg 
 
 ON 
 
 DR. ADAM CLARKE'S ANNOTATIONS 
 
 ON THAT SUBJECT IN THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 
 
 In this work it is shown, from the original language, that, in every age 
 of the Jewish and Christian churches, a Monkey was never 
 be the agent employed to bring about the Fall of Manj 
 
 BY JOHN BELLA 
 
 Author of BIBLICAL CRITICISMS ih the CLASSICAL 
 ORIENTAL JOURNAL. 
 
 SOLD BY HATCHARD, PICCADILLY ; WILLIAMS, 
 
 STATIONERS'-COURT, LUDGATE-HILL ; 
 
 A.ND ARCH, CORNHILL ; 
 
 LONDON. 
 1811. 
 
Hontion: 
 
 FRINTBD BY A. J. VALPY, 
 TOOK'8 COURT, CHANCERY &AVK. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 THE following observations were originally 
 intended for insertion in the CLASSICAL and 
 BIBLICAL JOURNAL : but as that work is 
 published quarterly, and as the whole could 
 not be inserted at once, it was thought best 
 to lay it before the public altogether. 
 
 For satisfactory proof concerning the things 
 advanced in these pages, I have endeavoured 
 to adhere to the Scriptures, when such refer- 
 ence was necessary, and by the undoubted 
 
Y111 PREFACE. 
 
 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. 
 
THE OPHION. 
 
 
 1 HE commentary on the Book of Genesis by Adam 
 Clarke, L. L. D. is a work which has excited a great 
 degree of curiosity among all ranks of Christians. It 
 must 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 
 involved in obscurity. But when, instead of eluci- 
 dations of difficult parts, we are presented with new 
 theories, boldly advanced, unsupported by the autho- 
 rity of Scripture, or any other authority but that of 
 conjecture ; it is painful to the serious mind, and 
 hurtful to the cause, which such writers are endea- 
 vouring to support. I give them credit for their 
 well-meant intentions ; but these commentators, above 
 all others, are called upon by God a_nd man, to be 
 
 A 
 
faithful, and to advance nothing with intent to illus- 
 trate the Scriptures, but v/hat can be supported by 
 their own authority. 
 
 There never was a time, when there was so press- 
 ing a necessity for a plain, and literal translation of 
 the Bible, as the present. The progress of Deism, 
 arising from errors, inconsistencies, and wrong trans- 
 lations, is alarming ; and when we know that nothing 
 of this nature can possibly be sanctioned by the 
 original, we expect, when commentaries of such a 
 description 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 
 to remove those errors and, inconsistencies which 
 have been, and still are, the cause of all those calum- 
 nies, which we have so often witnessed to have been 
 brought against the Bible by this description of men. 
 
 The work before us is certainly a work of con- 
 siderable labor. 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 are made with any 
 other view, than to ascertain what is true respecting 
 the most interesting subjects, which can possibly come 
 before the public, viz. THE UNITY OF GOD, AND 
 
 THE FALL OF MAN. 
 
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 
 many good men have been as zealous in their endea- 
 vours, to promulgate their opinions on Biblical subjects, 
 from the 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 may be contradicted to day, and tomorrow 
 may bring forth something new. Therefore, rejecting 
 the opinions of men, the Scriptures alone must deter- 
 mine the true meaning and application of every 
 doubtful and controverted passage. This is that rock, 
 which cannot be shaken by the storms of clashing 
 opinions; when this is not attended to, when the 
 Scripture is not at all times, and on all occasions, 
 resorted to as conclusive 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 altogether unsettled 
 respecting things of the greatest importance, even 
 those things, which relate to his happiness in this life, 
 and in the future state also. For being unsettled as to 
 his faith in the revealed word of God, he mav be 
 
Induced to neglect those things, which make for his 
 present and eternal peace. 
 
 Let the intelligent reader look around, and he will 
 see the thronging multitudes losing themselves in the 
 perplexing labyrinths of opinion ; by some we are 
 told that there are a plurality of Gods ; by others, 
 that God is one 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 countries, and is supposed 
 by naturalists to be one of the most crafty of the 
 brute creation,) may be chosen as a fit agent to bring 
 about the fall of man. 
 
 " We have here," says this writer, " one of the 
 most difficult, as well as one of the most important, 
 narratives in the whole book of God. The last chap- 
 ter ended with a short but striking account of the 
 perfection and felicity of the first human beings ; and 
 this opens with their transgression, degradation, and 
 ruin." There is some pleasure in perusing the work 
 of any author who writes on the Scriptures, whether 
 what 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 to give a. 
 satisfactory explanation of the original text, " of the 
 
most important narrative in the whole book of God," 
 and to fix the meaning, and show the propriety and 
 consistency agreeably to the original, of the Mosaic 
 account of the fall of man. He says, u but how, 
 and by what agency this was brought about, here is 
 a great mystery :" he appeals to all persons, who have 
 read the comments that have been written on the 
 Mosaic account, whether they have ever yet been 
 satisfied 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 the comments, 
 which have hitherto been given for the last 3000 years, 
 have 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. Adarn Clarke, 
 
 I am one of those among the great body of pro- 
 fessing Christians, who remain altogether dissatisfied 
 with this writer's conclusion, that Eve was tempted 
 by a monkey; and I shall show, to use his owi) wprds, 
 that though the monkey goes " on all fours," yet that 
 his statement of this matter is very far from going 
 " on all fours;" and that in this very extraordinary 
 comment, " the legs of the larr^e are not equal." I am 
 exceedingly sorry that this author has chosen so ludi- 
 crous a animal for one of the persons of his drama ; 
 the tete-a-tete of Eve, and this sportive creature, if 
 
c 
 
 credited,- would furnish abundant matter for wit and 
 ridicule among Deists; it would be impossible 
 gravely to recommend 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 true that a serpent 
 literally tempted our mother Eve, some part of such 
 reasoning might be so applied, but of the two, it 
 certainly would be better to choose the serpent, as the 
 less objectionable. It would also be difficult for 
 Christians to defend this part of Scripture with a 
 serious countenance, when they recollected the unin- 
 telligible chatter, and disgusting grimace, which that 
 animal must necessarily manifest in such a conver- 
 sation. 
 
 Whoever has seen a monkey must be sensible that, 
 among all creatures, it is the least calculated, on 
 account of its ugly face, to succeed in prevailing on 
 the woman to disobey the divine command; so that 
 I think the author has been rather unfortunate in his 
 choice of a tempter to captivate 
 
 " The fairest of her 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 expressly said, that 
 the serpent should go on its belly, " on % belly thou 
 f now these words are more evidently against 
 
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 monkey, 
 the divine command was not obeyed, for that animal 
 does not go on its belly, any more than the whole 
 race of quadrupeds : And as to the tale of its walk- 
 in or erect before the fall, it walked no more erect 
 
 O ' 
 
 then, than it does now ; for the ouran outang monkey 
 always goes erect, when it has occasion ; he will fre- 
 quently 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 speech. 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 should lose the gift of speech ; 
 though we might reasonably suppose, that if by this 
 organ the fall of man had been brought about, God 
 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 belly. Therefore whether it were the 
 serpent, or the monkey, the gift of speech must 
 necessarily have remained, as that power was not 
 
8 
 
 by the divine command taken away. Dr. Clarke 
 says, " God did not qualify the serpent with speech 
 for the occasion/' true ; neither has he proved that 
 God qualified the monkey " with speech for the 
 occasion," but by supposing that this was the case ; 
 arid supposition proves nothing. 
 
 I shall pass over the lamentable definition of the 
 tree of knowledge eating the forbidden fruit the 
 system of astronomy r , 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 sanctity of this part of 
 Scripture; as for him to inform us in his comment on 
 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 Adarn, " was neither 
 swoon, nor extasy," and come to that part, which is 
 more ifrinqediately the subject of this investigation, 
 viz. the agent employed in the fall of man,, which Dr. 
 Clarke says was the puran-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 all 
 the Christian churches to the present day ? 
 
 It seems necessary, in the first place, in order to 
 pave the way for the reception of the moqkey 
 
instead of the serpent, for this writer to lessen tho 
 authority of all the ancient versions, which, he says, 
 .are wrong as to the translation of the word tfrrj 
 Nachask, by serpent. Even the Septuagint is 
 included, who, he says, " translated #m Nachash, 
 by o$i$ ophis, the Greek word for serpent; not 
 because this was its fixed determinate meaning, but 
 because it was the best that occurred to the trans- 
 lators ; and they do not seem to have given themselves 
 much trouble to understand the meaning of the-" 
 original, And the New Testament writers, who 
 scarcely eyer quote the Old Testament, but from the 
 Septuagint translation, and scarcely ever change a 
 word in their quotations, copy this version in the use 
 of this word." But this gentleman certainly has no 
 authority for asserting, that these ancient translators 
 rendered the original word ttfTti Nachash, by o$i$ 
 ophis, not as its " determinate meaning 1 ' 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 monarchy, which was an universal 
 monarchy, and the Greek an universal language, 
 well understood by them ; and who themselves were 
 the most learned among the Jewish doctors ; did not 
 understand the meaning of the word #m Nachash 
 in Greek? which must have been the case, if o<f*i$ 
 pphis, is not literally the meaning. Surely it must be 
 Admitted, that at this time of the world both these 
 Janguages \yere well understood by them, and if 
 
10 
 
 ophis " was the best word that occurred" to 
 them, by which to render ttfm Nachash, it must neces- 
 sarily be admitted, agreeably to this reasoning, that 
 ^K Nachask was understood by the sacred writers, 
 and by these ancient translators, to mean a serpent. 
 
 . I shall first pursue the subject on the ground this 
 writer has taken, viz. " a simple relation of facts, 
 capable of a satisfactory explanation." It is said by 
 the inspired penman, that the serpent was more wise 
 and intelligent than all the beasts of the Jleld. He 
 attributes five properties to the animal, in its original 
 state, which tempted Eve. 
 
 1st. That a whatever this ^HJ Nachash was, he 
 stood at the head - of all inferior -animals for wisdom 
 and understanding;" but he says, "! cannot find 
 that the serpent genus are remarkable for intelli- 
 gence ; it is true, the wisdom 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, therefore, to show that this animal was 
 selected with great wisdom by the primaeval people, 
 agreeably to its predominant passions, to signify the 
 sensual qualities and propensities in man : I shall, after 
 I have said a few words on the worship of this animal, 
 give the reader a short account of the wisdom, 
 
 
 
11 
 
 prudence, intelligence, and sagacity, of the serpent, 
 which naturalists from long observation inform 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 
 serpent as the symbol of wisdom, circumspection, and 
 intelligence, of the sensual principle in man. In the 
 description of Osiris and Isis, the idols of Egypt, a 
 serpent is always depicted with them. Osiris and Isis 
 were the king and queen, who, we are informed, 
 governed with such wisdom and gentleness, that the 
 Egyptians deified them, and caused them to be 
 attended by a serpent. 
 
 The Egyptfans also gave honors to the Niolic 
 serpent, 1 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 Phoenicians ; 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 
 
 v 
 
 /Elian, de Animalibus, lib. 10. Euscb. prj-ep, Evangel. 
 1/1. c, 10, 
 
12 
 
 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 
 world 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 shown them, that they never 
 injured any one; and when they died, they were buried 
 in the temple of Jupiter with divine honors.* 
 
 /Elian says, that the Egyptians kept serpents as 
 household gods. The Phoenicians and Babylonians 
 worshipped a dragon. The Arabians were famous 
 for worshipping serpents, and according to some, 
 whose testimony is not to be rejected, in some parts 
 of Arabia, at this day, serpents are held as sacred. 
 jJVlelanchthon says, that the priests in Asia expose to 
 public view a serpent, attended with music; the 
 serpent is made to open its mouth, and there appears 
 the' face of a beautiful woman. And in German 
 Bibles, before the time of Luther, may be seen the 
 figure of a serpent with the face of a woman. 
 
 " Oph 9 " says Bryant, " signifies a serpent; it 
 was worshipped as a Deity. A serpent was also in 
 the Egyptian language styled ob, or oub. We are 
 
 ' utcrpe, lib. ii. p. 186. 
 
13 
 
 told by Aurus Apollo, that the Basilisk was named 
 Oubaios; 1 Oo/3a/o, o earrw JEXtojwo-* Ba<riKi(rxQ$. 
 The Deity, so denominated, was esteemed prophetic, 
 and his temples were applied to as oracular. This 
 idolatry is alluded to by Moses : a man also, or 
 woman, that hath a ^ aoub, familiar spirit, or that 
 is a wizard; he forbids the Israelites ever to inquire 
 of those daemons, Oub and Ideone. The symbolical 
 worship 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 Colchis, at Thebes, 
 and at Delphi ; likewise at other places. The Greeks 
 called Apollo himself, Python, which is the same 
 as opis, oupis, and oub. The woman at Endor, who 
 had a familiar spirit, is called 3itf oub, and it is 
 
 interpreted Pytlwnlssa. The place where she resided 
 seems to have been named from the worship there 
 instituted ; for ">n W3, En dour, is compounded .of 
 En-Adour, and signifies Fons Pyihonis, "the fountain 
 of light, the oracle of the God Adour." Kircher, 
 continues Bryant, says, that obion is still, among ^ 
 
 the people of Egypt, the name of a serpent, :iitf oub, 
 " Mon Python, vox ab Egyptiis surnta, quibus obion 
 hodieque serpentem sonat."* The sun was worshipped 
 
 * Aurus App. c. i. p. 2. 
 
 a Bochart Hiero. 1. i. c. 3. p. 22, 
 
14 
 
 under the figure of a serpent : Hence there was given 
 to the Snartan Menelaus a serpent, for a device upon 
 his shield. 1 The same was also depicted upon the 
 shield and cuirass of Agamemnon. 1 There was also 
 a serpent engraved upon the tomb of Epaminondas,* 
 and inclosed in the figure 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 Haemus, in Thrace, a'nd carried 
 on to a degree of madness. Olympias copied them 
 closely in all their frantic manoeuvres ; she used to 
 be followed by many attendants, who had each a 
 sus, with serpents twisted round it. They had 
 
 a ] so snakes in their hah, and in the chaplets which 
 - / 
 
 they wore ; the whole was attended with a continual 
 
 $Mt^4i- \repetition of the w r ord Evoe, which is the same 
 as rm Eve. 
 
 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.* The like 
 was mentioned in the Octateuch of Ostanes ; and, 
 moreover, that in Persis, and in other parts of the 
 East, they erected temples to the serpent tribe, and 
 
 1 Pausan. 1.x. p. 863. 2 Homer. Iliad. 
 
 3 Pausan. 1. viii. p. 622. 4 Euscb. P. E. 1. i. p. 41, 42. 
 
 
15 
 
 held festivals to their honor, esteeming them, 05&<j 
 TOV$ fisyuTTovS) XOLI aLpwyws v oAojy, 1 the supreme 
 of all Gods, and the superintendents of the whole 
 world. This worship began among the Chaldeans, 
 who built the city Opis, upon the Tigris/ and were 
 greatly addicted to divination, and to the worship of 
 the serpent.* 
 
 The chief Deity of Egypt is said to have been 
 Vulcan, often called ^ 3itf Aoub-El, the serpent God ; 
 there were pillars sacred to him, with curious hiero- 
 glyphical 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 manner of the serpent,) was 
 styled Obelos and Obeliscus, i. e. the serpent pillar. 
 
 Sanchoniathon 4 makes mention of a history, which 
 lie once wrote upon the worship of the serpent. 
 Another treatise upon the same subject was written 
 by Pherecydes Syrus. The title of this book was 
 Ophioneus, the Theology of Ophion, or the Serpent ; 
 and of his worshippers called Opliionidae. The 
 
 1 Euseb. ibidem. a Herod. 1. ii. c. 189. 
 
 3 Maimonides, in More Ncvochiro, Selden, de Diis Syris. 
 Synt. i. c. 3. p. 49. 
 
 4 Euseb, praep. Evang. 1. i. p. 4L 
 
16 
 
 Ethiopians also brought these rites into Greece, and 
 called the island, where they first established them, El r 
 opia, " solis serpentis insula, 1 or, the Serpent Island.' 1 
 Hercules was esteemed a chief God, the same as 
 Chronus, and was said to have produced the mundane 
 egg. He w<as represented, in the Orphic theology, 
 under the mixed symbol of a lion and a serpent j* 
 sometimes of a serpent only. 3 The Cuthites, who 
 "t were Hivites, or Ophites, i. e. serpent worshippers, 
 settled at Rhodes, so namedjrom .^hou^^a Syriac 
 word for a serpent. In Phrygia, and upon the 
 liellespont, whither they sent out colonies very early, 
 was a people styled Oquoysvsig, or the serpent-breed; 
 who were said to retain an affinity and correspondence 
 with serpents. 5 Thucydides mentions a people of 
 Etolia, called Ophionians. 6 About 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 ^wor shipper s y 
 who came from Egypt. The island Seriphus was one 
 vast rock, by the Romans called Saxum Seriphium, 
 and made use of as a kind of prison for banished 
 persons. It is represented allegorically as abounding 
 
 1 Strabo, 1. x. p. 683. a Athenacg. Lcgatio, p. 239- 
 
 3 Ibid. p. 295. 4 Bochart, G. S. p. 36p. 
 
 5 Strabo, 1. xiii. p. 880. * L. iii. c. 96 Strabo, 1. x. p. $9%. 
 
 7 Appollon. Dyscolus. Mirabil. c. 39. 
 
 . 
 
