these two words indicating and expressing by their roots and composition the Son, (of God) stand in the van and forefront of every communication of the Old Testament. It will be seen that the three first letters of the two first words of the book of Genesis are the same; (BRA) * and this alliteration, which more or less prevails in almost every verse of the Old Testament, would seem to be an important object with the writers to attain, and the success of their endeavours in this respect, to constitute in a great measure, one of the standards of excellence in writing, and this is frequently carried to an excess which becomes irksome to European ears, thus Genesis ch. xlix, v. 19, four words out of the six, of which the verse is composed, commence with the syllable Gad. By refering to the writings of the various Authors of the Old Testament, there will be generally found included in the roots. (or words, or symbols, as parts of words, of which the whole word is compounded, which are used to convey the doctrine or narra tive of events which they describe) an enlarged detail of the circumstances which attended the event, or which would ensue as its consequences, and thus they either become prophesies of future events or reveal a doctrine. † The most remarkable circum

dent that no Etymology can be separated from Phonology, or the sound of the word as uttered by those who speak it, and thus, consonants pronounced in one district of the same country become totally different, if written from the sound of the word when spoken. The preceding note on Shinar, page ix will exemplify this, and it would be difficult to persuade a person of Northern origin, that M and B could be commonly commuted for each other, as they are in the East.

*See note* page 1.

† It should be borne in mind, that the formation of nearly all Asiatic or Eastern words more or less partakes of one peculiarity, which is almost unknown to the European dialects, viz. that the letters of a word, when reversed denote another, and a different view of the same original idea, and frequently an entirely opposite meaning, thus, (AL) signifies God, and (LA) Nothing, the vowels not being noticed, as ever fluctuating and charging. This is indeed the Brahminical doctrine of the Deity, as the source from whence everything that exists proceeded, and without whom there would be nothing, and into whom all things will ultimately be reabsorbed; and this doctrine is embodied also in the Hebrew language itself, in which Moses wrote; thus, MA, MH in Hebrew, Chaldee, Arabic and Sanskrit signifies Not, and in Hebrew and Arabic AM signifies Mother, whilst in Sanskrit MA signifies both Not, Mother and Light, whereby the foregoing idea is expressed under a different emblem, viz., that if the Deity does not produce things as a mother, there is nothing. If the word Brahma, the Sanskrit Creator of the universe, might be allowed to be decompounded after the mode adopted with respect to Hebrew, it would be resolved into Bhar, to Create and Ma, mother, or the creating or producing mother, and this is not far from being the true meaning of

stance relating to these two words with reference to their composition is that a Son is introduced before the creation of Adam, and before every other portion of the Creation, whilst the "Earth was without form and void," (Gen. ch. i, v. 2,) and it is undoubtedly somewhat unusual, to refer in a grave and solemn history, to a Son, without any allusion whatever to a Father. If Moses had invented the Creation as a Fable, it can scarcely be imagined, that he would not have taken every precaution to render it plausible and credible, and the obvious mode of avoiding the cavil, that could not fail to be raised against his statement as it exists, by every one who heard or hears it, would have been to use a word which, by its roots or symbols of roots, should have announced the Creation to have proceeded from the Father. But Moses did not take this course; and if it is still alledged that he invented this Fable, the corollary of this proposition is, that he wilfully destroyed his own credit, whether as an Historian or a Fabulist, without any possible necessity for so doing, whilst at the same time, he had every motive for proceeding with his narrative, in a manner, that might, at least, not be repugnant to the common sense of all mankind. St. Paul however, (Heb. ch. vii, v. 21,) speaking of Our Lord Jesus Christ, under the name of Melchesidec, King of Righteousness, King of Salem, King of Peace, Priest of the Most High God, outstrips even Moses in his paraphrase of these two first words of the book of Genesis, by broadly and boldly asserting, (3rd verse) that he who "was with"out Father, without Mother, without descent, having neither 'beginning of days, nor end of life, but made like unto the Son "of God, abideth a Priest continually," and chapters 5-7, St. Paul repeats the statement: "Thou art a Priest for ever, after the or"der of Melchisedec," no less than five times. The Apostle John, in the two first words of the first verse of the first chapter of his Gospel, translates the first verse of the first Chapter of Genesis,

66

the term óyos (the Word), which is a translation of the Hebrew word (A MAR) signifying, in the Eastern languages, to speak, or a word, and a lamb, and so far as regards its composition with AM, a inother. It seems doubtful whether St. Paul does not allude to this, 1 Cor. ch. xv, v. 28 and our Saviour also, John ch. xvii, v. 21 22. The first letter of an Eastern word frequently changes its place and becomes the second or last, and the other letters in like manner are reversed and transposed without any, or the slightest variation in the meaning of the term, and not only does this confusion of the existing letters occur, but one or more of the letters are exchanged for others of a kindred sound, with scarcely any difference in the signification of the word.

See note* page 1.

word for word, in substance as follows.

