Trinity College, Cambridge.
When the reader learns that the author of this little work was the famous Baron of Marchestoun, the inventor of the logarithms, a discovery which has been of incalculable use in the sciences of astronomy, practical geometry, and navigation, he will be pi-epared to receive with respect what so great a genius has Avrittcn upon a book that, above all others in the sacred code, seems to require the head and hand of the soundest divine and mathematician. The work is dedicated " to the right excellent, high and mighty Prince James VI., King of Scottes," afterwards James 1., King of England; and in the Epistle Dedicatorie, the author strongly urges him to complete the reformation begun in his own empire, that he might be a ready instrument in the hand of God in executing judgment on the papal throne, which he then supposed to be near the time of its final overthrow. The first treatise is laid down in thirty-six propositions relating to the seals, trumpets, vials, and thunders.
In the third, fifth, and six'h propositions, he endeavours to prove that each trumpet or vial contains 245 years; that the first began A. D. 71. The second A. D. 316. The third A. D. 561. The fourth k.\).miS. The ///7i A. D. 1051. The 5^.T^/^ A. D. 1296. The seventh k.T>. 1541. Sec Propos. vi. And in Propos. x. he shows that, as the last trumpet or vial began in 1541, consecjuently, as it contains 245 years, it should extend to A. D. 1786. "Not that I mean," says the noble writer, " that that age or yet the world shall continew so long, because it is said, that for the elect's sake the time shall be shortened; but 1 mean that if the world were to indure, that seventh age should continew untill the yeare of Christ, 1786." Taking up this subject again, in Propos. xiv., he endeavours to prove, by a great variety of calculations formed on the 1335 days mentioned by Daniel, chap, xii. 11, and the period of the three thundering angels, Rev. viii. and ix., that by the former it appears the day of judgment will take place in A. D. 1700, and by the latter, in 1688, whence it maybe confidently expected that this awful day shall take place between these two periods!
We, who have lived to A. D. 1830, see the fallacv of these predictive calculations; and with such an example before us of the miscarriage of the first mathematician in Europe, in his endeavours to solve the prophetical periods marked in this most obscure book, we should proceed in such researches with humility and caution, nor presume to ascertain the times and the seasons which the Father has reserved in his own power. I may venture to affirm, so veryplausible were the reasonings and calculations of Lord Napeir, that there was scarcely a Protestant in Europe, who read his work, that was not of the same opinion. And how deplorably has the event falsified the predictions of this eminent and pious man! And yet, unawed by his miscarriage, calculators and ready-reckoners, in every succeeding age, on less specious pretences, with minor qualifications, and a less vigorous opinion, have endeavoured to soar where Napeir sunk! Their labours, however well intended, only serve to increase the records of the weakness and folly of mankind. Secret things belong to God; those that are revealed!', to us and to our children. Writers who have endeavoured to illustrate diflferent prophecies in the Apocalypse by past events, and those that are noio occurring, are not included in this censure. Some respectable names in the present day have rendered considerable service to the cause of Divine revelation, by the careful and pious attention they have paid to this part of the subject; but when persons attempt to speak of what is yet to come, they begin to prophesy and are soon lost.
P. S. On Gen. ii. 4, I have hinted that our Saxon ancestors have translated the Dominus of the Vulgate by Wapojib, Lovenb, or Lojib. This is not to be understood of the fragments of the translations of the Old and New Testament which have reached our times, for in them Dominus when connected with Deus is often omitted, and the word Irob substituted for both; at other times they use the Dano-Saxon Djuhcen, both for nin"' Jehovah, and ^31N Adonai; and in the New Testament, Djuhcen is generally used for Kvpioc, Lord, at other times, blapojib. It seems to have been applied as a title of respect to men: see Matt. xii. 8; xiii. 27; xvii. 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 34; xxi. 30. Afterwards it was applied to the Supreme Being also; and the title Lord continues to be given to both indifferently to the present day, and sometimes both indifferently even in the same discourse. Thus in the Saxon homily in Dom. 1., Q,uadr. Bedae Hist. Eccles., lib. iv., c. 9: ODan rceal hme jehibban to hir Djuhene •] him anum peopian: J)i ana ly pop Wapojib anb yoy> Irob. " Man shall pray to his Lord (Djuhcne) and him alone serve: He only is true Lord (Wapojib) and true God." ftlajjonb belongs more especially to the Anglo-Saxon Djiihcne, to the Dano-Saxon. la Danish Djioecejt is generally used for Lord.