 ++&. 
 
 + .jf .- * * 
 
17 
 
 with serpents, 1 i. e. these serpent people, and is styled 
 by Virgil serpentifera. It had this epithet not on 
 account of any real serpents, but according to the 
 Greeks, from Medusa's 1 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 
 Serpentigenas, and believed that the chief 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 Heliadaa, 
 settled at Rhodes, and as they were Hivites, or 
 Ophites, i. e. serpent worshippers, the Island in 
 consequence of it was of old named Ophiusa. These- 
 Cuthite priests were very learned, and as they were 
 Ophites, whoever had the advantage of their infor- 
 mation, was said to be instructed by serpents. Hence 
 it was said, that Melampus was rendered prophetic 
 from a communication with these animals. 4 The 
 Cyclops were originally Ophitae, who worshipped the 
 
 * Tacitus, Annal. 1. iv. c. 21. z Strabo, 1. x. p. 746. 
 
 3 Herod. 1. viii. c. 41. 
 
 4 Apollocloriis, 1. xii, c. 7. Plin. 1. x. c. 44. 
 
18 
 
 symbolical serpent. They were a colony of the 
 Egyptians and Babylonians, and were so named from 
 Ky*Xco\}/. f They were an ingenious people, and 
 became famous among the Grecian poets, who, in 
 their fables, have represented them to have been 
 monsters of gigantic stature, with one eye in the 
 middle of their foreheads." But this is as far from 
 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 the 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 ; Xapwvog, 
 
 A Charon is a compound word from the Hebrew "9 char, 
 a pleasant pasture, and fa On, the Temple of the 
 Sun, literally, " the pasture of the Temple of the 
 '"V Sun;" or the land which was appropriated to the 
 use of the priests, attached to the temple! under the 
 Mosaic dispensation, which custom has been justly 
 retained in Christian churches, as a - living for the 
 clergy, who were not permitted to follow any other 
 profession. 
 
19 
 
 JEgeus, 1 of Athens, according to Androtion, was 
 of the serpent breed ^ and the first king of the country S 
 is said to have been dpaxcov, a Dragon. Cecrops / 
 is said to have been 8pwij^ 3 of a twofold nature^ 
 being formed with the body of a man, blended with 
 that of a serpent. Diedorus says, that this was a 
 circumstance deemed by the Athenians inexplicable ; 
 some had mentioned of Cecrops, that he underwent 
 a metamorphosis, OLTTO otyscug tig a.v&pa)7rov eJ^Qsivf 
 that he was changed from a serpent to a man. With 
 respect to the mixed character of this personage, 
 continues this writer, we may, I think, easily account 
 for it ; Cecrops was certainly a title of the Deity, 
 who was worshipped under this emblem. The natives 
 of Thebes, in Boeotia, like the Athenians, esteemed 
 themselves of the serpent race. The Lacedaemo- 
 nians, likewise, referred themselves to the same 
 original ; their city is said to have swarmed with 
 serpents.* The same is said of the city Amy else, in 
 Italy, which was of Spartan original. Of Argos the 
 same, when Apis came 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 saga- 
 city. But the serpent brood came from the very 
 
 g! 
 
 ? Herodotus, 1. viii. c. 41. a Lycophron. Scholia, v. 4*96. 
 3 Mcursius. dereg. Athcn. l.i. c. 6. 4 Eustat. on Dionys. p. 56. 
 5 Aristot. de Mirabilibws, vol. n. p. 717- 
 
20 
 
 quarter from whence Apis came. They were certainly 
 Hivites, or Ophites, i. e. serpent worshippers from 
 Egypt. They were serpents of another nature, with 
 which those cities were infested ; and the history 
 relates to the Cuthites, the original Ophitae, who for 
 a long time possessed that country. The chief Deity 
 of the Gentile world was almost universally worship- 
 ped under this symbolical representation. The story 
 of Cadmus, and the serpent which he engaged upon 
 his arrival in Boeotia, relates to the serpent worship 
 which was then instituted by the Cadmians. So 
 Jason in Colchis, Apollo in Phocis, Hercules _at 
 Lerna, engaged with serpents, are histories of the 
 same purport. 
 
 j 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 represeiit^wi^dom, and therefore honored 
 his memory with This^ ensign, because he first intro- 
 duced civilization, and the worship of Divine wisdom 
 into Greece. But in after-ages, the Greeks, who 
 became idolaters, worshipped him under this symbol. 
 This worship prevailed in Babylonia, Egypt, and 
 
 / Syria, from which countries it was brought by the 
 Cadmians into Greece : Serpentis earn venerationem 
 aeceperurit Graeci a Cadmo. ' Thus were the 
 
 1 Vossius de Idol. vol. in. Comment in Rabbi M. Maimonidem 
 de sacrifices, p. 76. 
 
 ; 
 
21 
 
 Companions of Cadmus, who first brought letters 
 into Greece, and the Giant in Homer, called serpents. 
 So Alexander the Great, and Scipio Africanus, were 
 said to be born of serpents, 1 i. e. wisdom, which 
 they thought to be the most honorable insignia ; every 
 thing was looked upon as divine and magnificent, that 
 was attended by the figure of a serpent ; many things 
 in creation were dignified by this name, as trees, 
 plants, herbs, rivers, stones, islands, 5tars f men, and 
 
 women." 
 
 In the Heathen Mythology, which was founded on 
 
 the scriptures, we have a description of the garden 
 
 of Jupiter, i, e. Jqa-pater ; and the golden apples \ 
 
 of the Hesperides, kept by a sleepless dragon, which r***T^t* 
 
 was evidently taken from the serpent, and the forbidden 
 
 fruit in Paradise^ Hercules killing the serpent is \ 
 
 also taken from the scripture account, where it is said, 
 
 " the seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the 
 
 serpent.' 9 A serpent was consecrated to Apollo, in 
 
 his temple where" he was worshipped, who was said 
 
 to have been educated in Arabia;* but this is also 
 
 taken from the J3ible ; Moses fled into Arabia from 
 
 the face of Pharaoh, where he was forty years ; and 
 
 when he led the Israelites out of Egypt, he set up 
 
 the brazen serpent in the wilderness, not a brazen 
 
 monkey. 
 
 1 Euseb. Praep. Evang* z Pausan. 1. viii. p. 6l3. 
 
 
Having introduced thus much from this learned 
 writer, concerning the origin of serpent 'worship, I 
 shall now make a few observations on the 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 the primeval people, 
 
THE 
 
 SUBTILTY OF THE SERPENT. 
 
 
 THE whole tribe of serpents rest with their eyes 
 open, and are perpetually on the watch during the 
 whole of the winter season ; this property of the 
 serpent became famous among the serpent worshippers 
 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, 
 
 * 4 All but the ever-wakeful 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, or 
 croeodild/is described by the prophets as a creature 
 superior to others of its kind, for strength, intellj- \ 
 gence, and patience ; he enjoys, says Buffon, more 
 
 ,->>. 
 
24 
 
 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 being 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 correspond- 
 ing with their natures, would not have given the name 
 #9 Nachash to any species of the simia genus, as 
 it does not express any one 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 of the field. The prophets perfectly agree in 
 describing this animal to be a native of both elements ; 
 Arnos, ix. 3. and though they be hid from my sight 
 in 'the bottom of the sea, thence, p:>ra tfmn JTO TOW 
 I mil command the serpent and he shall bite them. 
 Here the word ttfnj Nachash., written with the same 
 vowels, signifies a serpent which lives in the sea, as 
 well as on land ; but which certainly cannot be 
 applied to mean the monkey. In Ghaldee, and Rab. 
 Hebrew, it has the same meaning as in the pure 
 Hebrew. 
 
 Some are of opinion, that $JT? Nachesh, brazen, 
 was given to brass, because it resembles. the color pf 
 
4 V 
 
 25 
 
 a serpent ; but there is no certainty in this etymology, 
 for there are serpents of different colors. ETO Nachesh 
 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 
 primaeval people had better reasons for giving names 
 to things, which, as above, 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 ^nj Nachash 
 primarily Dignifies to eye, to view attentively, with a 
 peculiar quickness ; and as this is more particularly 
 the case ui-u the serpents eye, than it is with the j\ 
 eye of any other creature, it has been applied to ^ 
 mean a serpent. The Greeks derived dpaxwv, a 
 dragon, or serpent, from Sspxew, to view, and o<p*, 
 a serpent, from OTTTOJU.***, to see. Among the eastern 
 nations this word was applied to those who were 
 keen in their transactions, who saw things with 
 quickness, and used this gift to the injury of others ; 
 or, in other words, those who prostituted a good 
 understanding to bad purposes ; so that the phrase, 
 a serpenfs eye, became proverbial among them. 
 
 Naturalists 1 inform us, that the Niolic serpent 
 supports the dignity of his rule with clemency ; his 
 
 f B.uffon. Nat. Hist. 
 
26 
 
 power is riot combined with cruelty and rapine, and 
 is only exerted for supplying his urgent necessities, 
 but is never actuated by ferocity. When he is pinched 
 by hunger he covers himself with mud, on the. slimy 
 banks of rivers, and appearing like the large trunk of 
 a fallen tree, remains motionless, \yatching with 
 astonishing patience for an opportunity to seize his 
 prey; his stillness, color, and form, impose on 
 fishes, sea-fowl, tortoises, and other animals, so that 
 they approach without suspicion. While swimming 
 along great rivers, he seldom raises his head above 
 water so as to see around, seeking to surprise any of 
 the larger animals that may come close to the shore ; 
 when he sees any approach to drink, he dives, and 
 swims craftily under the water, till he gets near 
 enough to catch the creature by the legs, then drags 
 it into the water 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 strength with greater 
 advantage than on land ; notwithstanding his vast size, 
 frequently thirty feet long, he moves about with 
 great swiftness ; he often waits contentedly at the 
 bottom of a deep river, looking attentively for his 
 prey above, and often attacks boats, using his tail to 
 overturn them, in expectation of procuring food, 
 which is carried from one place to another, and will 
 pursue his prey with great velocity to the bottom of 
 the sea. Such is the wonderful sagacity of this 
 
27 
 
 animal, which we are at present acquainted with ; but 
 had we in this region, so far remote from the native 
 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, when 
 their naturalists, philosophers, and literary men well 
 knew from ohservation, more particulars concerning 
 the subtilty of the serpent, we should, no doubt, 
 have more proof of the intelligence of this creature, f ^ 
 jfjpore were necessary, to prove, that it is more 
 subtile, intelligent, and sagacious, than all the beasts 
 of the field. C?53^^ 
 
 '^ S - 
 
 
 
 It may appear wonderful to many, how it was 
 possihle 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 form, 
 
 not have been chosen ; we shall, however, I trust, ^4v 4 
 have a more favorable opinion of these ancienj 
 serpent-worshippers, 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 monkey 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 countries, is a convincing proof, 
 that it took its rise from the serpent in Paradise ; Y 
 
28 
 
 and like a flood spread over the surrounding nations, 
 when the cures done by the brazen 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 reason for preferring the 
 serpent 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 repre- 
 sentative of the Deity, worshipped it in the form of a 
 circle, and fixed an eye in the centre as descriptive of 
 the omniscience of God ; the latter emblem is often 
 used at this day, as representative of the all-seeing 
 eye of Providence* 
 
 /3U~ ;' ' 4t**> A . & > '* 
 
THE MONKEY. 
 
 IP we contrast the character of the monkey with 
 that of the serpent, we shall find that the author of 
 nature has not raised the former 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 allowed 
 in all ages to approach the nearest of any other 
 creature to the lowest degree of reason in man. 
 Neither shall we find that any property of this 
 sportive animal, the monkey, answers to the meaning 
 of the word ttfnj Nachash, as given 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 
 
 
30 
 
 * 
 
 / natural history, in declaring, that this animal goes erect 
 naturally/ 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 carries 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 mecha- 
 nical exactness, prove, in the opinion of those best 
 / capable of judging with accuracy oh the .subject, 
 that the animal was designed by the Creator to walk 
 erect. 1 Man, and the ouran outang, are the only 
 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 
 Buffon, " by which he mimics human actions, were 
 a result of thought, he would ascend in the scale of 
 
 1 Vide Voyages of Pyrard, torn, n. p. 331. Purchas's 
 Collection and Descript. Ilistorique du Royaiune de Macaeur 
 p. 51. 
 
 * Encyclop. Brit. vol. xvn. Edin. edit. 
 
31 
 
 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, 
 without possessing any of the faculties of the human 
 mind." Its faculty of imitation is singular ; but 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 ingenuity and application 
 of man could never teach the monkey to, articulate 
 a single word. 
 
 O 
 
 It appears strange, that the author of these 
 comments should have neglected the consideration of 
 the'natural history of these animals, on a subject so 
 novel as this he has introduced. For it is right to 
 conclude v jhat Gpd act& oaasistently, agreeably to 
 rationality, and ^pc5Safolffi ; ytnjit tljere must have 
 
 been some natural qualification in this unimal," 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 other* 
 significantly represented, that such persons were 
 always chosen by divine wisdom, who had proper 
 qualifications by nature for the undertaking; and 
 such things introduced as bore some resemblance to 
 the subject intended to be made known. Thus 
 
 
' 
 
 
 ' 
 
 ^' &4^* ^fyyfi 
 
 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. But 
 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 monkey was 
 not framed with those natural qualifications which 
 would authorize the inspired writers to apply them 
 for the representation of 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 
 beasts of the jfield, neither as far as the habits of its 
 
 nature extend, is it inferior in wisdprn and intelligence 
 < 
 
 Having said as much as I think is necessary for 
 my purpose concerning the qualities of the serpent 
 and the monkey, and, I trust, sufficiently proved, 
 that the wisdom of the serpent in its acts approaches 
 
S3 
 
 nearer to the reason of man than any other creature; 
 and that this has been the universal opinion from the 
 beginning. I shall now answer this writer's observa- 
 tion where to prepare the mind for the reception of 
 the Monkey in the business of the fall of man instead 
 of the serpent, he has attempted to cast a shade on 
 the translation of the word ^HJ Nachash, by the 
 septuagint, who rendered it by the word o$i$ ophis, 
 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 be expected to afford some help, 
 from 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. jj^jLsL Chanas, signifies he departed, drew 
 off, lay hid, seduced; from this root came ^^ 
 akhanas, \^j^ khanasa, which signify an ape, or saty- 
 rus, or any of the simia kind, or ape genus : also from 
 the same root comes ^ULsi khanas, ' the devil,' which 
 appellative he bears from the meaning of ^j^Chanas." ) 
 But if all the ancient versions were subsequent 
 to the septuagint, as this writer asserts, what neces- / / 
 sity was there for him to substitute the Arabic ? why 
 may we not go to the septuagint version, in prefer- 
 ence to the Arabic, as the septuagint is allowed by 
 him to be more ancient r And there, as I have 
 observed, those translators render the word ttTO 
 Nachash, by o<p/, serpent ; and the New Testament 
 
 n i 
 
34 
 
 writers have also chosen the word ofi$ 9 serpent, to 
 signify the ancient serpent ^HJ Nachash. I have 
 before noticed the great absurdity of supposing that 
 the septuagint, by rendering ^HJ Nachash, by o<p*$ 
 ophiSy serpent, did not make use of a proper word ; 
 this objection has no foundation in truth. Neither 
 have the New Testament writers erred in following 
 the septuagint in the adoption of this word to signify 
 #nj Nachash ; for we certainly are under the neces- 
 
 Csity of allowing, that Christ and the Apostles under- 
 stood the true meaning of tfnj Nachash. If this be 
 granted, then it amounts to the same, whether the 
 New Testament writers followed the septuagint or 
 the Hebrew ; for as o<fn$ aphis, is used by them to 
 mean o o$i o apxauog, o xaXoy/x,ej>o <J*a/3o^o, that old 
 serpent, called the devil and satan, 1 alluding to the 
 serpent in Paradise: it certainly is a convincing 
 proof that #} Nachash, was originally understood by 
 them to mean a serpent : and consequently it is futile 
 to suppose, that a root in Arabic which has but a 
 very remote meaning, should " cast any light on the 
 subject." 
 