66

66

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, the same was in the beginning with God. All things "were made by him; and without him was not anything made, "that was made." The Old and New Testaments vouch, thus early for each other, and both relate the same astounding facts, that the Word, one of the names by which Our Saviour is called, both in the Old as well as in the New Testaments, peculiarly indi cating the Son of God, as will be shewn hereafter, was the Creator of the Creation, as stated by Moses. If it should be alledged that the term BRAT was the popular expression in use amongst the Jews of Moses' time, to indicate as a Creation, the production of a Son, nothing would be gained by the assertion, inasmuch as the word BRA (Created) must be a compound, if BR† (a Son,) is one of its roots, whatever the letter A appended to BR may or may not signify, a new word, could only have been compounded after the event had occurred; but in Genesis, ch. i, the Son precedes his production. In Gen. ch. iii, v. 23, the words Man and Woman occur for the first time, and the terms used are ISH (Man) and ISHA (Woman) in their generic terms, as denoting the human species of both sexes. In Gen. ch. iii, v. 22, the recital of the Creation of the Woman by the Almighty is given at length, and the word in Sanskrit describing the Creator of the Man and Woman, is found with the same identical letters, and the same, or rather with a more detailed signification in the name of the Brahminical and Bhuddist Supreme Creative Deity or God of the Universe who, in Sanskrit is denominated ISH VARA the Creator, in Hebrew ISH (Man) and BARA § (Creator of), or the Man, the Son of God, the Creator; the letter v in Sanskrit being substituted, as is usual in most languages, for the B in the

* The definite article, The is omitted by St. John (ch. i, v. 1.) apparently by design év ápxî îv ò λóyos, which would seem to indicate that the period spoken of, was A Beginning of a Creation of a certain portion of the universe, or the reconstruction of an earth, which Moses says existed (Gen. ch. i, v. 2.) at the time of the Creation of which he writes, "And "the Earth was without form, and void, and Darkness was upon the "face ofthe Deep." This is alluded to, chiefly for the purpose of shewing the probable foundation of a common hypothesis, (considered by many to be an indisputable matter of fact), that the materials of the present Earth which we inhabit, existed some thousands, or even millions of years, before it assumed its present form.

† See continuation of Note * Page 1, at the bottom of Page 2. ‡' (A ISH, or ISH) Man; and TN (A SH H, or I SH H) Woman.

Hebrew BARA. The Brahmins and Bhuddists, whether, as some alledge, they were descendants of Shem or not, had, as it appears, precisely the same revelation or tradition, respecting the original Creation of Man that Moses had, and the Brahmins could not have borrowed from Moses the idea of the Creator of Mankind from the first two words of the book of Genesis, because the Sanskrit language is boasted to be of even higher antiquity than Moses, and a people civilized as the Brahmins were, could not be supposed to borrow their ideas of the first causes of things from foreigners, and a nation with whom indeed in those days, it was next to an impossibility to have any intercourse available for this purpose. The signification of Clean, and Pure, coupled with that of Son, would be wholly inapplicable and out of place in the Scriptures, with reference to any of the Children of Men, which represent the Lord "looking down from heaven upon the Children "of Men to see if there were any that did understand and seek "God, they are all gone aside, they are altogether become filthy, "there is none that doeth good, no not one," (Psalm xiv, v. 4.) The idea of purity attached to (BR) a Son, must therefore necessarily refer and apply to the Son of God alone. The word (BR) Son is used in the Hebrew Scriptures only poetically, the word itself being Chaldee, and thus it is immaterial what answer may be given to the question; how were these significations so impossible to be joined together in Scripture, with reference to the Children of Men, connected, so as still to denote a Son and Purity? If the second signification is derived from the process of separating what is unclean from what is pure, as in the cleansing of Corn, the question is still unanswered, as to the connection of a Son with it, even poetically, in the Hebrew Scriptures, unless it had reference to the Son of God alone, but as descriptive of Himself and His offices, it is the most circumstantial that could perhaps be given, thus, St. Paul speaking of Our Saviour, (Heb. chap. vii, v. 26) says: "Such an High Priest became us, "who is holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners; and "made higher than the heavens," and St. Peter (1 Ep. ch. ii, v. 22,) speaking of Christ, says: "who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth," and the Prophet Malachi (ch. iii, v. 2,) describes the office of the Messiah, as peculiarly that of a purifier of His people: "He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, "and he shall purify the Sons of Levi," and that the cleansing of "his people may be effectual, "he turns," as Isaiah (ch. i, v. 25,) says, "his hand upon them, and purely purges away their dross, "and takes away all their tin," and St. Paul says (Tit. ch. ii,

66

v. 14,) he gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." Our Saviour appropriates the name of Bread to himself, (John ch. vi, v. 33, 48,) as being the Son of God. "The bread of God is he, which cometh down "from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. I am that bread "of life." With reference to the two roots BA, AR, Light enters Light is one of the names by which Our Saviour designates himself; (John ch. viii, v. 12.) "I am the Light of the "world," and St. John (ch. i, v. 3,) shews that the Word, the Son of God, was the Creator of all things.

The simultaneous knowledge of the Creation of Man by his Creator, possessed equally by the Brahmins, as by Moses, might have arisen from a tradition, or an opinion derived from the common sense and probability of the matter, but that it was one of these two, it would seem to be impossible to doubt. The invention by Moses therefore, of a Fable of the Creation, is eliminated and out of the question. It was with Moses, as with the Brahmins, either a tradition, which their common ancestors of the race and stock of Shem (Gen. ch. xi, v. 31 and ch. xii, v. 1,) received from their ancestors before the flood, the source whence it flowed to both parties; or if it is chosen to assume that it was merely an opinion, founded on the probability of such Creation, in either case, the invention of the Fable of the Creation by Moses, as it is recorded in the book of Genesis, appears to be an impossibility. It is proposed to shew hereafter, whether the idea of the Creation of Man, was an opinion or a revelation. It is left therefore to the judgment of the Reader to draw his own conclusions whether it is possible for Moses, or any of the Patriarchs up to Adam, to have ventured upon such a commencement of a Fable, of which Adam could not from his own personal knowledge form the slightest idea, as the whole of the events occured before he was created, and on the other hand, if the tradition is a correct statement of the events which took place at the Creation, whether they could have become known to the Patriarchs or Moses, by any other means than by a direct communication to them from the Creator himself.

IN the 16th verse of this chapter, Moses records on the fourth day of the Creation, that God made two great lights, the greater

*

IN (AVR) Light, Hebrew; and 78 (A VIR) Air, Chaldee.