■pVERY believer in Divine revelation finds himself amply justified in takmg for granted that the Pentateuch is the work of Moses. For more than 3000 years this has been the invariable opinion of those who were best qualified to form a correct judgment on this subject. The Jewish Church, from its most remote antiquity, has ascribed the work to no other hand; and the Christian Church, from its foundation, has attributed it to the Jewish lawgiver alone. The most respectable heathens have concurred in this testimony, and Jesus Christ and his apostles have completed the evidence, and have put the question beyond the possibility of being doubted by those who profess to beheve the Divine authenticity of the New Testament. As to those who, in opposition to all these proofs, obstinately persist in their unbehef, they are worthy of little regard, as argument is lost on their unprincipled prejudices, and demonstration on their minds, because ever wilfully closed against the light. When they have proved that Moses is not the author of this work, the advocates of Divine revelation will reconsider the grounds of their faith.
That there are a few things in the Pentateuch which see?n to have been added by a later hand there can be little doubt; among these some have reckoned, perhaps without reason, the following passage, Gen. xii. 6: " And the Canaanite was then in the land;" but see the note on this place. Num. xxi. 14, " In the book of the wars of the Lord," was probably a marginal note, which in process of time got into the text; see the note on this passage also. To these may be added the Jive first verses of Deuteronomy, chap, i; the twelfth of chap, ii; and the eight concluding verses of the last chapter, in which we have an account of the death of Moses. These last words could not have been added by Moses himself, but are very probably the work of Ezra, by whom, according to uninterrupted tradition among the Jews, the various books which constitute the canon of the Old Testament were collected and arranged, and such expository notes added as were essential to connect the different parts; but as he acted under Divine inspiration, the additions may be considered of equal authority with the text. A few other places might be added, but they are of little importance and are mentioned in the notes.
The book of GENESIS, Yeveaiq, has its name from the title it bears in the Septuagint^ Bl[31oc Teveaeug, (chap. ii. ver. 4,) which signifies the book of the Generation; but it is called in Hebrew n'l^'xnn Bereshith, <' In the beginning,^'' from its initial word. It is the most ancient history in the world; and, from the great variety of its singular details and most interesting accounts, is as far superior in its value and importance to all others, as it is in its antiquity. This book contains an account of the creation of the world, and its first inhabitants; the original innocence and fall of man; the rise of religion; the invention of arts; the general corruption and degeneracy of mankind; the universal deluge; the repeopling and a 23 division of the earth; the origin of nations and kingdoms; and a particular history of the patriarchs from Adap^ ^vwn to the, de^thpf Joseph; including a space, at the lowest computation, of 2369;ypar,s..;;;,,'; ' ' ':
It may be asked hov^ a. detail sp.,circum,stantial and minute could have been preserved when there was no wn/wi^,6j any.kind, aind when the earth, whose history is here given, had already existed more', than 2'00(> y^ars. To this inquiry a very satisfactory answer may be given. There are on]y. three,.ways ir) which these important records could have been preserved and bxpugiii;' dovyn to the, time of Moses: viz., writing, tradition, and Divine revelation. In the alritediluvian wo?ld, wher- tiie hfc pf man was so protracted, there was comparatively little need for writing of any kind, and perhaps no alphabetical writing then existed. Tradition answered every purpose to which writing in any kind of characters could be subservient; and the necessity of erecting monuments to perpetuate public events could scarcely have suggested itself, as during those times there could be little danger apprehended of any important fact becoming obsolete, as its history had to pass through very few hands, and all these friends and relatives in the most proper sense of the terms; for they lived in an insu lated state under a patriarchal government.