 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 
 
 1 Rev. xii, 9. 
 
35 _ 
 
 for in the Arabic," this would be a very dangerous A , 
 
 principle to act upon. For instance, suppose a 
 
 person who understood a little Arabic, and had but 
 
 a Drifting knowledge of the elements of the Hebrew, 
 
 but meeting with words in that language, the meaning 
 
 of which he could not ascertain, were to incorporate 
 
 with 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 the Arabic. " Were the Hebrew 
 
 a complete language," says this gentleman. Is it pos- 
 
 sible that an expression of this nature can come from 
 
 any one that pretends to understand the 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 language, 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 be the. most complete 
 
 and comprehensive language in the world. The 
 
 English language is capable of 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 
 
 such energy of expression, striking imagery, sublimity 
 
 and simplicity in all its variety of application, as 
 
 is to be done in the Hebrew: no one learned in 
 
 Hebrew can be at a loss to express any action, or, to 
 
 At /-- 
 

 describe any idea, which the min8 is capable of 
 conceiving. That simple copy of nature, the history 
 of Joseph and his brethren, even as it is in the 
 translation, cannot be read without touching in the 
 most sensible manner the soul of those feelings, 
 which dignify human nature; it is the finest picture 
 of embodied affection that was ever drawn in any 
 language: but in the original, it is almost affection 
 speaking in a visible form. The picture of the horse 
 in Job, where every nerve is represented 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, been equalled by the best writers in any age. 
 But in order to establish it as a rule, when we 
 observe any word in Hebrew for which no root 
 can be found, (which is impossible) that we may 
 find these deficient roots in the Arabic, he says, " If 
 a man meet with an English word, which he cannot 
 find in an ample concordance or dictionary of the 
 Bible, he must of course seek for that word in a gene- 
 ral English dictionary. In like manner, if a particu- 
 lar form of a word in Hebrew occurs, that cannot be 
 traced to a root in the Hebrew Bible, it is expedient, 
 it is perfectly lawful, and often indispensably necessary, 
 to seek the deficient root in the Arabic." This, as is 
 observed above, would be a very dangerous expedient, 
 because every writer, who has made a greater progress, 
 in acquiring a knowledge of any of the eastern 
 
37 - 
 
 languages than he has of the Hebrew, not having 
 acquainted himself \vith the meaning of certain words, 
 may contend in like manner, that such 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 all 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. jfe&4 t****^^ 
 
 . 
 
 Dr. Clarke is -riot willing to commit himself 
 
 saying, that the Hebrew was derived from the Arabic, 
 
 though he says, there are great authorities on both 
 
 sides ; he tells us a great truth, viz. " either the '"\ 
 
 Arabic was derived from the Hebrew, or the Hebrew 
 
 from the Arabic." One could hardly suppose that . . 
 
 such a wild notion could ever have been entertained 
 by any one acquainted either with profane or sacred ^**"*^ 
 history. The Jews, from the dispersion to the ^3 < 
 present day, remain a people; and the Hebrew Z^vJ-^5 
 is a distinct language, in which the Jews write 
 and converse. So far the Hebrew is a living 
 language, though the Jews are in a state of non-exist- 
 ence as a nation. But the Hebrew is no more^X 
 lost than it was during their captivity in Baby- 
 lon. Almost all the ancient profane writers give 
 testimony to the priority and descent of the Hebrew 
 language. It appears that it was the language 
 
38 
 
 V s of ancient Egypt, when the sons of Jacob went 
 v t there ; the natives spoke it, and when they 
 came to Joseph, they were also understood : for it 
 does not appear that he spoke to them by an inter ^ 
 preter. The verb to speak does not occur in the 
 original, neither does Y^?LJ Meelits, mean "an inter- 
 preter," Now when there are living 'testimonies in all 
 nations, which confirm the antiquity and descent of 
 this language, in regular historical succession, as 
 contained in the Bible, which reaches far beyond the 
 history of any nation ; it is wonderful that a suppo- 
 sition of this nature could suggest itself to so intelli- 
 gent a man. 
 
 This writer continues, " If, for example, we meet 
 with a term in our ancient English language, the 
 meaning of which we find difficult to ascertain, com- 
 mon sense teaches us that we should seek for it in the 
 Anglo-Saxon, from which our language springs; no 
 person disputes the legitimacy of this measure." 
 This is admitted, as far as it is applicable to the 
 English which springs from the Anglo-Saxon, 
 and 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 from any other language, no 
 other can be resorted to for an elucidation of this 
 primaeval language, whose very root is in nature, 
 It would be like examining the branches of a tree tQ 
 find some supposed defect in the root. 
 
39 
 
 It must appear evident, that no comparison can be 
 made as to the infinitude of expression between the 
 Hebrew language, which 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, slowness, gravity, love, 
 anger, and the various passions by which they are 
 to be delivered : and the Arabic, which has properly 
 but two vowels. 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 Damma, which forms the 
 dipthong ou: yet did the Arabians, with this unmu- 
 sical two-stringed, ding-dong language, sounding 
 like ba, bou, communicate their ideas in a simi- 
 larity of sound. But the 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 this 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.j 
 any proof. Does not this gentleman know that 
 the Hebrew is no more lost than the Arabic ? that 
 pure Arabic is no more spoken either in Arabia 
 
40 
 
 or Turkey, than the pure Hebrew is among the Jews 
 that the language of these countries is a kind or 
 Lingua Franca, a mixture of the languages of other 
 nations with Arabic that the Koran, which is writ- 
 ten in pure Arabic, is esteemed tcr 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 Romaris ? how then 
 f V\ can it be said that the Hebrew language is lost, except 
 what is in the Bible ? 
 
 But admitting this were so, that " the whole 
 of the Hebrew language were lost, except what 
 is in the Bible,," no person having a conception 
 of the spirit, idiom, or exclusive properties of the 
 Hebrew, could make the following observation : 
 <f As the English Bible does 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 
 must acknowledge, but such reasoning is superficial ; 
 it argues but a scanty knowledge even of the rudi- 
 ments of the language, and will not apply to the case 
 before us^ 
 
 It is impossible for a comparison to be made 
 between the Hebrew and any language, when it is 
 
. 41 
 
 known that a Hebrew,, word differing in form, 
 termination, and orthographical order, is capable of 
 such variation as to meaning and application, that it 
 would supply sufficient words to fill an octavo page in 
 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 the modern languages:** 5 
 This is sufficiently known to the learned Hebraist ;< 
 abundance of examples might be ,given ? but this is v ' : ^7 
 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 (tr*^**-*-^ 
 is defective. 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 sufficient knowledge of the Hebrew, 
 which has been so neglected among the learned, that 
 it has not been made a necessary part of collegiate 
 education. It is a mere delusion to attempt, through 
 the cognate languages, or dialects, to elucidate the 
 Hebrew,, from whence these languages had their 
 origin; as well may we attempt to elucidate pure 
 English by a quotation from the Lancashire or York- 
 
42 
 
 shire dialects. The learned Pococke, who was 
 allowed to be the best Arabic scholar that ever 
 Europe produced, and who, on account of his know- 
 ledge of that language, was admitted to read the 
 choice 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 scrip- 
 tures. 
 
 We may perhaps be told that Moses was the 
 writer, that the Arabic language was known to him, 
 and therefore he might mean that ttfTU Nachash, and 
 ^yj^] aJchanaSy i. e. the monkey, were the same, and 
 that the former might be derived from the latter ; but 
 this cannot be admitted. It would be more plausible 
 to attempt to prove that 3 Ab, father, was derived 
 from the Arabic v t Ab, father 1} Raab, God, from 
 Raab, God DH Ham, hot, from * 2* Ham, hot 
 T) Rad, great, to subdue, from j^ Rod, great or 
 Kara, to call, from \jS Kara, " to call, or collect 
 __ - ther ;" which, with great numbers of words in the 
 ' Arabic, are only Hebrew words in Arabic letters ; 
 than to assert that ^HJ Nachash is derived from, has 
 /'the same meaning, or " is similar" to ^Jj^, khanas, 
 because this word in Arabic means the Devil. This 
 -' *Cj method of proving the relation of one word to ano- 
 ther, is what we may call, in a familiar phrase, far* 
 fetched. 
 
 ff^ f *t&^ 7** 
 
 A. 4*^4 
 
43 
 
 It would be altogether unnecessary, and perhaps 
 impossible, to show, at what period of the world the 
 Arabic language took its rise. The only data we 
 have to guide us through the mazes of antiquity, is, 
 when what is called the confusion of tongues took 
 place ; but it is absolutely necessary for us to know, 
 that prior to this epoch there was but one language, 
 and that this was the Hebrew, 
 
 The writer of this comment does not seem to have 
 attended sufficiently to this part of the history, for it 
 is expressly said in the 10th chapter, and llth verse 
 of Genesis, two thousand years after the fall, and 
 the beginning of his kingdom was Babel; this was at 
 the commencement of the Babylonish or Chaldean 
 empire, and the first verse of the next chapter says, 
 and the whole earth was of one language and of one 
 speech. This one language and one speech, was the 
 ancient Chaldean Hebrew, so named from Eber, the 
 great grandson of Shem, in whose days the earth was 
 divided. That is, the whole EARTH which was of one 
 language, and of one speech, was divided, or sepa- 
 rated into distinct patriarchal governments; for so 
 the word H^M Niphilegaah, signifies. Eber being 
 the supreme patriarchal head at the time, when these 
 divisions of the land among the numerous descendants 
 of Noah took place, the language was stiled after 
 him, Hebrew; which descended in a direct line to 
 
44 
 
 Abraham, and from him to Moses. When Abraham 
 left Ur, of the Chaldees, he spoke the Chaldean 
 language, and was understood by the people of 
 Canaan and Egypt; consequently, the Chaldee 
 must have been the language of Canaan and 
 Egypt, at the time of Abraham. Notwithstand- 
 ing, it is said in the translation, that Joseph spake to 
 them by an interpreter, the word Y^? MeeUts, does 
 not mean an interpreter, as will be shown in the 
 CLASSICAL JOURNAL, to which I refer the reader. 
 Now, unless this commentator can prove, that 
 this one language and one speech, was the Arabic, 
 he has not any authority whatever for supposing that 
 ttfnj Nachash is derived from the Arabic, which he 
 must suppose, if there were (i a root in that language 
 very nearly similar to that in the text, which casts 
 light on the subject;" nor that any word in that 
 language casts light on the subject. But we find 
 that this one language and one speedy which was at 
 the time of the building of Babel, the universal, 
 the only language ; was the Babylonish or 
 Chaldean Hebrew, which as above, took its name 
 from Eber; and descended pure from the begin- 
 ning of the kingdom of Babel, at the time of Cush, 
 the grandson of Noah; and continued to the 
 end of that monarchy. From which it is unde- 
 niably evident, that the Hebrew was the language 
 spoken by Noah, and the Antediluvian patriarchs; 
 
 > *" 
 
 t 
 
45 
 
 
 
 consequently that, in which God spake to Adam, 
 before the 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." I 
 hope we shall find in the course of this inquiry, that 
 we want no light from the similarity of roots in any 
 language, to cast light on this, or any other passage 
 of the sacred writ. Were this the case, it certainly 
 could not be applied here, for this writer cannot 
 mean that U *JL^. Chanas, is similar to ttfnj Nachash; 
 as to the literal form of the word, there is not the least 
 similarity between them. And on the other hand, if he 
 supposes that because L ,JJL^ khanas, from ^j^. Chanas, 
 which signifies a species of the ape genus, is applied 
 by the Arabians to mean the Devil, that there is a 
 similarity between this root and ttfnj Nachash, because 
 <>qn$ ophis, from #HJ Nachash, is used to mean figura- 
 tively o o<pi$ o ap^a-ios, o xaXoujU,?vo ^jf/a/SoXop, that old 
 serpent the Devil, it adds no force to his reasoning; 
 it is only calling the Devil by the name of an ape, 
 and does not prove that a monkey tempted Eve. The 
 Devil is called in the Rabbinnical writings "jN^ft 
 MA LECH HAM MOUTH, the angel of death, 
 n "12P JEZERHARANG, the cor r up t nature. RAACH 
 HATTHUMA, the unclean spirit-*-$Es H E R, the Ox-- vt #^ 
 HAKKELEF, the Dog CHAMOR, an 
 
46 
 
 ISSIM, a Goat. SAREF MEASEF, the jfiery Jh/ing 
 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 MONKEY. Now, if the name of 
 the Devil in Arabic, were derived from that of a 
 monkey, it certainly does not prove that a monkey 
 was the agent that brought about the fall of man, any 
 more than being called by the name of an Ox, a 
 Dog, a Goat, or an Ass, in Hebrew, proves that any 
 one of these animals was employed to bring about 
 this woeful business. 
 
 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 o<p/, a serpent, or dpaxcov, a 
 dragon, which are used by the Septuagint, and the 
 New Testament writers to mean that old serpent the 
 Devil, were the animals that brought about the fall of 
 man, from what we learn concerning the subtilty of 
 those creatures. In the sense he has given, every 
 language on earth, in which is a word that means the 
 Devil, is similar to #HJ Nachash, in the text ; but, 
 nevertheless, like the Arabic word ^^^ Chanas, no 
 light is cast on the subject, on this account, I believe, 
 
47 
 
 if Dr. Clarke recollects himself, he will find that j 
 is the Arabic name for the Devil. 
 
 But if this root in Arabic, which this writer wishes 
 to exchange for ^5 Nachash, were < very nearly 
 similar to that in the text," then there would be no 
 necessity for going to the Arabic, in order to illustrate 
 it. I would ask, if he can point out any difference * 
 between ttTTJ Nachash, and ^^j^ Chanas? if ^^j^. \ 
 chanas, means, to seduce 9 to lie hid ; ttfrti Nachash, 
 means to deceive, enchant, or fascinate ; and so is 
 applied to the serpent, because of this peculiar , 
 property which it possesses. Subtile observation from 
 selfish motives. See 1 Kings, 20. 33. -It^TT?! Yena- 
 chashou, now the men did diligently observe, i. e, to 
 seduce, or flatter Ahab, for when they saw that Ahab 
 spoke favorably of Ben-hadad, though he was the 
 great enemy of the king of Israel, they said, thy 
 toother Ben-hadad. Te same occurs, Gen. 30. 27. 
 ^RtirtiNichashthi, I have learned by experience, which 
 should be rendered, / hav&flattered, or deceived, but 
 the Lord hath blessed me for thy sake. That this was 
 Jacob's true meaning, is obvious : after the very next 
 trial, Laban deceives him again ; for Jacob says, your 
 father hath deceived me, and changed my wages these 
 ten times. To enchant, 2 Kings, 21.6. ttfrttl Veni- 
 cheesh, and enchantments, % Chron. 33. 6\ # 
 Venicheesh. 
 
48 
 
 Todivine 9 Gen.44}.5.Vfri} Nacheeh.he divine th. Ano 
 therform of the word tfnj Nachash, signifies brass, the 
 metal in an unmanufactured state -H^nill Banne- 
 cheshet, 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, it 
 is thus written Wm Nechushthi, Lam. 3. 7. wy 
 dfom &PHfal Nechushtham, the brass of them, 
 Q Kings, 25. 13. Jer. 52. 1 7 .^^ Nechushthan, 
 i. e. p/ere of brass Judges, 16. 21. 
 
 But when a living serpent is signified, the word is 
 thus written tfm Nachash, Gen. 3. 1. 49. 17. 
 Job, 26. 13. Psalm, 58. 4. Numb. 21. 9. 
 Nachash, a serpent had bitten. 
 
 Thus do these branches of the root ^n? Nachash, 
 rary accordingly as they are applicable to things signi- 
 fied, and are always written in conformity to the idea 
 intended to be given, as to deceive, sedwe, observe 
 diligently, enchant, divine, brass unmanufactured, and 
 brass in a manufactured state/ which words are 
 all as distinctly different from each other, as the 
 things they represent. But unless they, who attempt 
 to interpret the Hebrew scriptures, attend to the 
 orthography of the language, written with the true 
 oriental vowels, which some, for want of knowing 
 better, call points^ they will find it altogether impos- 
 sible to determine the true sense of scripture. 
 
 _ 
 
 
49 
 
 Dr. Clarke has given us a proof of the truth of this 
 observation; he says, " We have already seen, that, 
 the New Testament writers have borrowed the word 
 from the Septuagint, and that the Septuagint them- 
 selves use it in a vast variety and latitude of meaning ; 
 and surely the ouran-outang monkey is as likely to be 
 the animal in question, as ^!7J Nackash, and o<pi$ 
 ophis, are likely to mean at once a snake, a croco- 
 dile, a hypopotamus, fornication, a chain, a pair of 
 fetter s^ a piece of brass, a piece of steel, a conjuror ^ 
 for we have seen above, that all these are acceptations 
 of the original word." By the words, " we have seen 
 that the New Testament writers have borrowed the > 
 word from the Septuagint," we must conclude it to 
 be the opinion of this writer, that (on account of this 
 uncertain mode of borrowing words at random, with 
 which he charges the New Testament writers) the 
 New Testament is the work of man, and not inspired 
 by the spirit of God, Here is a proof also, that he 
 has not attended to the orthography of the language, ^ 
 which alone, as in all other languages, 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 Hebrew in that 
 tongue* For the reason why they used " o$is ophis 
 in a vast variety and latitude of meaning," was in 
 conformity to the orthographical variation of the 
 
50 
 
 Hebrew, as above, but which appears to have been 
 neglected by this writer, and which accounts for this, 
 and other serious mistakes in his voluminous 
 comments. 
 
 From which it is plain, that the New Testament 
 writers were right, had they borrowed the word from 
 the Septuagint: and as Dr. Clarke must allow that 
 the New Testament writers were inspired : he must 
 also acknowledge, that this borrowed word o$i$ ophi$ y 
 & serpent, is the true meaning of ^0 Nachash^ because 
 it is confirmed by Christ and the Apostles. 
 
 " Such a creature/' continues Dr. 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 ouran-outang monkey, 
 does not answer to any part of the description in the 
 text whatever. The text says, thou art cursed above 
 all cattle, and above every beast ofthejield, upon thy 
 belly shall thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days 
 of thy life. And I will put enmity between the? and 
 the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. But 
 the monkey is not cursed above all cattle, and above 
 every beast of the field. A moment's reflection will 
 convince any writer, that this cannot in any shape 
 be applied to the monkey ; so far is the monkey 
 from being cursed above all cattle^ and above 
 every beast of the jield, that we find this animal is 
 
51 
 
 blessed above rhost of the beasts of the field, in many 
 things, and in others, he is not inferior to any. 
 
