: Ancients as producing three leaves together, a sacred trefoil, intimating the three-fold distinction of the Deity, for which he was so strenuous an advocate: thus Homer, in the Hymn to Mercury, calls it the golden three-leaved wand: now it is a singular fact, that trefoil was considered by the Persians as an emblem of the Trinity, and was, therefore, both deemed a sacred plant, and much used in sacrifices : thus Herodotus says, Bk. 1. c. 132, ἐπεὰν δὲ διαμιστύλεις κατὰ μέρεα τὸ ἱερήιον, ἑψήσῃ τὰ κρέα, ὑποπάσας ποίην ὡς ἁπαλωτάτην, ΜΑΛΙΣΤΑ ΔΕ ΤΟ ΤΡΙΦΥΛΛΟΝ, ἐπὶ ταύτης ἔθηκε ὧν πάντα τὰ κρέα, διαθέντος δὲ αὐτοῦ, μάγος ἀνὴρ παρεστεὼς ΕΠΑΕΙΔΕΙ ΘΕΟΓΟΝΙΗΝ, οἵην δὴ ἔκεῖνοι λέγουσι εἶναι τὴν ἐπαοιδήν, when he is describing the Persian mode of sacrifice "When they have cut the victim into small pieces, have roasted the flesh, and have placed the whole of it upon the softest grass, but particularly trefoil, one of the Magi, or Priests, stands by the oblation, and chants the Theogony in such a manner, as the Persians say that it ought to be done." : With respect to the circle, and the serpent, which were emblems of Deity among the Orientals, and the equilateral triangle, which was, as you have shown in vol. iv. p. 445. 671. 567 and 588. an emblem of the Trinity among the Egyptians and the Jews, there is a curious passage in Mallet's North. Antiq. vol. 1. p. 316. he there tells us that, the Scandinavians employed their Runic characters in various ways for superstitious purposes; and he adds, that all these various kinds differed only in the ceremonies observed in writing them, in the materials on which they were written, in the place where they were exposed, and in the manner in which the lines were drawn, whether in the form of a circle, of a serpent, or of a triangle:' now it is certainly a curious fact, that he should mention only these three modes of drawing these lines: this Scandinavian triangle was, probably, equilateral, and a symbolical representation of the Trinity; for I have before shown, that the Scandinavians had some notions of this mystery. I shall conclude this Letter with the following curious extract from the Travels of Tavernier, in the Collection of Dr. Harris, (vol. I. p. 823.): "The Tunquinese adore the hearth of their chimneys made of three stones" these three stones represented their three Dii Penates; and this passage affords an unsuspicious proof that the Dii Penates, or Cabirim of the Romans, came from the East, agreeably to the whole tenor of Classical History. I am, Reverend Sir, London, Aug. 4. 1811. EDMUND HENRY BARKER. * Ράβδον χρυσείην τριπέτηλον. BIBLICAL CRITICISM. TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL. SIR, I lately had the pleasure of reading the several pieces of Biblical Criticism in your learned Journal, and was not a little surprised at the contradictory notions of the Critics; but what most arrested my attention, was the tenacity with which Dr. A. Clarke contends for his conjectures upon the interpretation of the word a in Gen. III. and the display of learning which he, and, have made, to so little purpose. There is a want of conclusiveness in their manner of treating the subject; they appear to be too desirous of showing how much they have been employed in Oriental literature, and lose sight of that precision, which is necessary to give weight to their opinions. I shall not take upon me to determine, how far Dr. C's opponent is chargeable with disingenuousness: it is seldom that men of different opinions do each other justice in their disputations; they far too frequently contend for victory, and not for the discovery of truth. That Dr. A. Clarke is both learned, and industrious, none, I believe, will deny; in these respects I admire him- but I do not admire his hypothesis concerning the ; and with your permission, I will make a few remarks on it, and hope the difference in our opinions will not make me forget to treat him with respect. Dr. C. seems to lay considerable stress upon the detestation, in which animals of the oran-outang kind are held by women; but unless he can prove, that the threat in Gen. iii. 16. T♪’D M'WX MI'NI UN signifies that the enmity should be only on the side of the woman, he leans upon the staff of a broken reed: for, how much soever women may hate the oran-outang, he is very far from holding them in the same detestation, if we may credit those who pretend to know most about him. I decline entering into particulars. Dr. Clarke cannot be a stranger to what is related of this kind of animals by Naturalists. In order to give any thing like probability to his hypothesis, Dr. Clarke ought to show how the curse is fulfilled in the oran-outang, How are animals of ארור אתה מכל-הבהמה ומכל חית השדה that tribe cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field? I shall be obliged to any person, that can inform me how much more grievously they labor under the curse, than the rest of the creation, which groaneth and travaileth in pain together, until now? Is the oran-outang a creature more odious in its appearance than the sloth? Is it condemned to greater hardships, and