The Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Apocalypse.
In the third, fifth, and si.rfh propositions, he endeavours to prove that each trumpet or vial contains 245 years; that the first began A. T>. 71. The second A. D. 31fi. The third A. D. 561. Thp foiirth \. D. mCj. Tin- fifth \. D. lOM. The.^i.r/A A. D. 1296. The seventh X.T). 1541. Sec Propos. vi. And in Propos. x. he shows that, as tlie last trumpet or vial began in 1541, consecpiently, as it contains 21.5 years, it should extend to A. D. 1786. "Not that I mean," says the noble writer, " that that ajre or yet the world shall eonlinew so long, because it is said, that for the eleet's sake the lime shall be shortened; but I mean that if the world were to indure, that sevc nth age should contiuew untill the yeare of Christ, I7S6." 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 fnrnier it appears the day of jrnojiENT will take place in A. D. 1700, and by the latter, in 168S, whence it maybe confidently expected that this awful day shall take place between these two periods!
We, who have lived to A. D. 1830, sec the fallacy of these predictive calculations; and with sucli 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 very plausible were the reasonings and calculations of Lord Napeir, that there was scarcely a Pro testant 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 fious 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 different prophecies in the Apocalypse by past events, and those that are now 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 Domintis of the Vulgate by Wafopb, Lovefib, or Lopb. 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 Dcus is often omitted, and the word Iioii substituted for both; at other times they use the Dano-Saxon Djuhcen, both for nin' Jehovah, and 'J1X Adonai; and in the New Testament, Druhcen is generally used for Kvptoc, Lord, at other times, Waponb. 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., Cluadr. Bedae Hist. Eccles., lib. iv., C. 9: CWan)-ceal lune jeliibban eo hir DjoihCne -J him anum peojJian:)>1 ana ir yoy hlapoiib anb yoy Irob. " Man shall pray to his Lord (Djuhcne) and him alone serve: He only is true Lord (Waponb) and true God." Wapojib belongs more especially to the Anglo-Saxon Djuht;ne, to the Dano-Saxon. In Danish Diioct:ep is generally used for Lord.
T7VERY 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 Cliristian 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 believe the Divine authenticity of the New Testament. As to those who, in opposition to all these proofs, obstinately persist in their unbelief, 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 seem 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 five 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, Ysvtaiu has its name from the title it bears in the Septuagini, 'Ri(ilo( Teveaeu^, (chap. ii. ver. 4,) which signifies the book of the Generation; but it is called in Hebrew n'K'xia 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 33 division of the carlli; the origin of nations and kingdoms; and a particular history of the patriarclis from Adam down to the death of Joseph; including a space, at the lowest computation, of 2369 years.
It may be asked how a detail so circumstantial and minute could have been preserved when there was no writing of any kind, and when the earth, whose history is here given, had already existed more than 2000 years. To this inquiry a very satisfactory answer may be given. There are only three ways in which these important records could have been preserved and brought down to the time of Moses: viz., writing, tradition, and Divine revelation. In the antediluvian world, when the life of man was so protracted, there was comparatively little need for ivriting 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 tlirough 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 7iian 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 tiicm both. In like manner She??i 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 imerring 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, <^c., 9, 10. The earth rendered fruitful, and clothed with trees, herbs, grass, cj-c, 11-13. Fourth day's work — Creation of the celestial luminaries intended for the measurement of time, the distinction of periods, seasons, t^c, 14; and to illuminate the earth, 15. Distinct account of the formation of the sun,moon, and stars, 16-19. 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 lohich derive their nourishment from the earth, 24, 25. The creation of man in the image and likeness of God, ivith the dominion given him over the earth ayid all inferior animals, 26. Manor 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 works 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 Elokim eth hashshamayim veeth haarets; GOD in the beginning created the heavens 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 S^ood; 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: The eternal, independent, and self-existent Being: the Being whose purposes and actions spring from hira-
void; and darkness was upon the face 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 aU 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 D'dVn Elohim, God, is certainly the plural form of hiS El, or rh^ Eloah, and has long
Creation of the light, and its separation jrom the darkness
4 And God saw the light that it tvas good:
5 And God called the light ' Day, and the
been supposed, by the most eminently learned and pious men, to imply a plurality of Persons in the Divine nature. As this plurality appears in so many parts of 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 si.\th section of Leviticus, lias these remarkable words: " Come and see the mystery of the word Elohim; there are tliree 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 hara, 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 DTlbx 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 lieing 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 noim in the Hebrew language is derived from a rerb, 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 criticise on any word in either of these languages who does not carefully attend to this point.
I mention the Arabic with the Hebrew for two reasons. I. 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 \VTitten 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 well 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 we find difllcult 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 dispntes 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 onct for all on the subject.
The first sentence in the Scripture shows the propriety of having recourse to this principle. We hiv«
darkness he called Night. '' And the evening and the morning were
*Heb. and the evening was and the morning was.