 Following the Doctor on the ground of the letter, 
 as applied to the monkey, we find that this animal 
 accomplished the business of the fall of man ; and, 
 therefore, on that account, is cursed above every 
 beast of the field. But we are not to affirm without 
 scripture authority, that the serpent walked erect, or 
 because it is absurd, to suppose this, that we are to 
 change the serpent for a monkey. Neither are we 
 authorized to say, that because the monkey had done 
 this, all the rest were to be cursed, being innocent. 
 But to be serious, this writer must necessarily prove, 
 that the monkey is cursed above all the beasts of the 
 Jield, which is altogether impossible for him to do, 
 before he can lay any claim to it, as being the agent 
 in the fall of man. 
 
 The second judgment on the animal is, on thy belly 
 tliou shalt go. This writer supposes, from the expres- 
 sion, ON THY BELLY THOU 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 endeavoured to get rid of this objection, by 
 introducing a monkey. But by getting rid of one 
 difficulty, he gets into a worse, for, as is proved 
 above, if the monkey were to walk constantly on "all 
 
fours," it could not with any degree of 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 proving also, that the 
 monkey eats dust as food all the days of Jits life ; and 
 that it accomplished the business of the fall of man 
 without the interference of Satan, for it is not said, 
 and the Lord God said unto Satan, but, expressly, 
 and the Lord God said unto the SERPENT, because 
 THOU hast done this ; 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 
 not go on his belly, or with his belly touching the 
 ground, but walks upright, and sometimes to suit 
 his own convenience, oi> " all fours," like other 
 quadrupeds. 
 
 There is a word in the original of this passage, the* 
 true meaning 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 
 word ^rp Gechonke, rendered belly* For the satis-, 
 faction of the reader, I believe, I have examined all 
 the passages in which the words occur, that mean 
 the belly. Numb. ch. 5. 22. IBO ch. 25. 8. Deut 
 28. 11. 53. Pirn]?-- Judges, 3. 21. tiM? ver. 22. 
 ch. 3. 12. 1 Kings, 7. 20. Judges, 15. 2. 35. 19. 
 17. eh. 20. 15. 20. 23. ch. 32. 18, 19. ch. 4Q. 
 16. Psalm, 17. 14. 22. 10. 31. 9. 58. 3. 
 
53 
 
 11. Prov. 13. 25. ch. 18. 8. 20. ch. 20. 27. 30. 
 22. 18. ch. 26. 22. Cantic. 5. 14. W Jonah, 1- 
 17._ch. 2. 1. Dan, 2. 32. Cantic. 7. 2. ^? 
 Isaiah, 46. 3. Jen 1. 5. Ezek. 3. 3. Jonah, 2. 2. 
 Mic. 6. 7. Hab. 3. 16. Jer. 51. 34. ^?? In all 
 these passages, which are used to signify the belly, we 
 never meet with the word ^ITJ Gechonke. I believe, 
 it is only to be found in one place in the Bible, 
 besides the above in Genesis, viz. Lev. 11. 42. what- 
 soever goeth upon the belly, which though it is not 
 altogether 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 on 
 this verse, which will lead us to the true understand* 
 ing and application of the above word in Genesis, 
 in} Gechon, is a very ancient word, used among the 
 Chaldeans before the language obtained the title of 
 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 Canaan, it was discon; 
 tinned by the sacred writers, having become too fami- 
 liar in their verbal communications, by being quoted 
 and applied in a way of sensual levity ; and the noun 
 ftf}$3J?. Akallaathoun, was adopted, which means 
 perverse, wrong, crooked. Hab. 1. 4. ^P wrong, 
 the Septuagint3^aj,jUvov, and the Vulgate perversum. 
 Isaiah, 27. 1. fiflJJ!ptfjN crooked serpent. Job, 26'. 13. 
 the Septuagint <rxoAo>v, Vulgate tortuoswn. It means 
 to bow, bend y prostrate, incline, incurvation, crooked. 
 
54 
 
 As a substantive, inclination, it is used in this sense 
 by the Rabbies, and by the Targumists, rn^ and ke 
 bowed. 1 WTO, they are bent. 1 irn, Mordccai did not 
 low. 1 WJ, bowed themselves. 4 ]^], and bow down.* 
 It means one who is fond of indulging the appetite of 
 any kind, to excess, literally the sensual appetite, one 
 who has a natural inclination to indulge in sensuality. 
 It must be evident to every Hebraist, that the wor 
 Gechoun, cannot be applied to mean the belly ; 
 Allouph, instruction, comes from "^N Alleeph,to teach, 
 OY guide; so firtt Gechon, inclination, propensity, comes 
 from TO Gachee?i, to bow, or incline, to the mos exter- 
 nal inordinate concupiscences of the flesh. The above 
 observations will be allowed by the learned, to prove 
 that the word fins Gechon, should be rendered as it is 
 by the ancient Jewish writers, who at that time must 
 have perfectly understood the true meaning, thus, to 
 bow, bend, incline, desi e, which, as it has respect to 
 the indulgence of sensual pleasure, is properly used 
 to signify the disorderly gratification of that internal 
 desire, by comparing it to that most sensual animal, 
 the serpent. <fe; ' t *^ " p f 
 
 ' '&t W^^'f^'^^^^^^i^^^ L -J^L &^^ ^*to-, *4^ 
 
 ' .: : 
 
 I now come to apply this to the passage before us, 
 viz. ^n ^np L ^ rendered, on thy belly tfiou shaltgo. 
 **I^J[J Theekeke literally, thou wilt go or pursue, Gen, 
 24. 4. 39- JPsalm, 97. 3. Jen 48. 55.' the clause 
 
 8 Targum, Jon. 1 Kings, 18. 42. * Targ. Jerus. psalm, 20. $. 
 > Jbid. Esth 3, 2. 4 Ibid, 3 ibid. Psalm, 45. 6, 
 
55 
 
 will then truly read consistently with the understand- 
 ing of the original writer, as confirmed in the writings 
 of the learned Doctors among the Jews, to the time 
 of their dispersion, <#erj#^^ 
 .oragreeabiy. to English., syntax, thou wilt follow after 
 thy inclination. Now, as it appears that #nj Nachash 
 was a serpenty-dud not a monkey > and thnt the serpent 
 goes as it did from the beginning, the words, on thy 
 belly shalt thou go, could not be intended as a curse 
 on that animal ; and as they could not be applied to 
 the monkey r , because he does not go on his belly any 
 more thaoAhe rest of the quadrupeds, they must have 
 been used, by those primaeval people to signify some- 
 thing to wiiich they could be applied. 
 
 The third sentence on this animal is, Dust shall 
 thou eat all the days of thy life ; but this assertion 
 concerning the ouran outang monkey , does not answer 
 to this part of the description in the text, " for he 
 does not eat dust," or live upon dust ; it is universally 
 known that he lives upon vegetables and fruits. And 
 it is also worthy of remark, that this creature is rather 
 nice in the choice of his food, for he picks out what is 
 good, and throws the bad away. It must be allowed 
 that there is not any thiwg nutritive in dust, that were 
 an animal to eat the dust as food, k would* instead 
 of supporting life, lie as an; inert mass in. the stomach, 
 and soon produce death. It is also confirmed by 
 naturalists, that he will not eat the dust at all any more 
 
56 
 
 than other creatures, therefore this cannot be consi- 
 dered as a curse above any other beast or reptile ; 
 as it might, with more propriety, be applied to 
 moles, worms, and many other creatures that burrow 
 in the earth, so that the monkey answers to no one of 
 these essentials. Neither does the monkey gather 
 the fruit Irom the ground, " which is the reason," 
 : says this writer, " that they are literally obliged tq 
 - eat dust," for they mount the trees, and there gather 
 and cat the fruit Had this been the case, that they 
 were literally obliged to eat the dust, because it might 
 adhere to the fruit, when it fell upon the ground, all 
 other creatures that gather the fruit from the ground 
 might also be said to eat the dust as well as tha 
 monkey. 
 
 But this author says, " he (the monkey) was 
 endued with the gift of 1 speech, for a conversation is 
 here related between him and the woman," and hence 
 he infers, that the monkey was a more likely creature 
 to speak than the serpent. It does not follow, that 
 because " a conversation is related between the 
 serpent and the woman," that either the serpents? the 
 monkey could speak. In order to refute this asser- 
 tion, we must suffer the scripture to produce the 
 like examples, and yet it must be allowed that such 
 creatures did not, nor were ever supposed to have 
 had .the gift of speech. He forgets that the sacred 
 writers communicated information agreeably to the 
 
sr 
 
 custom of the East, by giving language to animals, as 
 well as language and action to inanimate nature. 
 Job, 12.7. But ask now the beasts, and they shall 
 teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell 
 thee. Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee, 
 pnd tJwJishes of the sea shall declare unto thee. Here 
 we are told that the beasts, the fowls, and the fishes, 
 were .capable of speaking, of giving answers, and were 
 also said to be capable of teaching man: nay, the earth 
 itself is said to have the power of teaching when 
 asked so to do. But no man on reflection will say 
 that this is " a relation of a fact capable of a satis- 
 factory explanation/' according to the letter. 
 
 'It is generally allowed by those best capable of 
 judging, viz. those who have attended to the anatomy 
 ,of this creature, that according to the construction of 
 his organs, he is farther removed from the power of 
 speech than any other quadruped. On being 
 informed that art ingenious and learned gentleman, 
 Mr. Mason Good, in some lectures he had delivered 
 at the Surry Institution, had introduced this subject, 
 and had given a variety of satisfactory proof, that 
 this creature never was intended by the Creator to 
 articulate ; I applied to him, and he kindly afforded 
 me the following information: 
 
 ".That the natural language of the monkey, notwith- 
 Standing the general resemblance of his organs to 
 
58 
 
 / 
 
 those of man, appears to be more confined than that 
 ,of other quadrupeds. Buffon, Danbentez, and other 
 naturalists, and every comparative anatomist who has 
 accurately examined his vocal organs, has declared 
 him to be physically incapable of articulation, from 
 the peculiarity of a bag, in some species of the 
 animal single, in others double, immediately con- 
 nected with the upper part of the larynx, and into 
 which the air is driven as it ascends 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 afterwards passes into the; 
 mouth by a variety of small apertures, or fissures, by 
 which the whole of its force, and consequently of its 
 oral effect, is lost'* 
 
 , Tliis 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 for 
 1779, minutely describes it as it exists in the owran 
 outang monkey. 
 
 Hence the owran outang mmikey., though more 
 capable than any other animal of imitating the actions 
 of men, is far less capable of imitating his voice, than 
 the parrot, or the jack-daw. While he approaches 
 nearer to his form, he is further removed from his 
 speech than any other quadruped. 
 
59 
 
 This commentator is hard put to it indeed, to 
 make the monkey answer to the " description given 
 in the text," and after all his labor, he cannot make it 
 go l( ON ALL FOURS." He .seems to have no con- 
 ception of the sanctity of scripture! or why the 
 scriptures are called sacred! he reads them as an 
 " historical relation of facts, capable of a satisfactory 
 explanation,*' on which account he is under the 
 necessity of leaving a great part involved in obscurity, 
 or to use his own words, to " leave the passage 
 among those which are inscrutibleT and he tells us, 
 " if it be an allegory, no attempt should be made to /Y 
 explain it." The scriptures contain not only an 
 account of literal things as historically related, but by 
 this historical relation the sacred writers conveyed 
 things of a spiritual nature, as is confirmed by the 
 Prophets, 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 knowledge of all 
 natural things, it inculcated the principles of true reli- 
 gion, and constituted the sanctity of scripture. On 
 this ground only the scriptures can be called sacred ; 
 otherwise they would be no more sacred than natural 
 history, or than the history of any country. 
 
 The fourth declaration is, and I mil put enmity 
 between thec and the 'woman. Here, without contro- 
 
60 
 
 versy, we are at issue ; there is not any enmity put in 
 man against the ynqrikey, any more than there is 
 against any other harmless beast; they are even kept 
 for amusement by many people. The monkey 
 excites pleasantry, but never inspires us with fear, 
 whereas the very figure of a serpent fills us with 
 horror, I appeal to this writer, and to all the world y 
 whether there is not a deadly enmity planted in man 
 against the serpent above every other animal, How 
 then can he say, that the monkey " answers to every 
 part of .the description in the text?" 
 
 I am really ashamed to intrude so much on the 
 time of the reader, by attending to the views of this 
 writer, on a subject too absurd for criticism; but 
 I have, as I promised, followed him on his own 
 ground, viz. that of the letter. And from what 
 has been said, it must, if conviction be not stifled, 
 have its due weight in convincing him, that the 
 serpent is far superior to the monkey, or any other 
 creature in subtilty, agreeably to the scripture ; and 
 
 therefore a more proper subject to be used by the 
 
 J 
 
 . 
 sacred writers/ 'for conveying their views, and for 
 
 impressing the mind with the nature of that predomi* 
 riant sensual principle in men, of which it was the 
 most proper representative in outward nature. I 
 have also shown, that the monkey does not " answer 
 to any part of the description in the text," Yet if we 
 were to go no farther than this outward figure of the 
 
61 
 
 jerpent, many might still remain in a state of uncer- 
 tainty respecting this transaction. If nothing more 
 had been intended, than a " simple relation of histo- 
 rical 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 
 serpent or a monkey by which our first parents fell \ 
 in such case, only the latter is better calculated to ; 
 sharpen the wit of Deists, who are generally disposed 
 to ridicule the scriptures. From which consideration * 
 it appears, that it is only contending to change one 
 animal for another, and were we to stop among these 
 beggarly 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 many ages 
 concerning this transaction. He thinks there is 
 something still to be attained with regard to the origin 
 of this ancient veneration for the serpent ; otherwise 
 he would not have said, " It would be a noble under-* 
 taking, and very edifying in its consequences, if some 
 person 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. 
 
a$ far as is necessary for oiir present design, or the 
 true theological meaning and application, as under-* 
 stood by the primaeval people, which is the meaning 
 of this learned writer: it must be done by attending 
 to the scriptures. Neither words, nor roots, pre- 
 served either in Arabic, or in any other language, 
 can be of use here, no information from ancient 
 writers can be allowed as sufficient authority to ascer- 
 tain the true meaning. Profane customs can only be 
 introduced as a guide to direct us to a rational 
 understanding of these things, when they agree with 
 the manners of the people in those remote agesj as 
 recorded in the Bible. The proof already given of 
 the high veneration which the ancient pagan nations 
 had for the worship of the serpent, carries that con- 
 viction 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 meaning of the Bible, what 
 
 \ appears beyond the possibility of contradiction, to 
 have been the original meaning as understood by the 
 
 * first race of men. We shall, I trust, have sufficient 
 reason to conclude that they were not so ignorant as 
 has 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 consist- 
 ently with what is said concerning this animal, intro* 
 duced by the sacred writers in the fall of man* 
 
63 
 
 Dr. Clarke says, " The whole account is either 
 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 then 
 arrived at a period when it is asserted that we are 
 not to attempt to explain, or understand the allegori- 
 cal meaning of the scriptures, and that it is impossi- 
 ble to do it without " a direct revelation?" 
 
 Are all those numerous 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 we 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 
 concerning those 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. 21. 
 24. Tell me, ye tliat desire to be under the law, do ye 
 not hear the law * for it is written t iliat Abraham 
 
64 
 
 had two sons, which things arc an allegory r , for thdse 
 are the two covenants, the one from the Mount Sinai? 
 which gendereth bondage which is Agar. For this 
 Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabic. 
 
 We arc encouraged in scripture to search ; searcli 
 the scriptures, to learn to understand the dark sayings 
 of the wise, to receive the instruction of 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. 
 / mil open my mouth in a parable. I will utter dark 
 sayings of* old. 49. 9. / will open my mouth in dark 
 sayings upon the harp. Surely the Psalmist did not 
 mean that he would utter dark sayings of old, which 
 he did not understand, for he addresses low and 
 high, rich and poor, saying, my mouth shall speak of 
 wisdom. It is written, without a parable (allegory, 
 or similitude) spake he not unto tltem. Now if we 
 ; search the scriptures for an elucidation of these para- 
 bles, allegories, or similitudes, as we are directed to 
 do, we undoubtedly shall be able to gain a know- 
 ledge of their meaning. The scriptures alone, with- 
 out " a direct revelation to ascertain the sense in 
 which they are to be understood," will explain 
 them. 
 
 If ail the creatures were to be cursed on account 6f 
 
65 
 
 the transgression of man, either through the serpent 
 or the monkey, how on this ground are we to believe 
 that the divine being is a God of impartial justice, 
 to curse the innocent for the crime of the guilty ? 
 Again, were it the Devil that inspired either the } 
 serpent or the monkey, where was the necessity for 
 this observation, now the serpent was more subtle than 
 any beast of tfie Jield ; 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 shalt thou eat all the 
 days of 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 case, the creature must 
 have been under the necessity of committing this 
 crime through the mighty influence of a superior 
 power, which 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 substituted for 
 piety. To such I answer, these things are revealed 
 for our information, and there certainly can be 
 nothing dark or hidden in what is revealed, otherwise 
 it ceases to be a revelation. 
 