privations, than the wolf? Is there such enmity between it and the human race, as subsists between men and the ravenous animals? Does it suffer such miseries as some of the domestic animals do? Is not then his hypothesis void of probability in this respect, and must it not remain so, until he can show that the oran-outang is cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field? Another, and insuperable objection to Dr. C's hypothesis, is that part of the curse by. Can he show, that this phrase signifies to walk upon four feet? It certainly might be read, "Upon thy gachon thou shalt walk;" but if a signify the belly, or breast, it would be a very awkward translation; and Dr. Clarke does not need me to remind him, that does not exclusively signify, to walk, either upon two feet, or four, but is as properly rendered by Ivit, as by Ambulavit. Indeed, since Moses ranks among reptiles the weazel, the mouse, the tortoise, the ferret, the camelion, the lizard, and the mole, Lev. xi. 29. 30. I can see no reason to suppose, that, by the above phrase, he could design the motion of an oran-outang; on the contrary, it seems to me as clearly to point out the motion of a serpent, as if it had been written by. One thing is, however, certain, that Linné and Moses differ widely in their systems of nature; a circumstance entirely overlooked by Dr. C. in his reply to the Critiques on his Bible. His triumph over his opponents in this respect is therefore only imaginary, for he assumes the very point which should be proved, viz. That Moses classed the animals according to the system of the Swedish naturalist. Dr. C. ridicules the notion of the 1, 0.5, or serpent, having feet before the fall of man. But why? Because this would be to confound reptilia with serpentes. But Moses makes much greater confusion than this, for (if signifies repsit, reptavit,) he considers as reptilia, animals of Linne's first class, feræ, and glires, as well as of his third class, and first order. I also conceive, that Lev. xi. 42. contains the deathblow to his hypothesis, making a complete distinction between moving on the belly, and walking. The Jewish lawgiver, in this passage, describes three kinds of loco-motion. כל הולך על גחון וכל הולך על ארבע עד כל מרבה רגלים לכל השרץ השרץ על השרץ Here we have "all animals going upon the gachon, and all going upon four, as well as all those going upon many feet, of every creeper, moving upon the earth." From the enumeration of animals in the 29th and 30th verses, (if the translators be correct in rendering the Hebrew names,) it is evident, that Moses ranks with the snail, which certainly moves on its belly, every animal, whose legs are so short as to bring its belly near the ground, or in contact with it; and I hope I shall not be accounted immodest, or rash, if, in contradiction to so learned a man as Dr. C. I say, it is more than probable, that the motion of serpents, and other crawling animals, is here pointed out by by, and that the phrase cannot point out the motion of the oran-outang. There is a certain degree of respect, which opinions of long standing acquire, and of which it is unjust to divest them, till we can prove them to be false. The word "ps, by which the LXX. translates undeniably proves, that in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, before, Christ about 277, the translator, or translators, understood it to be a, serpent:.may I not then be allowed to ask, what new light has been ̧ thrown upon the Hebrew language, that enables Dr. C. to discover their error, and correct it by oran-outang? I believe he will not charge me with error, when I remind him, that one principal source of our knowledge of Hebrew is that ancient version. All the versions in the cognate Oriental languages are, I believe, with the exception of one Syriac version, made from the Septuagint. Whence did the notion of a serpent arise, if I should indeed signify an animal of the simia genus? And how does it come to pass, that the New Testament writers, in their allusions to the grand enemy of mankind, name him the serpent, but never the oran-outang? There are allusions in scripture to the subti!ty, prudence, or wisdom of serpents—one in particular, Matth. x. 16. "Be ye wise (prudent) as serpents." Now should I confess, that I am unable to point out any particular, whereby we may discover their prudence, or wisdomdoes it thence follow, that he who knoweth all things, would assert their prudence if they were destitute of that quality? We cannot suppose him to be such an inconsistent Teacher, as to propose for an example of prudence, an animal no ways remarkable for it; and (notwithstanding all that Dr. Clarke may say in defence of a very lame hypothesis) depending upon the word of infinite wisdom and truth, I must contend that we have, in the above passage, the distinguishing characteristic of the n in Gen. iii. 1. I do not think it at all incumbent on the person who would prove a serpent to be intended by Moses, to point out either the species, or genus: the order is all that can reasonably be expected, and to seek for more, would be only to indulge in idle