Thus it was easy for Moses to be satisfied of the truth of all he relates in the book of Genesis, as the accounts came to him through the medium of very few persons. From Adam to Noah there was but one man necessary to the correct transmission of the history of this period of 1656 years. Now this history was, without doubt, perfectly known to Methuselah, who lived to see them both. In like manner Shem connected Noah and Abraham, having lived to converse with both; as Isaac did with Abraham and Joseph, from whom these things might be easily conveyed to Moses by Amram, who was contemporary with Joseph. See the plate, chap. xi. Supposing, then, all the curious facts recorded in the book of Genesis had no other authority than the tradition already referred to, they would stand upon a foundation of credibility superior to any that the most reputable of the ancient Greek and Latin historians can boast. Yet to preclude all possibility of mistake, the unerring Spirit of God directed Moses in the selection of his facts and the ascertaining of his dates. Indeed, the narrative is so simple, so much like truth, so consistent everywhere with itself, so correct in its dates, so impartial in its biography, so accurate in its philosophical details, so pure in its morality, and so benevolent in its design, as amply to demonstrate that it never could have had an earthly origin. In this case, also, Moses constructed every thing according to the pattern which God showed him in the mount.
First day's work — Creation of the heavens and the earth, 1,2. Of the light and its separation from the darkness, 3— 5. Second day's work — The creation of the firmament, and the separation of the waters above the firmament from those below it, 6—8. Third day's work — The waters are separated from the earth and formed into seas, dj-c, 9, 10. The earth rendered fruitful, and clothed with trees, herbs, grass, 4"c., 11-13. Fourth day's work — Creation of the celestial luminaries intended for the measurement of time, the distinction of periods, seasons, <^c., 14; and to illuminate the earth, 15. Distinct account of the formation of the sun, moon, and stars, 1 6-19. Fifth day's work — The creation of fish, fowls, and reptiles in general, 20. Of great aquatic animals, 21. They are blessed so as to make them very prolific, 22, 23. Sixth day's work^-Wild and tame cattle created, and all kinds of animals which derive their nourishment from the earth, 24, 25. The creation of man in the image and likeness of God, with the dominion given him over the earth and all inferior animals, 26. Man or Adam, a general name for human beings, including both male and female, 27. Their peculiar blessing, 28. Vegetables appointed as the food of man and all other animals, 29, 30. The judgment which God passed on his loorks at the conclusion of his creative acts, 31.
TN the * beginning ^ God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form and
Bereshith bara Elohim eth hashshamayim veeth haarets; GODinthe beginning created theheavens and the earth.
Many attempts have been made to define the term GOD: as to the word itself, it is pure Anglo-Saxon, and among our ancestors signified, not only the Divine Being, now commonly designated by the word, but also good; as in their apprehensions it appeared that God and good were correlative terms; and when they thought or spoke of him, they were doubtless led from the word itself to consider him as the Good Being, a fountain of infinite benevolence and beneficence towards his creatures.
A general definition of this great First Cause, as far as human words dare attempt one, may be thus given:
Being whose purposes and actions spring from him- lace of the deep. ^ And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters self, without foreign motive or influence: he who is absolute in dominion; the most pure, the most simple, and most spiritual of all essences; infinitely benevolent, beneficent, true, and holy: the cause of all being, the upholder of all things; infinitely happy, because infinitely perfect; and eternally self-sufficient, needing nothing that he has made: illimitable in his immensity, inconceivable in his mode of existence, and indescribable in his essence; known fully only to himself, because an infinite mind can be fully apprehended only by itself In a word, a Being who, from his infinite wisdom, cannot err or be deceived; and who, from his infinite goodness, can do nothing but what is eternally just, right, and kind. Reader, such is the God of the Bible; but how widely different from the God of most human creeds and apprehensions!
The original word DTlSx Elohim, God, is certainly the plural form of '7N El, or vb^ Eloah, and has long
Creation of the light, and its separation from the darkness called the light ' Day, and the been supposed, by« tjve. most eminently; Jearned and pious men, to imply a.:plMyaliiy;of iPersoris- jdftlb,I)i\ine, nature. As this 'pliifalfty' appears in 'sci mdny parts oi '■ the sacred writings to be confined to three Persons, hence the doctrine of the Trinity, which has formed a part of the creed of all those who have been deemed sound in the faith, from the earliest ages of Christianity. Nor are the Christians singular in receiving this doctrine, and in deriving it from the first words of Divine revelation. An eminent Jewish rabbin, Simeon ben Joachi, in his comment on the sixth section of Leviticus, has these remarkable words: " Come and see the mystery of the word Elohim; there are three degrees, and each degree by itself alone, and yet notwithstanding they are all one, and joined together in one, and are not divided from each other." See Ainsworth. He must be strangely prejudiced indeed who cannot see that the doctrine of a Trinity, and of a Trinity in unity, is expressed in the above words. The verb N13 bara, he created, being joined in the singular number with this plural noun, has been considered as pointing out, and not obscurely, the unity of the Divine Persons in this work of creation. In the ever-blessed Trinity, from the infinite and indivisible unity of the persons, there can be but one will, one purpose, and one infinite and uncontrollable energy.