66 
 
 5* ! Luther complains, that none of the ancient fathers 
 or bishops, who were men eminent for knowledge 
 and piety, had explained this passage as it deserved. 
 He says, that the principal articles of the doctrine 
 of the gospel are contained in the history of the fall 
 of man. But the ancient fathers and bishops 
 explained the words, he shall bruise thy head, to refer 
 to Chi'ist. Therefore Luther saw that there was 
 still something, which was not explained concerning 
 the serpent. Something more is to be understood 
 here, says Witsius, than merely restricting this address 
 of the Deity to a beast incapable of reason, and intel- 
 ligent only in its order above other beasts. 
 
 i The ancient Hebrews, according to the custom of 
 the east, spake and wrote hyperbolically when they 
 said, the cities were fortified unto heaven, by which 
 nothing more was 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 effect, as if 
 they' had been built unto heaven, had such a thing 
 been possible. This method of speaking and writing 
 allegorically was so customary in those ancient times 
 among all the eastern nations, and it was so well 
 understood by habitual communication, that the 
 sacred writings abound with allegory and metaphor. 
 In Judges, ch. ix. when the people of Shechem had 
 made Abimelech king; Jotham spake to them meta- 
 phorically, in order to convince them of their folly 
 
67 
 
 and injustice ; and informed them that the trees went 
 forth to choose a king, when a personification is 
 introduced, and the trees converse with each other. 
 But this is not " a relation of a fact capable of a 
 satisfactory explanation," agreeably to the literal 
 acceptation of things, or agreeably to the letter; for 
 it must be admitted that the trees could not speak, it 
 is contrary to that order which God has established 
 in nature. Sampson spake to the enemies of Israel 
 in this allegorical way. Nathan came to David 
 with an allegory; and Joah, king of Israel, sent a 
 figurative message to Ahaziah, king of Judah. The 
 prophet Isaiah spake to the people in allegory when 
 he said, " the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, the 
 leopard shall lie down with the kid, the young lion 
 and the fading 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 the people in allegory, 
 when he informed them that he was shown the 
 unclean beasts pourtrayed upon the wall in the 
 chamber of imagery; which was an allegorical repre- 
 sentation of the abominations of the house of Israel. i 
 
 This was again confirmed by divine authority when 
 God condescended to show the apostle all manner of 
 unclean creatures which descended from heaven. / 
 That they signified, not only all the gentile nations, I 
 
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 affections 
 of man, which were to be purified by fearing God 
 and working 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 them as lived in uncleanness, or in unclean 
 affections, *^^JK e ^ Jp j^ cleansed from their 
 filthiness, by rr.nrmptiife and newness of life, or in 
 the apostle's words, 1 perceive that God is no respecter 
 of persons, but in every nation, be thatfeareth God 
 and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him. We 
 are also told by Rabbinical writers, that the .Messiah 
 should speak in metaphors, which was true, for when 
 he came, it is said, without a parable spake he not 
 unto them. 
 
 \ The learned Maimonides says, in the preface to his 
 
 j, <**JM*W-w^IS. - J ' l 
 
 / More Novechim, that " this was the method by 
 / which, in ancient times, they instructed the people, 
 i and w ? hich at that period was well understood by 
 them." Now if the ancient wise men and poets com- 
 municated knowledge by figure and metaphor, as 
 appears above, and as is also known to us from the 
 writings of that master of figure JEsop; is it not as 
 reasonable to suppose, that by the serpent's convers- 
 ing with Eve, something more is intended to be con- 
 veyed to posterity, than that which appears on the 
 
69 
 
 face of the letter; as to conclude that trees literally 
 held a conversation together which of them should 
 govern the rest. 
 
 The literal interpretation of the first part 
 Genesis, has been involved in doubts and difficulties j 
 for ages. Celsus, one of the first opposers of the 
 Gospel, treats with satirical merriment the history of 
 Adam's formation, and of Eve made from his rib, of 
 the commands that were given them, and of the { 
 serpent's cunning in being able to evade the effect of 
 those commands. Origen, in answer to him, says, 
 that he does not treat the subject with candor* but 
 hides what he ought to have made known, viz. that 
 all this was to be understood in a figurative sense, 
 not giving the words, which would have convinced j 
 him that they were spoken allegorically. Origen also 
 replies to Celsus, referring him to their own writers, 
 theologians and philosophers, who frequently commu- 
 nicated their doctrines in this representative style : 
 instances of which he gives from Hesiod and Plato, 
 which were all interpreted in a figurative sense by 
 their followers, and concludes by observing, that it is 
 unreasonable to deny to Moses the possession of 
 truth, under the veil of allegory, which was then the 
 practice of all the eastern nations; 1 
 
 ' Cont. Cels. 1. iv. p. 189 
 
70 
 
 Eusebius f informs us, that there were two sorts of 
 Jews, the learned and the unlearned. The unlearned 
 were confined to the literal observance of the law, 
 but the learned were admitted to the contemplation 
 of a more refined philosophy. That the interpreters 
 explained to them the figurative sense; which he 
 confirms, not only by the authority of Aristobulus 
 and Philo, but by the constant practice of that strict 
 sect of the Jews, the Essenes, who always followed 
 this allegorical manner of expounding^ which was in 
 the days of Aristobulus, MX) years before Christ, 
 called ancient. 
 
 Philo * says, it is a manifest proof of ignorance to 
 suppose that God really was employed six days in the 
 production of things. And Ongeri^ says, what 
 rational man will believe, that the first, second, and 
 third days, and the evenings and mornings, passed 
 without the sun, moon, and stars; and the first even- 
 ing without the heavens ? Who so silly as to suppose, 
 that God, like an husbandman, planted a garden, and 
 in it a real tree of life, to be tasted by corporeal 
 teeth? or that the knowledge of good and evil was 
 to be obtained by eating the fruit of another tree? 
 and as to the voice of God, walking in the garden, 
 and Adam hiding himself from him among the trees, 
 
 1 Euseb. Prap. Evang. 1. 8. * Vid. Sixt. Senens, Biblioth, 
 \/ i I 1. 5. p. 338. 3 Orig. Philocal. c. i. p. 12. 
 
71 
 
 no man can doubt but that these things are to be 
 understood figuratively, and not literally, to signify 
 certain mysteries, jor recondite senses. 
 
 St. Austin, in the preface to his twelve books of 
 the literal interpretation of the three first chapters of 
 Genesis, says : No Christian will say that they are not 
 to be understood figuratively, when he recollects that 
 the Apostle declares, how all these things happened 
 to them in a figure. Philo explained all the allego- 
 ries of the Mosaic law, and in a treatise on the form- J 
 ation of the world, according to Moses' account of 
 it, he says, " these are not fabu! ^us tales, such ab J 
 the poets make use of, but they are figurative descripH 
 tions, leading us to allegorical and recondite senses, 
 to which, if any one rationally attends, he will see that f 
 the serpent is used for the emblem of sensual pka-J 
 
 sure." 
 
 The learned Rabbi, Maimonides, r says, that the 
 
 ^%******^'*** i * B **<^ |t> ^' V 
 
 sergentjias reladonjojhejnrai^pf man, and that in 
 the account that is given of the creation, the ancient 
 Drs. from the time of Moses, held that these things 
 in the first chapters of Genesis were not to be literally 
 understood. Clemens AJexandrinus, who lived in 
 the second century, was also of the same opinion. 
 
 * In More Novechim, ch. xxix. p. 265, 273. 
 
72 
 
 In the Rabbinical work called ZEROR HAMMOR, 
 it is said, " the adversary, which is the serpent, satan, 
 and corrupt nature, who by his smooth words, 
 smoother than oil, mislead our first parents, and 
 entices all creatures to him, in the pursuit of sensual 
 delight." Also in NISHMATH CiiASJJUj 1 tc For 
 Messias will purify the uncleanliness of the serpent, 
 by which is signified, that Messias shall destroy the 
 serpent." In the Avoclatli^ Hajcl^desh^ it is written, 
 " The serpent that is the Devil is the evil part" 
 
 In the work, Shen^LuchoJh^abbejith^ it is said, 
 " The evil nature, or the corrupt nature (as in Zeror 
 Hammor) he is Satan ; Mekch hamoth, the angel of 
 death. And again, in the Zeror Hammor, because 
 Jacob tarried on his way, he was bit by the old 
 serpent, which is yn ~)^, the corrupt nature. 
 
 We read in the Revelation, ch. xiii. 11. And I 
 beheld another beast coming up out of the earth, and he 
 had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. 
 This is not " an historical fact capable of a satisfactory 
 explanation," according to the literal meaning of the 
 words. Since the commencement of the Christian 
 aera, we have never heard of dragons atid serpents 
 that could speak. This is evidently an allegory, but 
 is *' no attempt to be made to explain it without a 
 
 1 Fol. 184. 359. 
 
73 
 
 new revelation?" It must be obvious to every one, 
 that this was applied to the apostle, agreeably to 
 ancient custom, to signify that principle of circum- 
 spection in man, which is capable of putting on a 
 cloak of hypocrisy to deceive or ensnare those, who 
 are unsuspecting. -ijfirtttdW^^ 
 
 The ancient fathers knew, that the history of this 
 transaction did not contain " a simple relation of 
 facts capable of a satisfactory explanation," according 
 to the literal acceptation of things. This will appeal- 
 evident from what follows. In the 15th verse, it is 
 said, " And I will put enmity between thee and the 
 woman." That the whole is allegorical is plain; of 
 what consequence could it be to man for him to hate 
 a serpent, or for enmity to be put between man and 
 the serpent? or between man and the monkey? for 
 though man naturally hates a serpent more than any 
 other creature, yet this would be of very little conse- 
 quence, as he is not troubled with that creature. 
 This enmity here spoken of, which was to be put r> 
 between the seed of the serpent, and the woman, will 
 be best? explained by ' the* apostle,' for it cannot be 
 " a simple relation of a fact capable of a satisfactory 
 explanation." It is asserted by him, as well as by 
 the ancient Jewish doctors, to mean thejcanjaL sensual/ 
 mind of man, which is enmity against God. Rom. 
 8. 7. Tzecause the carnal mind is enmity against God. 
 Ephes, 2.- 1 5, 1 6V having abolished mhisjlesh the enmity, 
 
74 
 
 that he might reconcile both unto God in one body, by 
 the cross, having slain the enmity thereby. And 
 agreeably to this style of writing and speaking, in the 
 days of our Lord, this description of men are called a 
 generation of vipers, or serpents. But what puts this 
 matter out of the reach ot contradiction, and proves 
 k to be written agreeably to the custom of the prime- 
 val people, who introduced the serpent as a symbol to 
 represent the wisdom, intelligence, subtility, or 
 prudence of the sensual principle in man, is that of 
 the apostle, 2 Cor. 11. 2. But I fear, lest by any 
 means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his 
 subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the 
 simplicity that is in Christ. Thus does the apostle 
 give the true meaning of the allegory, signifying in 
 plain language, that Eve was beguiled, or seduced 
 from her native simplicity, by giving way to the grati- 
 fication of the sejnsi^^rjnnapje^signified by that 
 sensual animal, by which improper indulgence they 
 disobeyed the divine command. 
 
 X, But this writer may say, they were created perfect, 
 without sin, how then could they be induced by the 
 sensual principle to transgress? I answer. There is 
 no evil in the sensual principle, Adam was created 
 with a sensual principle, or with a power of enjoying 
 all the pleasures of the senses; viz. with those feelings 
 and sensations without which man would not be man* 
 
 ; It was the abuse of these sensual affections, that gave 
 
 ' 
 
75 
 
 birth to sin in our first parents, and which constitutes 
 sin at this day. 
 
 This was the prohibited fruit of which they were not 
 to eat. This was the fear which Paul expressed, viz. 
 so. or in like manner, your minds should be corrupted, 
 as the mind of Eve was corrupted by the serpent, i. e. 
 the sensual passions represented by the serpent: and 
 this was the sense in which the Corinthians understood 
 him, otherwise the comparison would not have been 
 at all applicable, unless they had understood the 
 serpent to be the symbol of the sensual principle in 
 man, as the most ancient Jews did before them. 
 
 Thus it appears that it has been the custom of the 
 most primeval people, and of the ancients before and 
 from the time of Moses, to consider these passages as 
 containing a figurative description of the sensual 
 passions in man, by comparing them to those natural 
 propensities in the serpent which is the most sensual, 
 as well as the most subtle beast in creation. 
 
 Every clause confirms the settled opinion of the 
 ancient Christian fathers, and doctors among the Jews, 
 that the whole account is allegorical. It shall bruise 
 thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel, but this is 
 not the true reading, the masculine pronoun singular 
 of the third person occurs, Nirr there is no neutral 
 pronoun in Hebrew : it reads, he shall bruise thy head. 
 
76 
 
 I suppose this writer will admit, that this is not " a 
 simple relation of a fact capable of a satisfactory 
 explanation," on the literal ground he has taken; and 
 that these words convey something which does not 
 appear, nor can possibly be understood, in the letter. 
 How in the name of common sense can it be said that 
 the monkey shall bruise the heel of man? monkies are 
 never remarked for any such thing, whereas the 
 serpent has scarcely any other means of defence, than 
 by coining behind and biting the heel. To come to 
 the point, this writer must necessarily admit, that this 
 was the first manifestation of the mercy of God to man 
 in his fallen state, that this was the first promise of 
 the coming of the great deliverer, the ii^t? Shilo, the 
 Lord of David, the Immanuel of the prophets, and 
 the redeemer of men. Now, if these words concern- 
 ing the serpent were to be understood as literally as 
 this gentleman has taken them, and that this was not 
 a figure, or allegory, taken from animal nature, where 
 the propensities of the most sensual beast in creation 
 are figuratively applied to man in a natural state, 
 ' being in perpetual enmity to the seed, or offspring of 
 Christ, ' the serpent bruiser in man : he is under the 
 necessity of showing, that this was all fulfilled liter- 
 ally. For as it must be allowed that this refers to 
 Christ, the serpent must of course have literally bitten 
 bis heel, and he must also have literally bruised the 
 
 1 2 Acts, 16\ 28,29, 
 
77 
 
 head of the serpent. And even then, this would 
 bring us no nearer to the meaning, because thousands 
 since the time of Christ, have literally bruised the 
 heads of serpents, and thousands have been bitten by 
 them; so that this would apply to man in general, 
 instead of Christ. Therefore as the words, lie shall 
 bruise thy head, cannot possibly be literally under- 
 stood, 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 be an 
 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 among the 
 
 Jews, that the whole account is allegorical. The 
 allegory is also plain from the words, dust shall thou ) 
 eat all the days of thy life^ 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 
 
78 
 
 of all the passions in the order or composition of the 
 internal man. They are evidently applied to man in 
 a state of nature, signifying that his delight or life is 
 in the low gratification of the sensual passions, which 
 are meant by the dust. In this allegorical sense, the 
 word is used throughout the scripture Amos, 2. 7. 
 That pant after the dust of the earth on the head of 
 the poor, and turn aside the way of the meek, and a 
 man and his father will go in unto the same maid 9 to 
 profane 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 of Christ himself 
 and the Apostles. And lastly, as it was the universal 
 opinion 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 so understood and explained from 
 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 from 
 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 representative figure, 
 taken from that creature in whom the natural subtiltj 
 
79 
 
 of the sensual 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 i 
 sacred Scriptures which I have shown in 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 visible 
 things, and of the passions and propensities of the 
 animal to the passions and propensities in man, 
 consists the wisdom and sanctity of the divine writings. 
 But in process of time, by little and little, their 
 descendants departed from the purity of divine 
 worship, 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, 
 showing them the beauty of virtue and innocence; 
 these representative things 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 
 from their original source : so the Mosaic history ^ 
 concerning the CREATION OF THE FIRST PEOPLE 
 
80 
 
 Of PARADISE the FALL OF MAN the SERPENT 
 
 and NOAHJS^ FLOOD, which are plain and easily 
 understood when the above-mentioned style is attend- 
 ed to, has been rendered obscure and unintelligible, 
 by forsaking the obvious application of these things, 
 in which consists the true sanctity of the scriptures ; 
 and by supposing what is plainly contradicted, that 
 these things were " capable of a satisfactory explana- 
 tion" by the letter of scripture, which is proved to be 
 altogether impossible, and contrary to the obvious 
 meaning of the sacred writers. 
 
 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 fable, but it is not so, as 
 there is a significative reality in the object, and as it is 
 true in its application. Perseus 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 compared to the horse, on 
 account of its utility to man, and its quick transition 
 from place to place. Thus the horse of Perseus is 
 said to have broken open a fountain with his hoof, 
 and that this fountain was afterwards consecrated to 
 the nine Muses ; by which we understand, agreeably 
 to this significative mode of speech, that the hoof of 
 the horse meant the industry, and the winged horse 
 
81 
 
 the understanding of Perseus. So that though this 
 has heen 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 knowledge to pos- 
 terity* 
 t i 
 
 The understanding is the rudder of the mind ; it 
 makes a swift transition from one place to another, it 
 guides and directs all our actions, and on this 
 account is of the greatest utility to man : in like 
 manner these ancient people, to prefigure the under- 
 standing by a similar likeness in animal nature, as is 
 customary throughout the Scriptures, in their emble- 
 matical representations j gave wings to the horse, that 
 animal being the most useful to man, and the swiftest 
 of all others, if we calculate on time and distance, and 
 hence a fit subject to represent the qualities of the 
 understanding. 
 