speculation. I would also take the liberty of hinting to Dr. C. "for his information," that what he calls the common hypothesis, is misnamed by him, and for any thing he has shown to the contrary, may safely be called, not an hypothesis, but a revealed truth. He must be a very careless reader of the Bible, who does not perceive, that the sacred Historians write, not for the satisfaction of idle curiosity, either in infidels, or divines but merely to give a brief and catenated history of the world, God's purpose of mercy towards it in the Messiah, and the manner in which he carried on his gracious design, until Jesus bowed his head, and said, "it is finished." ; Dr. C. says, "I have proved, and so might any man, that no serpent, in the common sense of the term, can be intended in the third chapter of Genesis, that all the circumstances of the case as detailed by the inspired penman are in total hostility to the common mode of interpretation, and that some other method should be found out." If any one but Dr. C. thinks this to be the case, it must be because he thinks very incorrectly, and leaps upon difficulties that one would think do not lie in his way. Dr. C. talks of the difficulties of the common mode of interpretation, but I would be glad to know, which of them his hypothesis removes. He says, "It is as irreconcileable to the text, and context, as it is repugnant to common sense, and to every rational method of interpreting the oracles of God." If the former part of this sentence has any meaning, I suppose it must be, that the text in the version is not reconcileable with the text of the original; but if this be Dr. C's meaning, it is a mistake, himself being judge ; does mean a serpent. If by the context he means the event brought about by the instrument, I cannot see the difficulty of reconciling the text, and context, for if we credit the word of God, the woman was deceived by the Nachash. Now what repugnance can common sense feel to the usual interpretation, that does not equally apply to the uncommon interpretation proposed by Dr. C.? Is there any thing more repugnant to common sense, in believing that Eve was deceived by a serpent, than there is in believing, that the lamentable event was accomplished by the tricks of a monkey, or oran-outang ? Dr. Cs observation on Voltaire, whom he calls a shrewd and dexterous infidel, is of no weight: none but that impious Buffoon would have made such use of the Scripture History. Does Dr. Clarke really think the received translation in the cases related - Gen. 3. Num. 22. and Dan. 4. gives any countenance to infidels, to write a burlesque romance on the word of the living God? Or can he suppose, if ORAN-OUTANG had stood in Gen. 3. instead of serpent, that the unhappy infidel would have treated the jackanapes with greater civility? Dr. C. may rest assured, that his interpretation will have no tendency to prevent the cavils of infidels: those, who search the Scriptures, with a sincere intention of embracing truth wherever it may be found, will soon be satisfied of the divine origin of the Bible: the great misfortune of infidels is, that they search not for truth, but for opportunities to cavil, and as they like not to retain God in all their thoughts, it may be, that divine wisdom has ordered difficulties to remain, that such men may be snared, and fall by their own inventions. If neither Paul nor John referred to the instrument used in the seduction of Eve, why do they use the name by which the LXX. translate Nachash? Why did they not use Außoλos instead of ops, if there had not been an allusion to the instrument? But should we allow Paul's reference, 2 Cor. xi. 3. ὡς ὁ ὄφις Εὔαν ἐξηπάτησεν ἐν τῇ avougyig avrov (having the characteristic of Gen. 3.) and John's, in Rev. xx. 2. τὸν ὄφιν τὸν ἀρχαῖον ' to have been made in conformity to the names, whereby Satan was usually called by their countrymen, (and he must allow this to be the most usual name,) whence did the grand enemy of mankind come by this name? Now Dr. C's objectors cannot, with equal propriety, contend for the literal signification of I because he is not called ערב or שעיר חמור החזיר הכלב השור by any of them in the Scripture, which is their rule of faith: nor is there any propriety in Dr. C's application of XDUN m, for our Rev. xii. 12---16. The Church is represented as a WOMAN persecuted by the Devil, who is called péxwv, 8 diáßonos, and pis; surely where the WOMAN and the Serpent are thus opposed, there must be an allusion to the instrument; and to deny an allusion, with any show of plausibility in Chap. xx. 2. appears to me to be impossible: "He laid hold on the Dragon." Here the grand enemy is called by the name under which he had been represented in chap. xii. and in other parts of this book-" The ancient Serpent" manifestly alluding to Gen. iii. the first name a prophetic symbol, the second a name given him from the form he used in the deception of Eve: "which is Diabolus and Satan." The calumniator and adversary, the latter a Hebrew name by which the Devil was very properly called, the former the Greek word by which the LXX. render .שטן |