« AnteriorContinuar »
Proofs of the fall of the angels; refutation of several propo-
What became of the wicked angels after their fall; is there'
INDEX TO PART SECOND.
Account of the operation of Satan, with the heads of our
Further proofs of the being of Satan, and of his real identity,
Further evidence still, of the real existence of Satan, and evil
The subject of rewards and punishments--whether awarded
An enquiry, how Satan, and evil spirits were worshiped in
An enquiry as to the original cause of diseases and death;
Miscellaneous strictures and remarks on the subjects of Uni-
On the subject of the forms or shapes of good and evil spirits,
relation to a hell after death......
Proofs of the immortality of the human soul, or that it does
TO THE SUBSCRIBER.
Although the Index does not particularise all we have allu-
HISTORY OF THE FALLEN ANGELS, &C.
That there exists a supernatural being, designated by the original term, and name, Satan, is believed by all the Christian sects, denominated orthodox; yet we do not find among the great number of this description of Christians any belief extant of the existence of but one such being; while it is held by them that there are many evil spirits or supernatural demons, who are inferior in mental ability, and subordinate to this one Satan; who before he fell, was one of the only two archangels, of all the inte!lectual powers, which God created in the very out-set and beginning of existences.
The names of those two archangels, when first created, were Michael and Lucifer, as we shall show in the course of the work; Michael signifying, "the might of God:" and Lucifer, Light-bringer. St. Jude, the Prophets Daniel and Isaiah, speak of these beings, under those names; orthodox christians believe that these two highest of all angelic orders, as well as all beneath them, were created by the WORD of God, who, in the course of ages, created not only our earth, but all other worlds, and contintes to create as he pleases, and will continue thus to create ad infinitum, peopling them and constituting them as he will; and that this WORD of Ged-the Second Person of the ever-adorable and mysterious Trinity-in the fullness of periods, became incarnate, or in other words, became flesh and dwelt among men: when he received the name of Jesus Christ.
According to these, the orthodox sects, it is believed that one of these archangels, namely, Lucifer, fell from his first condition, together with many other angels of lower orders, and were therefore, necessarily, bereft of all happiness, which constitutes their departure from, or fall from heaven, their first estate. The first information of this occurrence, they believe is found in Gen esis, the book of the generations of the heavens and the earth, at the beginning of the 3d chapter, as written by Moses; and is believed to be the eldest literary work now in being: the Chinese and Hindoo books not excepted: which by some it it is said, however, claim an astonishing antiquity, amounting even to millions of years, if not of ages; but are known, and ascertained by the enlightened antiquarian societies of the age, and especially
the one established in China, to be preposterous in the extreme. In this Chapter, it is believed, is found the first proof of the exis tence of such a being, who by Eve, the first woman, was called Serpent, as stated by Moses; and by St. Paul, 2d Cor. xi. 3, and St. John, Rev. xx; who adds the names of Devil and Satan, to the word Serpent. Here in the disguise of an animal, called in our English translation of the Bible, the Serpent, this fallen angel is noticed conversing with Eve, the mother of the whole hu
But as it respects proof, that there was a fallen angel, called Satan, the Serpent, and the Devil, an intellectual being, who by sophistry, false argument, and lies, misled, beguiled and deceived Eve, we shall defer it for the present; for the purpose of ascertaining the kind of animal Eve meant, when she said to the Lord, that the Serpent had beguiled her, and she did eat; which when we shall have ascertained we shall resume again.
As it respects the kind of animal, thus spoken of, and called a serpent, it was believed by the pious, learned, and celebrated Adam Clarke, one of the most laborious and voluminous Bible commentators of the age, that it was not a snake or serpent; but a creature of the Simia species: namely, the ORANG OUTANG, or the wild man of the woods, which is the meaning of the word in the Chinese language: the wild man of the woods because it looks so much like a man. This opinion may, perhaps, appear extremely singular to many, if not wholly absurd, on account of having always from infancy supposed it to have been a snake; yet before we condemn this opinion, no doubt we shall do well to attend to the reasoning of that great man, as well as to the arguments of others, of the same opinion. We intend, however, to give all the reasons we can find in support of the common belief, as well as in support of the other; between which the reader will make his choice, if he values the question.
Dr. Clarke's reasons against the animal having been a snake are as follows. He says the word which is translated serpent, and has led the whole world to believe that the creature was a snake, is in the original Hebrew written Nachash, or Nahash, and that it is susceptible of no less than three distinct significations.
First: it signifies to observe attentively, to divine or foretel events; or to use enchantments as did the ancient augers or seers, by viewing attentively the flights of birds, the entrails of beasts when slain, the course of the clouds, &c.
Second: the word Nachash signifies to acquire knowledge by experience, as by suffering, by enjoyment, society, &c.
Third: it signifies brass, and is translated in the Bible not only brass, but chains and fetters of brass, and in several places even steel, or any thing which glitters or is highly burnished.
From which it is clear, says this writer, that from the various acceptations of the word, and the different meanings which it bears, in the sacred writings, that it was a sort of general term in the Hebrew language, confined to no one specific sense, to the exclusion of all others. Here it will be necessary to follow his rea soning, in his examination of the root of that word; to see if its original ideal meaning will not enable us to discover the true animal intended in the text, and spoken of by Eve to the Lord.
We have already seen, he says, that the word Nachash signifies, among other meanings, to view attentively, and also to acquire knowledge by experience, as it is used in Gen. xxx. 27, by Jacob: who, in speaking of the hard treatment he met with at the hand of Laban, his father-in-law, says Nachashti; signifying, I have now learned by experience: for his father-in-law had cheated him, or changed the conditions of his services no less than ten times, and this meaning appears to be its most general meaning in the Bible, namely, that of acquiring knowledge, by experience or otherwise.
But this word Nachash was, by the Greek translators, who translated parts of the Old Testament into their language, nearly three hundred years before Christ, made to mean Opis, or Ophi, a creeping animal the snake. They do not seem, says Dr. Clarke, to have done this because this was its fixed and deterninate meaning in the sacred writings, but because it was the best that occurred to the then translators, who do not seem to have given themselves much trouble about it. We may suppose however, anoth reason which we will add to the above, as additional, why they may have supposed the word to mean a snake. We have seen that one of its significations, under the third head of its general meanings, was anything which was bright and highly burnished, glittering in the sun, and being beautiful to the sight of the beholder. Now this meaning of the word, was very well suited to the glossy, bright, and variegated shining of many kinds of serpents, which abound in Greece, and all tropical countries, or in very warm latitudes: on which account, and not being acquainted with the orang-outang, a creature of the hotest regions of Africa and the East Indies, the snake, for the reason just remarked, and not on account of its subtilty, was supposed by these Greek translators, to have been the animal which Eve mentioned, as stated by Moses.
From that translation therefore, which is called the Septuagint, says Dr. Clarke, we can derive no light, nor indeed from any other of the ancient versions of the Scriptures, which are all subsequent to that translation. Wherefore, he says, in all this uncertainty about the meaning of the word Nachash, in the ancient Hebrew, it is natural for a determined and serious enquirer after truth, to look everywhere for information; and that in