 Now, after all this author has said concerning the 
 necessity of a " new revelation to explain this alle- 
 gory," we find to a demonstration, that it is an alle- 
 gorical expression founded on a comparison of things 
 in nature, with the passions and affections in man ; not 
 according to notion or opinion, but confirmed by other 
 parts of scripture., and that this circumstance concern- 
 ing the fall of man, conveyed to us in the style of alle- 
 gory, agreeably to the custom of the eastern nations, 
 
 F 
 
82 
 
 impresses the mind with a more rational 'view of the 
 real cause of that departure from the commands of 
 God, and give's us higher and more dignified senti- 
 ments concerning the sanctity of the scriptures than we 
 can possibly have by understanding that a literal 
 serpent, or a monkey tempted Eve ; consequently his 
 assertion concerning the " necessity of a new revela- 
 tion to prove it an 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 mystery : 
 I appeal to all persons who have read the various 
 comments that have been written on the Mosaic 
 account, whether they have yet been satisfied on this 
 part of the subject, though convinced of the fact. 
 Who was the serpent ? of what kind, in what way 
 did he seduce the first happy pair? These are ques- 
 tions which remain yet to be answered." 
 
 Referring then to these questions, I may be allowed 
 to appeal to all persons who have read the comment 
 he has given, " whether they have been satisfied with 
 what he has said on this part of the subject?" whether 
 they can give credit to his assertion, that the monkey 
 was the agent that brought about the fall of man? I 
 believe he stands alone, the solitary promulgator of 
 some new thing, which has no tendency to give us a 
 rational view of this transaction; neither does it 
 
83 
 
 / 
 
 answer to any one " 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, " this 
 is a question which remains yet to be answered," he 
 has given us no answer but what is given in the text, 
 viz. that it was by eating the forbidden fruit. 
 
 I have, however, in what is advanced in these 
 pages, scrupulously abided by the meaning of the 
 original word. And in showing that the singular 
 properties of this beast were applied by the inspired 
 writers 'to those principles in man in a state of nature, 
 I have suffered the scriptures to prove, that this was 
 the " kind" 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 Christian 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 people, 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 
 
84 
 
 " such as becomes the oracles of God ;" are these 
 reflections of his, " properly inductive reasonings on 
 the facts stated, or the doctrines delivered ;" how is 
 he justified in saying, " through the flimsy, futile, and 
 false dealing of the immense herd of Spiritualizers, 
 Metaphor-men, and Allegorists, pure religion has 
 been disgraced :" when, as is proved above, a great 
 part of the scriptures are written in allegory or meta- 
 phor. What is more calculated to bring pure religion 
 into disgrace, or to assist the Deist in defaming the 
 scriptures, than supposing that a monkey was the 
 agent employed in the fall of man ? 
 
 It may probably 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 : 
 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. 
 
 Therefore for the satisfaction of those, who are 
 desirous of seeing 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 
 BIBLICAL JOURNAL, where it is shown from the 
 
85 
 
 scripture that a great part of the sacred volume 
 cannot be understood unless this be attended to. 
 And that this emblematical representation, by figures 
 chosen from nature to signify the passions and affec- 
 tions of the mind, was well understood by the patri- 
 archs and the prophets, from the beginning of time 
 to the end of the Israelitish church. 
 
86 
 
 THE UNITY OF GOD, 
 
 IT certainly is a matter of the first importance to 
 have proper views of the object of our adoration. To 
 enter into a description of that ineffable being who 
 spake, and the universe was created, would be pre- 
 sumption. 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 Mes- 
 siah, is within the grasp of our understanding. 
 
 In every age since the time of the council of Nice, 
 the doctrine of the Trinity has been held forth by 
 those who have been esteemed sound in their views of 
 this 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. Here has arisen the objection 
 
87 
 
 concerning a plurality of Gods, a charge which those 
 who call themselves Unitarians, always bring against 
 the defenders of the divine Trinity. But to worship 
 a Trinity OUT of the divine nature, is certainly not 
 consistent with the scriptures, 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 Trinity, and 
 Trinity in Unity, according to the scriptures, but 
 confound the persons, and divide the substance. But 
 if we worship a Trinity IN the divine nature, " then 
 the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Spirit, is all one : the glory equal, the majesty 
 co-eternal. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, the 
 Holy Spirit eternal, and yet they are not three eter- 
 nals, three incomprehensible^, three uncreates, three 
 Almighties; but one." 
 
 Those, on 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 
 unknown God ; like the Jews of old, they worship 
 they know not 'what, an infinitely extended metaphy- 
 sical being, like infinite space, which cannot possibly 
 be an object of worship. An essence cannot exist 
 but in some form, therefore to address a divine being, 
 
88 
 
 or essence, without that being existing in a form, 
 must be to address a non-entity. Such, consequently, 
 cannot worship a God at all; it is a vain phantasm, 
 an airy appearance ; it is a God of their own forming, 
 which only appears in their imagination. But if they 
 have any object of their worship, they then must 
 attempt to personify the infinite and incomprehensible 
 essence of Deity, or the Father, to the exclusion of 
 the person of Christ ; such worshippers are truly 
 followers of the Sabellian heresy. This was also 
 the doctrine of Arius, or anti-christ, by which he 
 caused a schism in the church, but the great body of 
 Christians at that day, rejected this heresy, by which 
 we learn that one God in Trinity ^ and Trinity in 
 unity, was the doctrine of the apostolic churches. 
 
 To confirm the doctrine of three persons, or a 
 plurality of Gods, Dr. Clarke attempts to prove that 
 the word O^ Elhoim, God, is a plural noun, 
 which he says, * 4 is certainly the plural form of '** 
 el. As this plurality appears in so many parts of the 
 sacred writings to be confined to three persons, hence 
 the doctrine of the Trinity." But being aware that 
 this noun is joined with a verb singular, he defines 
 his subject as follows. " The verb N")l, he created, 
 being joined in the singular number with this plural 
 noun, has been considered as pointing out, and not 
 obscurely, the unity of these divine persons in this 
 work of creation. In the ever blessed Trinity, from 
 
89 
 
 the infinite and indivisible unity of the persons, there 
 can be but one will, one purpose, and one infinite and 
 uncontrollable energy." 
 
 As Dr. Clarke must have formed some 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 three eternals, could be actuated 
 " by one will," and not by three wills ; " 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 
 convey 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 writer has 
 given of the Trinity, <c 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 cannot be under- 
 stood. It is not possible for us to have faith or 
 belief in 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 : consequently there cannot be an object of faith. 
 
90 
 
 We may be asked, if we can comprehend Gad ? if by. 
 comprehending God, be meant his infinite perfections, 
 the answer must necessarily be in the negative ; and 
 the reason is obvious : that which is Jinite cannot 
 possibly extend its researches to that which is infinite. 
 When we are told that there are three distinct and 
 visible persons OUT of the divine nature, and in the 
 same breath, that these three persons are one, it 
 never can be comprehended, because it is inconsistent 
 with scripture and common sense, and can never 
 form a part of our faith. So far as God has made 
 himself known BY THE PERSON OF CHRIST, so far 
 God becomes an object of our faith in Unity ; and 
 this unity " has formed a part of the creed of all 
 those, w r ho have been deemed sound in the faith from 
 the earliest ages of Christianity." 
 
 In order to obviate the plain and incontrovertible 
 declarations which prove that the noun O^g Elhoim, 
 is not a plural, but a singular noun, Dr. Clarke refers 
 to the following passages, noticed by Parkhurst, who 
 says, " let those who have any doubt whether CDTv$ 
 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 
 pronouns plural." Gen. 1.26. ch. 3. 22. 13.7. 
 20. 13. 31. 7. 53. 35. 7. Dent. 4. 7. 5. 23. 
 Josh. 24. 19- 1 Sam. 4. 8. 2 Sam. 7. 23. Psalm 
 58. 12. Jer. 10. 10. ch. 23. 36. Also Prov.9. 10, 
 
91 
 
 ch. 30. 3. Psalm 149- 2. Eccl. 5. 7. 12. 1. 
 Job. 5. 1. Isa. 6. 3. 54. 5. 6*2. 5. Hos. 11. 12. 
 Mai. 1. 6. Dan. 5. 18. 20. 7. 18. 22. To all 
 these passages we are referred by Dr. Clarke for 
 proof that the word O^N Elhoim, is a plural noun, 
 because Parkhurst and he say, it is connected with 
 "adjectives, verbs, and pronouns plural." Twelve 
 of the first are noticed by Parkhurst, in which the 
 word QTft$ Elhoim is found, but in the remainder, 
 which are added by Dr. Clarke, Ev6N Elhoim, does 
 not occur at all, except in one passage, and VPN 
 Eloehea, in two. And even if it did, the following 
 clauses, fow /nNIS Pfirp the Lord of Hosts is HIS 
 name. *njf. HNH ^? t^. the God of the whole 
 earth shall HE be called, could not mean that 
 OwN Elhoim , is a plural noun. The learned 
 Abarbanal, and the most eminent Rabbies say, 
 that OVfttf Elhoim, and vfttf Eloehea, have the 
 same meaning, and the difference in form arises from 
 this, that wN Eloehea is conjunctive, or in regimen, 
 which is true, as Psalm 1. ipJS? v6$ God of Jacob 
 tonfe? vf? God of /sm?/ a^rr vf?g God o 
 Heaven but that D^K Elhbim, is the absolute 
 form. 
 
 I shall now proceed to examine the above passages 
 where the word O^** Elhoim, is found, and which 
 we are told, " that as it is connected with adjectives, 
 verbs, and pronouns plural, must be plural also." 
 
92 
 
 In Jer. 23. 36. and ch. 10. 10. we find the word 
 tf Elhoim, God ; but it does not follow because 
 it is connected with O*n Hayim, life, that it is a 
 plural noun. &\ yim, does not form the plural, as I 
 shall have occasion to show in the course of this 
 investigation. The same word is rendered " running 
 water, or living water,' 5 Lev. 14. 5. O*n D"D; also Gen. 
 27. 46. D"H 4, my life to me. Job, 10. 12. thou hast 
 granted me D^l, life and favor. 
 
 Psalm 58. 12. verily he is a WSSjti DVjfrg, God that 
 judgeth ; but D^ZDSfitf Skophetim, is not plural, there- 
 fore the word D^$ Elhoim, cannot on that account 
 be considered as a noun plural. 
 
 2 Sam. 7. 23. QN Ellioirn, God, is connected 
 with tfftzb lipheddoth, which means u to redeem," the 
 translation is consistent with reason and sound 
 speech, viz. whom God went to redeem : but if 0^$ 
 Elhoim, God, were to be rendered as a plural noun, 
 it would be, whom Gods went to redeem. The same 
 reasoning is applicable to Eccless. 5. 7. fear thou 
 God, ch. 12. 13. fear God and keep his command- 
 ments. 
 
 1st Samuel, 4. 8. In this verse the word 
 JElhoim, God, is supposed by Parkhurst and Dr. 
 Clarke to be plural, because it is connected with 
 haaddirim, on the hacknied ground of the 
 
93 
 
 plural termination; but this cannot be allowed, 
 as will be shown. The translation of this verse, as 
 it stands at present in our Bible, is, Woe unto us, 
 'who shall deliver us out of tJie hand of these mighty 
 Godj, these are the Gods that smote the Egyptians 
 tvith all the plagues in the wilderness. Had the Dr. 
 attended to the original, he would not have been so 
 hasty in concluding that Elhobn, God, was a plural 
 noun ; he must certainly have been sensible that the 
 Egyptians were not smitten with the plagues in the 
 wilderness, but in Egypt : and that for this reason 
 there must be some error in the translation of this 
 passage. There are three words in the original 
 Hebrew, which are not truly rendered, and which 
 are only noticed by the word these^ viz. Dt **%$ '"^jri 
 which ought to be rendered as in Gen. 39- 19. after 
 this manner, or with these things, 1 Kings, 22. 11. 
 The word H3D makkaah, is also rendered plagues, 
 but as the plagues were inflicted in Egypt, and not 
 in the wilderness, as observed; neither can it be 
 truly rendered. This word is used here as in many 
 other places, to signify slaughter; seethe passages 
 where the same word occurs, and is thus rendered. 
 Josh. 10. 10. 20. Jud. 11. 3. 15. 8. 1 Sam. 6. 
 19._ch. 14. 30. ch. 19- 8. 1 Kings 20. 21. 
 2 Chron. 13. 17. In this chapter we are informed, 
 that the Philistines and the Israelites were opposed 
 to each other : they had heard how God had inter- 
 posed in their behalf, when they left Egypt at the 
 
94 
 
 red sea, they had heard of the ark of God, and 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 camp of Israel, and were told that the 
 ark of God had arrived at the camp, they said, Woe 
 unto us, who shall deliver us out of the hand of this 
 mighty God? after this manner God smote the 
 Egyptians with all the slaughter in the wilderness. 
 From which it appears, that Elhoim, God, is not a 
 plural noun, and that it is most incorrectly rendered 
 by the translators. 
 
 Joshua, 24. 19. Dnthjj D , a holy God. This is 
 the Bible translation, and it will puzzle Dr. Clarke 
 to mend it in sense. Q^p is not plural, it is truly 
 rendered by holiness, and connected with Elhoim, 
 God; it reads a God of holiness. 
 
 Deut. 5. 23. God doth talk with man, and he 
 liveth. Here again is no proof that Elhoim, God, 
 is joined with a plural. ^7?? Adam, is a noun 
 singular, but admitting it were plural, the Dr. 
 should have recollected that the il he, prefixed, is 
 not noticed in the translation, it is emphatic, and is 
 to be rendered by the 9 this. He also should have 
 remembered that God did not speak with man, in the 
 plural, but with the man. They indeed heard his voice, 
 but God spake only with Moses. The clause truly 
 reads, God doth talk with the man, and he liveth. 
 
95 
 
 Ch. 4. 7. g Elohea. God, which is evidently 
 singular, is joined with D^N Elhoim, God, but had 
 O^N Elhoim been plural, the venerable writer 
 could not have committed such a blunder, as the 
 verse would read thus, for what nation is so great who 
 hath Gods so nigh unto them, Wfp$ H5T3 as the 
 Lord our Gods. 
 
 Gen. 35. 7. And he built there an altar, and 
 called the place El-beth el, because there God appeared 
 -unto him, when he fad from the face of his brother. 
 Here we are told again that the word tfjl^. Elhoim, 
 God, must be pluraj, as it is connected with a plural 
 verb. 'fcp Niglou, is no doubt plural, but it is not 
 connected with B^N Elhoim, therefore it is no proof 
 that it is a plural noun. This writer should have 
 told us that the translators have erred in the applica- 
 tion of *bft Niglou, as well as in the translation of 
 that word, for it is rendered as the third person singu- 
 lar 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 Jled 
 from the face of his brother, it is in the original, neces- 
 sarily applied to Jacob and all his house, when they 
 removed from Shechem to Bethel. It must be 
 acknowledged, that if TP Elhoim, God, were a 
 plural noun, the clause should be rendered thus : 
 Gods appeared unto him. 
 
96' 
 
 tt Niglou, is the third person plural preter of the 
 verb in Niphal, to appear -, be discovered, revealed; to 
 le removed captivity, Sam. 2. 14. ^ ^ #?ZG? they 
 have not discovered, Ezek. 23. 11. ^3 HDPf //^e dis- 
 covered, Jer. 13. 22. thy skirts ^3 are discovered. 
 
 The words ^ JV? ^ El-beth-el, which are thus 
 retained in the translation, confuse the passage ; they 
 truly read thus : the mighty one of Bethel, and the 
 rr he, prefixed to &$ JElkoim, which is omitted in 
 the translation, and not noticed by Dr. Clarke, is as 
 necessary a word as any in the passage. It is 
 emphatic, and is the same as the Greek o, and the 
 Latin hie, literally the 9 this, viz. B^Nn THIS GOD, 
 in opposition to the strange Gods, which his family 
 had brought with them. 
 
 Bebarcho is rendered in the translation as 
 the third person singular preter, viz. when he jled, 
 but it is properly the infinitive, and should be 
 rendered in his flying, or of hisjlying. The verse 
 will be rendered consistently with the Hebrew as 
 follows. And he built there an altar, and called the 
 place, the mighty one of Bethel, because there they 
 appeared ^? (Jacob and his family) before him, the 
 God, of his flying from the face of his brother. 
 From which it is plain, that this passage is consistent 
 without making D^frK Elhoim a plural noun, admit- 
 ting it were connected with 1^0 Niglou, Jacob and 
 
97 
 
 his family ceased to worship the idols they had 
 brought with them, and they appeared before, or 
 worshipped before ^V$7> this God, the mighty one 
 of Bethel, the God who protected him IN HIS FLY- 
 ING from the face of his brother. 
 