" Let those who have any doubt whether DTlSx Elohim, 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.
As the word Elohim is the term by which the Divine Being is most generally expressed in the Old Testament, it may be necessary to consider it here more at large. It is a maxim that admits of no controversy, that every noun in the Hebrew language is derived from a verb, which is usually termed the radix or root, from which, not only the noun, but all the different flections of the verb, spring. This radix is the third person singular of the preterite or past tense. The ideal meaning of this root expresses some essential property of the thing which it designates, or of which it is an appellative. The root in Hebrew, and in its sister language, the Arabic, generally consists of three letters, and every word must be traced to its root in order to ascertain its genuine meaning, for there alone is this meaning to be found. In Hebrew and Arabic this is essentially necessary, and no man can safely criviclse on any word in either of these languages who fo'eV hd', carefully attend to this point.
I mention the Arabic with the Hebreio for two reasons. 1. Because the two languages evidently spring from the same source, and have very nearly the same mode of construction. 2. Because the deficient roots in the Hebrew Bible are to be sought for in the Arabic language. The reason of this must be obvious, when it is considered that the whole of the Hebrew language is lost except what is in the Bible, and even a part of this book is written in Chaldee. Now, 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. If a man meet with an English word which he cannot find in an ample concordance or dictionary to the Bible, he must of course seek for that word in a general English dictionary. In like manner, if a particular form of a Hebrew word occur that cannot be traced to a root in the Hebrew Bible, because the word does not occur in the third person singular of the past tense in the Bible, it is expedient, it is perfectly lawful, and often indispensably necessary, to seek the deficient root in the Arabic. For as the Arabic is still a living language, and perhaps the most copious in the universe, it may weU be expected to furnish those terms which are deficient in the Hebrew Bible. And the reasonableness of this is founded on another maxim, viz., that either the Arabic was derived from the Hebrew, or the Hebrew from the Arabic. I shall not enter into this controversy; there are great names on both sides, and the decision of the question in either way will have the same effect on my argument. For if the Arabic were derived from the Hebrew, it must have been when the Hebrew was a living and complete language, because such is the Arabic now; and therefore all its essential roots we may reasonably expect to find there: but if, as Sir William Jones supposed, the Hebrew were derived from the Arabic, the same expectation is justified, the deficient roots in Hebrew may be sought for in the mother tongue. If, for example, we meet with a term in our ancient English language the meaning of which w-e find difitciilt to ascertain, common sense teaches us that we should seek for it in the Anglo-Saxon, from which our language springs; and, if necessary, go up to the Teutonic, from which the Anglo-Saxon was derived. No person disputes the legitimacy of this measure, and we find it in constant practice. I make these observations at the very threshold of my work, because the necessity of acting \ on this principle (seeking deficient Hebrew roots in the Arabic) may often occur, and I wish to speak once for all on the subject.
The first sentence in the Scripture shows the propriety of having recourse to this principle. We have a the evening and the morning were
''Heb. and the evening was and the morning was.
seen that the word DTiSn Elohim is plural; we have traced our terra God to its source, and have seen its signification; and also a general definition of the thing or being included under this term, has been tremblinglyattempted. We should now trace the original to its root, but this root does not appear in the Hebrew Bible. Were the Hebrew a complete language, a pious reason might be given for this omission, viz., " As God is without beginning and without cause, as his being is infinite and underived, the Hebrew language consults strict propriety in giving no root whence his name can be deduced." Mr. Parkhurst, to whose pious and learned labours in Hebrew literature most Biblical students are indebted, thinks he has found the root in nSx alah, he swore, bound himself by oath; and hence he calls the ever-blessed Trinity DTlSx Elohim, as being bound hy a conditional oath to redeem man, <5fC., <5fc. Most pious minds will revolt from such a definition, and will be glad with me to find both the noun and the root preserved in Arabic. Allah ^JUf is the common name for God in the Arabic tongue, and often