 Ch. 31. 7. D'rN fo? ? but God would not suffer 
 him, here OV?^ Elhoim, God, is plural \ve are told, 
 because it is connected with fo.n? Nethano, which is 
 supposed to be plural. I shall pursue my usual 
 method of suffering the scripture to speak for itself. 
 fan? Nethano, is, as it stands in the translation, truly 
 rendered by suffer him, See Jud. 15. 1. but her 
 father would not faTO suffer him. 1 Sam. 18. 2. and 
 would not faTti let him return. Ch. 23. 14. delivered 
 him not ; therefore it is no proof that B^r^N Elhoim 
 is a plural noun. 
 
 Gen. 31. 53. The God of Abraham, the God of 
 Nahor Judge. This is perfectly right as it stands 
 in the English Bible. ^^ Yishiphetou is plural, 
 very well ; but wN Eloehea is not on that account to 
 be rendered as a plural noun, it is only a noun singu- 
 lar in regimen. 
 
 There are in this verse two Gods mentioned bv 
 
 / 
 
 Laban, viz. the God of Abraham, and the God of 
 Nahor. Abraham was a worshipper of the true 
 God, Nahor was an idolater; so that Laban, who 
 
98 
 
 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 
 OVfrN Elhoim to be a plural noun. 
 
 Ch. 11.7. Go to, let us go down and confound 
 their language. Parkhurst and Dr. Clarke should 
 have pointed out the noun or verb plural, which they 
 say is connected with D^rpN Elhoim, God, in this 
 verse. &^N Elhoim, however, is not to be met with 
 in the whole chapter, so that this commentator must 
 have copied it from Parkhurst, without examining 
 either the chapter or the verse. It must therefore 
 have been an oversight in both these good men, and 
 consequently cannot be any proof that D^N 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 important 
 subject. An article on this miracle of Ages is 
 intended to be sent to the CLASSICAL JOURNAB> 
 
 to which I refer the reader. 
 
 <<* 
 
 Ch. 3. 22. And the Lord God said, behold the 
 man JHJ nto JTjnbj ^?9 "t3 nvj i s become as one 
 of' us to know good and evil. There are two things 
 in this clause which require our serious attention, 
 
99 
 
 viz. to whom the words ^D "TOO rrrr is become as 
 one of us, are applied: and the true meaning and 
 application of 3HJ 3M fiSFk to know good and evil. 
 It must be admitted that Adam knew good and evil 
 
 o 
 
 before the fall, otherwise he could not have been an 
 accountable creature ; evil to him would have been 
 as good, and good the same as evil. " This pas- 
 sage," says Dr. Clarke, " on all hands is allowed to 
 be difficult, 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. 1 . 26. The word ^fcDD 
 MimmennoUj is rendered in all the European transla- 
 tions, as the oblique case of we, but its true meaning 
 is to appoint, see Job, 7. 3. and wearisome nights, 
 ^D Minnou, are appointed to me. Also to number, 
 Gen. 13. 16. rttD> shall be numbered. 2 Chron. 5. 6. 
 toDJ Yimmaanou, be numbered. Dan. 1. 5. and the 
 D mem prefixed, forms the comparative. It must be 
 admitted that Adam was appointed to know good and 
 evil ; .let the contrary 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 there- 
 to; 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 good by the actual 
 commission of evil. 
 
100 
 
 The verb HVT haayaah, which is in all the Euro- 
 pean translations rendered, is become, is the 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 ^HiO EQUALLY THE 
 SAME APPOINTED to know good and cell. 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 from the difficulty altoge- 
 ther. 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 of us to know good 
 and evil, and with Dr. Clarke, that he only knew 
 good, viz. " he has added (says he) to the knowledge 
 of the good, the knowledge of the evil; 5 ' it finally 
 silences this old objection of the Deist, and shows 
 us that Adam, in his primary state, was not ignorant 
 concerning the nature of evil, but that he was inno- 
 cent as to the commission of it, or the transgression 
 of the commands of God. From all which it is 
 evident that D^N Elhoim, God, by being connected 
 with ^Slp mimmennou, which has been erroneously 
 'considered as the oblique case of we, is no proof that 
 it is a plural noun. 
 
 Gen. ch. 1. 26. I now come to. notice one of the 
 most difficult passages on this subject in the whole 
 
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 rendering, to believe in the 
 existence of a Trinity in distinct personality out of the 
 divine nature. I am constrained to reject all the 
 translations hitherto given of this important passage 
 which I have seen ; and to abide by the literal mean- 
 ing of the original words, as rendered in other parts 
 of scripture. It will therefore be seen, that I not 
 only reject any pre-conceived opinion of rny own, but 
 all others, when such opinions are unsupported by 
 that unerring authority, the sacred scriptures. 
 
 The passage in the original is as follows : 
 'DJTttra WD^sa DTO H^g3 DVfr "HptfQ And God said, let 
 us make man in our image, after 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 that he was a master-piece of God's creation, 
 all the persons in the Godhead are represented as 
 united in council and effort to produce this astonish- 
 ing creature." Alas ! to what a state are we reduced, 
 if this be the doctrine of the Bible on the creation 
 of man. Were we to tell this lame tale to the Deist, 
 he would show a want of intellect indeed, if .he did 
 riot expel it with a blast of ridicule. He would tell 
 
102 
 
 the Doctor, that if all the persons in the Godhead 
 were called together, united in council and effort at 
 the creation of man only, for the production of this 
 wonderful creature 1 , to show that he was a master- 
 piece of God's creation, as we must 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 crea- 
 tion. It is impossible for words to mark more 
 strongly this writer's belief in Polytheism, or a plura- 
 lity of God's, distinct persons ; 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 under- 
 stand his own definition of the Trinity. 
 
 Moses was "here instructed to communicate to the 
 Israelites, the knowledge of the creation of the world, 
 and of man. And in the whole narrative he speaks 
 of the procedure of the Divine Being in the impera- 
 tive, or commanding, style, which adds a grandeur 
 and dignity to the subject, that is not in the transla- 
 tion, which only says, " and God said." The obvious 
 reason was, when God spake to man, having no 
 equal, this style of speaking was observed, as appears 
 throughout the Scriptures, when kings commanded 
 the laws to be obeyed, or when any thing was to be 
 
10S 
 
 done which required the, interference of supreme 
 authority. 
 
 The word "l&$9 Vayamer, as applied to the Supreme, 
 in this sense means, literally, he commanded. Chron. 
 21. 27. Hjnj -iDN'l The Lord commanded. Ch. 22. 2. 
 l and David commanded. 2 Chron. 14.4. 
 l and commanded Judah. Ch. 29. 30. 
 wd Hezekiah commanded. Ch. 31. 4. 
 *j And he commanded the people. Ch. 32. 12. 
 ^iwrf he commanded Judah. Ch. 33. 16. 
 commanded. Esth. 4. 13. '3T1? 
 Mordecai commanded. Ch. 9. 14. l^n 
 And the king commanded. Dan. 2. 2. -4^ ^e 
 commanded. I have examined upwards of two thou- 
 sand places of Scripture where ^?^1 Vayomer occurs; 
 and I find that the word thus written was always 
 used when God commanded ; also, by kings, patri- 
 archs, and all, in every situation, exercising authority, 
 in the imperative, or commanding style. Thus, when 
 any thing was to be done, which required the inter- 
 ference of a superior power, as when God commands 
 Jacob to go to Bethel, and to build an altar to him ; 
 and, in the next verse, where Jacob commands his 
 household to put away the strange Gods that were 
 among them, it is written "1?^! Vayomer, and is uni- 
 versally followed by its corresponding noun. But, 
 when "iptf"! Vayomar, occurs, it never is understood 
 in the imperative style ; it is always used as the third 
 
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, so 
 written, and I find it to be so throughout the Scrip- 
 tures. Thus it appears consistently with other parts 
 of Scripture, where the same word written with the 
 same vowels, can have no other meaning, that the 
 words O^N "m'1 Vayomer Elhoim, should be ren- 
 dered in conformity with the above passages, taken in 
 connection with the following word HtyjO Nangaseh. 
 
 O v -; o ' 
 
 of which below. From what has been said, it will be 
 allowed by the learned, that this word 1&$1 Vayomer 
 comprehends IDN'l Vayomar, but the latter does not 
 comprehend the former ; which circumstance alone 
 proves, that this w r ord conveys an idea of superiority, 
 and therefore is always used and applied in that sense 
 throughout the Scriptures. 
 
 The next word in this verse, which requires our 
 notice, is i"N?J Nangaseh, which is rendered, let us 
 make. I have selected, I believe, all the passages, 
 where this form of the word occurs, which is rendered 
 in the first person plural future of kal. I shall there- 
 fore show that the word in these places may be ren- 
 dered more consistently with the Hebrew, and more 
 agreeably with the idiom of our language. I do not 
 mean to contend that the word does not comprehend, 
 in its effect, the plural ; but I do assert that, as it is 
 the passive of kal, it ought to be rendered in the 
 
105 
 
 / 
 
 English in conformity thereto. The following pas- 
 sages, being rendered as the first person plural future 
 in kal, read thus, we will do what shall we do - 
 through 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 
 find that the ancient Hebrews always attended to this 
 distinction, as is evident from the difference in the 
 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 MADE a little charti- 
 ber. Cant. 1. 11. Exod. 19. 8. all that the Lord 
 hath spoken, SHALL BE DONE. ch. 24. 3. v. 7. 
 Numb. 32, 31. Josh. 1. 16. ch. 9. 20. what shall 
 be done. ch. 20. 9. which shall be done. ch. 2!. 7. 
 
 WHAT SHALL BE DONE for WWeS. ch. 22. 26. 
 
 v. 16. let there be prepared, \ Sam. 5. 8. ch. 6. 2. 
 2 Sam. 16. 30. 2 Kings, 6. 15. ch. 10, 5. Neh. 
 5. 12. Psalm, 60. 12. for God will do valiantly. 
 108. 13. Cant. 8. 8. Jer. 18. 12. ch. 42. 3. 
 ch. 44. 17. ch. 44. 25. our vows SHALL BE 
 PERFORMED. Isaiah. 26. 18. shall be wrought. 
 2 Chron. 20. 12. what SHALL BE DONE. Jud. 1 1. 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 
 selected to show that this reading is not only consis- 
 
tent with the grammar of the language, but also, that 
 it reads much better than the present translation of 
 the above passages. This will justify me in so render- 
 ing this word in the passage under consideration, viz. 
 Gen. 1. 26. nfetttt Nangaseh, let be made. From 
 which proofs it will be seen that this passage cannot, 
 consistently with the original, be read as it is in the 
 translation, viz. and God said, let us make man in our 
 image, after our likeness; but, agreeably 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 speak- 
 ing with the people, he informed them, that God 
 created man in their image, viz. ^p?^ in our image, 
 says Moses, which image he obviously applies to 
 themselves. So that, though the word toEfeff Betsal- 
 meenou, be truly rendered, its application is wrong, 
 for it is represented in the translation, as though it 
 were applied to God, whereas it was applied to the 
 Israelites by Moses. Thus : and God commanded 
 man to be made in our image ; or thus: and God 
 said, let man he made in our image. Hence it appears 
 that OT^J? Elhoim, God, is not a plural noun, by 
 being connected with nfe?3?J Nangaseh, which has 
 been rendered by the plural us, ever since the time 
 of Jerome, the first translator of the Hebrew Bible into 
 the Latin language, but which was understood as above 
 by the Hebrew legislator, and all the ancient 
 
107 
 
 Hebrews before the dispersion. This rendering of 
 the word Cft"^ Elhoim, 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. O^"?/N ^Hl* 1 ! so 
 GOD CREATED man ^ty& in HIS image; in the image 
 JTI21 DVr?N of God created HE him ; which, agreeably 
 to our idiom, may be thus rendered, as the repetition 
 of the noun is consistent with the rules of the lan- 
 guage : so God created man in his, man's image, 
 which image was created in the similitude of God. 
 
 Now as it is expressly said, that man was created 
 D7O in the image of God ; and it is proved above 
 that D^? Tselcm, refers only to the external visible 
 image or form; it must be admitted, if Scripture be 
 allowed to decide this important matter, that DVf?N 
 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 this was not understood 
 by the ancient Hebrews as constituting a plurality of 
 visible 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 cannot be 
 
108 
 
 visible in their origin, 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 ON Elhoim, God, by 
 being connected with verbs, nouns, and adjectives, 
 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 God. 
 
 We cannot understand from the writings of the 
 Apostles, or the venerable bishops during the conti- 
 nuance of the Apostolic churches, that the notion 
 of a plurality of persons existing out of the divine 
 nature, was entertained by them. In the time of the 
 prophets, the unity of God was the established belief 
 of the whole nation ; and Moses was commanded to 
 say in the first person singular HYTN "I^N rrntf / am, 
 that I am. The same doctrine was given to Abra- 
 
 ham. Exod. 6. 3. N^W AND I APPEARED UWtO 
 
 Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name 
 of God Almighty, V-^ but by MY name Jehovah 
 *iyr&was I NOT KNOWN to them. Here also the 
 pronoun of the first person singular is used to signify 
 the Unity of God in one divine person, 
 
109 
 
 It is an invariable rule in the Hebrew language, that 
 the noun agrees with the verb in number and person. 
 The first verse in the Bible begins with the Unity of 
 
 God : In the beginning ON **^5 GOD CREATED 
 
 the heaven and the earth. 0$ Elohim necessarily 
 agrees with **^? ^ ie create ^. But if Elhoim, God, 
 were to be rendered as Dr. Clarke supposes, then 
 **7? Baara, could not have been written and rendered 
 as the third person singular preter of the verb, but it 
 must have been written and rendered as the third 
 person plural, viz. ^l^ tne y created ; which would 
 incontrovertibly have established polytheism. 
 
 The same order was always observed by the 
 inspired writers. It is never said CT^N YIQNI and 
 Gods said, but D^N " 1 5^ and God said God saw 
 God made. Psalm, 100. 3. D'rfy* Mil njnp? UT7 
 IWIB fefcn i&y -UPON rfn tttyy mi, Know ye that the 
 
 ; ; I I ; ; T T & 
 
 Lord HE is God, it is HE that hath made us, and not 
 we ourselves, we are HIS people, and the sheep of HIS 
 pasture. Here the pronoun of the third person sin- 
 gular DV6$ R1PT HE w GW. Hfefy N?)rT HE hath made 
 us; and the pronoun possessive ^2 HIS people, 
 i/lTID HIS pasture; regularly occur; but if a> 'T^ 
 Elhoim had been plural, these pronouns must neces- 
 sarily have been plural also, which must have been 
 rendered, know ye that the LORDS THEY are GODS, 
 it is THEY that hath made us and not we ourselves, 
 
110 
 
 we are THEIR people and the sheep of THEIR pas- 
 ture. 
 
 Gen. 2. 2. D$, God ended his work to, grow. 
 ch. 6. 12. DVfrN *hl <JTM/ God looked. ch. 17. 3. 
 and God talked with him. cb. 20. 17. and God 
 healed Abimelech. ch. 31. 24. Levit. 18. 4. - 
 ch. 19. 2. Deut 5. 6. v. 9. ch. 6. 4. ch. 7. 9. 
 Psalm, 78. 59. 81. 10. Isaiah, 45. 21. ch. 44. (5. 
 ch. 4. 6. Jer. 10. 10. Hos. 13. 4. Jonah, 4. 6. 
 
 I could cite hundreds more, but these are sufficient. 
 In all these passages, and uniformly throughout the 
 Scriptures, the word D7T7N Elhoim, God, is joined 
 with verbs, adjectives, wad. pronouns, 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 0*rfr Elhoim, 
 God, is a noun singular, and consequently cannot 
 refer to a plurality of persons existing out of the 
 divine nature. 
 
 There is one passage, in which this word has been 
 evidently misunderstood by the translators, 1 Sam. 
 28. 14. 15. And the king said unto her, be not 
 afraid; for what seest thou? and the woman said 
 unto him, I saw Gods ascending out of the earth. 
 And he said unto her, what form is HE of? and she 
 said, an old man comet h up; and HE is covered with 
 
Ill 
 
 a mantle. Here again, the pronoun of the third 
 person singular occurs, JWT HE, viz, what form is HE 
 of, HE is covered with a mantle, which shows that 
 D^J* Elhoim, God, should have been rendered a 
 noun singular. Dr. Clarke says, " We have seen 
 that the word Q^K Elhoim, God, is plural ;" and this 
 is the opinion of many well-meaning writers. But, 
 on the contrary, if the original scriptures 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. 
 
 Neither is the word QN Elhoim, God, plural, 
 because some have supposed that it has a plural ter- 
 mination. I have before observed, that & yim> was 
 not a plural termination ; and I have given the 
 reason. There are great numbers of words which 
 
 o 
 
 have the same termination, and which nevertheless 
 are singular ; on which account, these might be said 
 to be plural also, as D'lrf 7 ?, Egypt DtotfTi, the 
 Heaven D^S) bx D^Sf, face to face. And though 
 we are told that " both the noun and the root of 
 B^N Elhoim, God 7 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 HiiT Jehovah, and ^ El, 
 viz. the rr * Yod and he, comprehending the existence 
 of Deity, and ^ El, his power, strength, might , 
 which is its meaning in all the Scriptures ; by which 
 
manifested power he created the world. These 
 together form the word Vp.N Eloehea, God, and which 
 is the same as the word ZD^N 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 V?^$ Eloehea, the rela- 
 tive. 
 
 4 
 
 This word being a compound word, there is not 
 any necessity for us to go to the Arabic, as Dr. 
 Clarke thinks, to find a supposed root for it. ^Xll 
 Allah, is no doubt the common name for God in 
 Arabic, which is literally a copy of the Chaldean 
 n^g Elaah, God. 
 
 It is for this reason, as is observed by the learned 
 Abarbanal, and others among the Rabbies, that the 
 words njiT Jehovah, and D^ Elhoim, God, a* 
 they always are to be met with either together or 
 separate when any command or prophecy is given, 
 and never any of the other names of God ; therefore 
 that the one signifies his Essence, the other his influ- 
 ence, or external manifestation. From what has 
 been said on this subject, there cannot be any doubt 
 but that njiT Jehovah, means " the unsearchable and 
 incommunicable principles of Deity." Therefore, to 
 inculcate that degree of sanctity and reverence, which 
 the ancient Jews entertained concerning the incom- 
 municable nature of Deity, they never wrote, nor 
 
113 
 
 pronounced the word njT Jehovah ; but with regard 
 to the word B^N Elhoim, God, it means his essence, 
 joined with his almighty power in visible existence, 
 as by this power God brought forth all his works in 
 visible creation. Therefore, in the first chapter of 
 Genesis we always meet with the word OwN Elhoim, 
 God; but never D^*? ^PP Lord God, as in the 
 second chapter; for the first chapter relates, to the 
 existence, or most external manifestation of God, 
 operating from the essence, or inmost ground, for the 
 production of created things : hence it is said, In the 
 beginning QVlbN Elhoim, God created the heaven and 
 the earth. 
 
 Now rniT Jehovah, the essence, being self-essent, 
 and self-existent, it must appear demonstrably evident 
 that one self-essent, self-existent being could not 
 possibly produce another self-essent, self-existent 
 being ; consequently, there cannot be two beings of 
 the same self-existing essence. Therefore from the 
 word ON"1^N Elhoim, God, to infer the doctrine of a 
 Trinity of persons OUT of the divine nature, co-eval, 
 co-equal, and co-eternal with each other, must appear 
 as inconsistent with reason, as it is with Scripture. 
 
 As I do not wish to go beyond what is written for 
 our information in Scripture, I shall attend to the 
 literal and obvious meaning; of the inspired writers, 
 
 IT 
 
114 
 
 in the following passages, and leave every man to 
 think for himself. It is said, Gen. 1. 27. So God 
 created man to!??? in his own image, in the mage of 
 God created he him. to^3i Betsalemo, is a noun 
 isubstantive, and with this form and construction, 
 throughout the Scriptures, is applied to the external 
 form, or image. Numb. 32. 52. Destroy all their 
 images. 1 Sam. 6. 5. 11. make images. Ezek. 7. 20. 
 but they made the images of 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 confirmed 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 tlit dust of the ground, and breathed into his 
 nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living 
 soul. This form of God is also confirmed in various 
 parts of Scripture, where the language cannot be 
 metaphorically understood. Ezek. 1. 26. And upon 
 the likeness of the throne, was the likeness as the 
 appearance of a MAN above, upon it. Dan. 7. 13. 14. 
 And behold, one like the Son of man came with the 
 clouds of heaven, and came to the ancient of days ; 
 and they brought him near before him. From which 
 it is evident, that God appeared to the prophets in a 
 human form, which form refers to D^** Elhoim, 
 
115 
 
 \ 
 
 God, or the externally visible manifestation of the 
 Deity. 
 
 This explanation, here given by the prophets, con- 
 cerning 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 con fined 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 error ? 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 infinite 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 
 personal appearance " but is like to infinite space, as 
 infinite space is not an object that comes within the 
 limit of our comprehension, neither could an infinite 
 and incomprehensible being be an object of our wor- 
 ship, unless he condescended to manifest himself in 
 human form, because there would be no object for 
 our adoration. 
 
116 
 
 I come now to the application, viz. to show from 
 the express letter of Scripture, consistently with what 
 has been said, who we are to understand this 
 Elhoim, God, of the Old Dispensation, and the 
 Theos, of the New Testament, to be. The Apostle, 
 speaking of the Israelites, when they came out of 
 Egypt, and the mighty things that B^N Elhoim, 
 God did for them, says : that this Elhoim was the 
 rock that followed them, and that THIS ROCK WAS 
 CHRIST. Isaiah says, concerning this Elhoim, behold 
 a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall 
 call his name Immanuel, God with us. The Apostle 
 Matthew confirms it : Now all this was dons that it 
 might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord 
 (i. e. Christ) by the prophet, saying, Behold a virgin 
 shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and 
 they shall call his, name Immanuel, which, being 
 interpreted, is " God with us." John, ch. i. 1. calls 
 him @so$, God, which is farther confirmed by the 
 Apostle Paul, who says, in him dwelleth ALL the 
 fullness of the Godhead bodily. Now, if " all the 
 fullness of the Godhead bodily dwells in Christ," 
 where are we to direct our views in divine worship, 
 but to Him in whom the whole fullness of the God- 
 head dwells? 
 
 Having proved from Scripture that the visible 
 manifestation of Deity is Christ, or, which is the 
 same, that the manifestation of Deity in human form 
 
117 
 
 is Christ, I may be asked the same question as was 
 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 with themselves. 
 They forget that He alone possesses ubiquity ; that 
 He is omnipresent 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 ubiquity. However, as in all these cases the 
 Scripture is to determine the matter, we will turn to 
 that authority. Christ, in plain terms, informs us, 
 that He possesses these infinite perfections, and that 
 He manifests Himself in all places at the same time. 
 John, 3. 13. Arid no man hath ascended up to 
 heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even 
 the Son of Man which is in heaven. 
 
 That there are three visible persons out of the 
 divine nature, " united in council and effort," is not 
 only asserted by this writer, but has also been the 
 belief of many of the learned in former ages. I trust 
 it will appear that this view of the subject is not 
 scriptural. That there are three persons in the 
 divine nature is the language of the Scripture. But 
 this must be understood agreeably to the true and 
 
118 
 
 ancient meaning, and application of the Latin word 
 PERSONA, from whence comes the English word 
 
 person. 
 
 i 
 
 This error has no doubt been confirmed by the 
 very improper understanding, and customary appli- 
 cation, 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 language, 
 the word persona was understood to mean the quali- 
 ties of the rnind, 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, office, or personal 
 qualities, it is -applied to mean the material body of 
 man. That it was originally applied to signify per- 
 sonal qualities, particular constitution of the mind, 
 a character, or office, is confirmed by the following 
 authorities : Sustineo unus tres personas, meam 
 adversari judices. 1 Persona tragical Eripitur per- 
 sona, manet res. 3 Magistratus gerit personam civi- 
 tatis. 4 Ad tuendam personam magistrates. 5 From 
 which it appears that the word persona, in ancient 
 Latinity, meant a character, and not literally & per son, 
 in which sense it is now commonly understood. 
 
 Hence it is certain, without any controversy, that 
 the true doctrine of the Scriptures on this subject is : 
 
 1 Cic. * Ph^dr. 3 Lucr. 4 Plan. 100. 5 de Or. l6p. 
 
, 119 
 
 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 eternal 
 TRINITY IN UNITY, in one divine human form, 
 even Christ, who followed them through the, wilder- 
 ness, which he confirms in those ever memorable 
 \vords,jfor in Him dwelleth ALL the fulness of the 
 Godhead bodily. Thus he understood that the God- 
 head 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, con- 
 sistently 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. 
 
120 
 
 This scriptural definition of the divine Trinity IN 
 the Supreme Being, will perfectly agree with that 
 copy of the genuine faith of the Apostolic churches, 
 which is called the Athanasian creed. It becomes 
 plain to the meanest capacity, that we worship one 
 God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity ; neither con- 
 founding the persons, nor dividing the substance. 
 For there is one character of the FATHER, another 
 of the SON,, and another of the HOLY SPIRIT. But 
 the Godhead of the FATHER, of the SON, and of 
 the HOLY SPIRIT, is all one, the Glory equal, the 
 Majesty co- eternal. The FATHER UN CUE ATE, the 
 SON UNCREATE, and the HOLY SPIRIT UNCREATE. 
 
 The FATHER ETERNAL, the SON ETERNAL, and 
 the HOLY SPIRIT ETERNAL; and yet there are not 
 three eternals, but ONE ETERNAL. 
 
 The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy 
 Spirit is God. And yet they are not three Gods, 
 but ONE GOD. Before I conclude, I think it neces- 
 sary to say by way of caution, that, whoever may be 
 disposed to cavil, on the ground of their own under- 
 standing, independently of the authority of Scripture, 
 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 mani- 
 fests Himself in human form, that I mean He is 
 necessarily confined to that one human form in one 
 
121 
 
 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, inconceivable to us, He is 
 omnipresent, agreeably to the words of Christ him- 
 self: no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He 
 that came down from heaven, EVEN THE SON OF 
 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- 
 jiceth us. Jesus saith unto him, have I been so long 
 time with you, and yet hast thou not known we, 
 Philip ? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father, 
 and how sayest thou then, show us the Father. This 
 is He who declares himself to be the Father, Son, 
 and Holy Spirit. John, 16. 17. Nevertheless I tell 
 you the truth : it is ^vpedient for you that I go 
 away ; for if I go not away, the comforter will not 
 come unto you; but if I depart, I WILL SEND HIM 
 unto you. This is He who declares himself to be 
 the omnipotent. Matt 28. 18. And Jesus came and 
 spake unto them, saying, ALL POWER is GI*VEN TO 
 ME in heaven and in earth. Omniscient, Matt. 9. 4. 
 And Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, wherefore 
 think ye evil in your hearts ? John, 2. 24. And 
 Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because HE 
 KNEW ALL MEN, and He needed not that any should 
 testify of him: for HE KNEW WHAT W-AS IN MAN. 
 ch. 6. 64. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who 
 
they were that believed not, and who should betray 
 him. That He forgives sin, Matt. 9- 6. that ye may 
 know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to 
 
 forgive sins. Luke, 7. 48. thy sins are forgiven. 
 And, lastly, that He gives eternal life. John, 10. 
 v. 1. 28. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, 
 and they follow me. And I GIVE UNTO THEM 
 ETERNAL LIFE, neither shall any pluck them out 
 of my hand. ch. 17. 2. As thou hast given him 
 
 power over all Jlesh, that HE SHOULD GIVE ETER- 
 NAL LIFE TO AS MANY AS THOU HAST GIVEN 
 
 HIM. ch. 5. 21, For as the Father raiseth up the 
 dead, and quickencth them : even so the SON quick- 
 eneth WHOM HE WILL. 
 
 I shall conclude these remarks by observing, that 
 in what this industrious writer has hitherto said, I 
 cannot find that he has illustrated any difficult or 
 controverted passages nothing hitherto is advanced 
 to silence the objections of the Deist no contra- 
 dictions, 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, which the enemies of the Bible 
 have drawn over the face of truth ; he has not so far 
 looked over the gloomy mountains of error, by con- 
 tending for tjie faith delivered to the Apostles, Fathers, 
 and Bishops, of the Christian Churches, respecting 
 Trinity ; but he calmly swims down the unruffled 
 
125 
 
 stream of popular opinion, except in the solitary 
 instance of adopting the monkey for the serpent, to 
 bring about the fall of man. 
 
 These remarks are not made with a view to inte- 
 rest, as according to appearance the author must be a 
 considerable 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 read- 
 ing, ancient meaning, and application of the Scrip- 
 tures, 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 age, 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 consciences, 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, 
 and, with all the energy of its pure nature, the sacred 
 flame will ascend unadulterated to its native heaven. 
 
 If the author of these commentaries should feel 
 the truth of any thing here advanced, and should see 
 a greater beauty and sanctity in the Scriptures by 
 
124 
 
 acknowledging what cannot be denied, without reject- 
 ing the solemn declarations of the inspired writers, 
 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 principle in man ; it will be a proof of 
 his candor, and that he is open to conviction. As 
 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 plain 
 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 eyes, 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 leads out of the labyrinths of error, as the 
 weary traveller, who, having 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 
 languages cast any light on the original Scriptures. 
 It can be of little consequence to know, that " the 
 English word woman comes from the Saxon word 
 wombman, or a man with a womb ; " that the word 
 " loaf comes from hlaf, bread ; " and of less conse- 
 quence in an elucidation of the Scriptures, to be 
 
125 
 
 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 philo- 
 sophical 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 as 
 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 part of the divine writings. 
 
 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, in which 
 God made known his will to man, were so incom- 
 plete, so defective, or so difficult to be understood, 
 that we were under the necessity of resorting to all 
 the Eastern languages, which were not then in exis- 
 tence, in order to gain a knowledge of the will of 
 
126 
 
 God; it would cast a shade over infinite wisdom, 
 and prove that his will was never known from Adam 
 to the time of the birth of languages at Babylon. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 PRINTED BY A. J. VALPY, TOOK'S COURT, 
 CHANCERY LANE, LONDONt 
 
 1811 
 
LATELY PUBLISHED, 
 And to be had of all the Bookstllers. 
 
 THE CLASSICAL JOUflNAL, 
 
 (PUBLISHED QUARTERLY) 
 No. VI. FOR JUNE, 1311. 
 
 Containing a variety of CLASSICAL, BIBLICAL, and 
 ORIENTAL LITERATURE. Price 6s. 
 
 Communications are solicited from every part of the World, 
 in the English, Latin, and French languages, on the following 
 subjects : 
 
 1. Critical Observations on Classical Authors. 2. Criticisms on 
 new Editions of the Classics, and on Publications relating to Greek, 
 Latin, and Oriental Literature. 3. Disquisitions on Classical and 
 Literary Subjects. 4. Philological and Literary Anecdotes. 5. Clas- 
 sical and Oriental Antiquities. 6. Biblical Criticisms and Disserta- 
 tions. 7. Grammatical and Etymological Researches. 8. Bibliogra- 
 phical Intelligence. 9. Collations of Greek and Latin MSS. 10. 
 Greek and Latin Original Poetry. 11. Prize Poems, and Academical 
 Exercises. 12. Republications of scarce Tracts on Critical and Philo- 
 logical Subjects, and of important Articles in Continental Journals. 
 
 The Preface will be found in No. IV. 
 
 The Numbers will, in future, be regularly published 
 on the first of April, July, October, and January. Sub- 
 scribers may, therefore, have them with their Reviews, by 
 giving a general order to their Booksellers. 
 
 Communications are requested to be directed to Mr. A. 
 J. Valpy, Took's Court, Chancery Lane, London. 
 
 ' CHRISTINA, THE MAID OF THE SOUTH 
 SEAS : a Poem in Four Cantos. By MARY RUSSELL 
 MIT FORD. Octavo, price 10s. 6d, 
 
 A VOLUME OF MISCELLANEOUS POEMS; 
 
 By the same. Price 10^. 6d. Second Edition. With 
 considerable Additions. 
 
 THE TRIUMPHS OF RELIGION, a Sacred 
 Poem, in Four Parts. Price 7s. 
 
 POEMS, ORIGINAL AND TRANSLATED. 
 By the Rev. C. A. WHEELWRIGHT, Trinity College, 
 Cambridge. Second Edition. 2, vols. Price 15s. 
 
POEMS on Various Subjects. Price 7s. 
 
 ESSAY ON A PUNIC INSCRIPTION. By 
 
 the Right Honorable Sir W. DRUMMOND, Royal 4to. 
 ll. 11s. 6d. 
 
 THE IESCULAPIAN MONITOR, or Faithful 
 Guide to the History of the Human Species, and most 
 important branches of Medical Philosophy; combined 
 \vith moral Reflections, and enforced by Religious Pre- 
 cepts. For the use of Schools. By the Rev. Dr. 
 , Rector of St. Mary's, Wallingford. Price 5s. 
 
 EPITOME SACR^E HISTORIC, for the Use of 
 Schools. Price 2s. 
 
 Speedily will be published. 
 
 CICERO DE AMICITIA et SENECTUTE, 
 
 with English Notes for the use of Schools. Ernesti's 
 text. By E. H. BARKER, of Trinity College, Cambridge. 
 
 PH^EDRI FABUL/E; from Burman's text, with 
 English Notes for the use of Schools. The objectionable 
 fables will be omitted. By C. BRADLEY, M. A. of 
 Wallingford. 
 
 IN THE PRESS. 
 
 A New Edition of the GREEK TESTAMENT, 
 with Griesbach's Text. It will contain copious Notes, 
 from Hardy, Raphel, Kypke, Schleusner, Rosenmuller, 
 &c. in familiar Latin : together with parallel passages 
 from the Classics and with references to Vigerus for Idioms, 
 and Bos for Ellipses. 2 volumes octavo. A few copies 
 on large paper. 
 
 BROTIER'S TACITUS, which will combine the 
 advantages of the Paris and Edinburgh Editions ; with a 
 selection of Notes from all the Commentators on Tacitus 
 subsequent to the Edinburgh Edition. The Literaria 
 Notitia, and Politica, will also be added. Many valuable 
 Notes of Professor PORSON'S will be interspersed; the 
 French Passages will be translated, and the Roman 
 money turned, into English. The whole will make five 
 volumes octavo. N. B. Some few copies will be struck 
 off on large paper. 
 

 
 
 
 JUw- 1 * 
 
n 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY