the one established in China, to be preposterous in the extreme. In this Chapter, it is believed, is found the first proof of the existence 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

man race.

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 reasoning, 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 determinate 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, another 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

such an enquiry, the Arabic language may be expected to afford some help, on account of its great similarity, and even relation to the Hebrew.

Here, before we pursue, this author's reasonings on this subject, at length, we will take occasion to state the reasons why the Hebrew and Arabic languages, were most undoubtedly similar, if not identically the same in the time of Moses, when the book of Genesis was written,-and therefore may be resorted to, as an aid in the interpretation of the Hebrew word Nachash, as well as of many others in that language.

The Arabians claim Abraham as their father, through the ancestry of Ishmael, the son of Abraham, by the Egyptian girl, or servant-maid of Sarah, the wife of Abraham. On which account, the Arabians were anciently known, and named among the nations, Ishmaelites, the descendants of Ishmael, the son of Abraham. Now the language which Hagar and her son spoke: who was but thirteen years old, when he, with his mother, was compelled to leave the dwelling and company of Abraham's numerous household, most assuredly was that of Abraham; consequently, it is clear, that the two languages, have the same origin, and that one of them arose out of the other: and who can now determine which is the purer Hebrew, the old Arabic, or Ishmaelite language, or the language of Moses and the Israelites, when they were among the Egyptians.

It is true, that from the time in which Hagar and her son went out from Abraham, into the great wilderness, to commence the fulfilment of God's word of promise to Abraham, concerning Ishmael, namely, that he should become a multitude, and that he should be a wild man, and that out of him twelve kings should proceed;-was till the time of Moses, all of four hundred years; yet on account of the proximity of the Egyptians, where the İsraelites in the land of Goshen were, during this four hundred years, and the Arabians, or Ishmaelite country, the language or dialect of the two races, cannot with any show of reason, be supposed to have been at all dissimilar; as the fact is, even now, they are exceedingly alike.

Which of the two languages, as spoken by Moses, or as spoken by the Arabians, when the Scriptures of both the Old and New Testaments, were first translated into their language, (which was not till after the Christian Era,) was most like the language of Abraham, is hard to decide. But of the Arabic language, Dr. Clarke says, that it is of great use, even now, in understanding the most ancient Hebrew Manuscripts of the Bible. The fact, no doubt is, the two languages are brothers, arising out of the same source, and from the little intercourse of the Arabians or Ishmaelites, from time immemorial, with other nations, has aided in retaining their ancient manners, their customs, and their lan

guage, in much the same condition they were, in all times of their existence, from the time they were first known as Ishmaelites till now, or till the time when the Bible was translated into their language, after the Christian Era.

In the very era of Moses, the Phoenicians the first people, after the Deluge, who arrived at an extensive empire, having commenced under the auspices of Nimrod, the grand-son of Noah ;-comprehended the countries afterward known in scripture history, of Palestine, Tyre, Sidon, the whole country of the old Canaanites, and the Hebrews, Syria, Syro-Phoenicia, Amram, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Babylon, and Chaldea. In all these. countries, says Mr. Good, author of "Book of Nature," the same language was spoken, and the same alphabet was used,differing no more in their dialects, than the Scotch and English differ now. But while all other nations have passed away, with their languages and usages, the Arabians, inhabiting a country, which, on account of its deserts and location, secluded its inhabitants from mingling in commerce, with surrounding nations, have retained therefore, their ancient manners and language, more pure than any other people of the whole earth. For this very reason, we see the propriety of going to the Arabic language, to aid in deciphering the true and identical meaning of the word Nachash; a word, used by the mother of the human race, in conversation with God himself, when she complained to him, that she had been deceived by this creature, according to the account Moses has given us of the transaction. Well, what word is there in the Arabic language, which can help us in this difficulty? It is the word Cha-nass. The word Cha-nass, says Dr. Clarke, is a root, in the Arabic, and casts light on this subject, as it is similar in formation and sound, to the Hebrew Nachash. The word Cha-nass, or K-ha-nassa,--signifies, departed, drew off, lay hid, seduced, slunk away. From this root, comes A-ka-ha-nass, K-h-nass, and K-ha-noos, all of which signify, an APE, or Satyrus, or any creature of the Simia, or Ape genus, at the head of which, is placed the Orang-outang, or man of the woods. It is very remarkable, says Dr. Clarke, that one of these words—namely, K-ha-nass, means the devil, that fallen angel, in the Arabic, and is derived from the root, Chanass, or K-ha-nassa, which means a Seducer.

Now is it not strange, that the Arabic Satan, devil, or fallen. angel, should have the same name, with that of the Orang-outang, and derived from the same root, and that root so very similar to the Hebrew word Nachash, unless they signified the same thing in the outset, and common parent language, as spoken in the family of Abraham, and at the time of Moses, by the Hebrews?

We have seen that one of the meanings of the Hebrew Nachash, was that of foretelling events, embracing under that idea,

that of necromancy, which is a deceptive, deceitful pretension, and agrees with the Arabic word Cha-nass, or K-ha-nassa, which signifies to seduce, and then to hide, by secretly departing from the sight, so that the seduced cannot even suspect they are deceived. By examining the Hebrew, as now extant, it is found, that the word Koph or Kooph, signifies an ape, or any creature of the simia, or ape genus,-which words, in their formation and sound, are extremely similar to the Arabic word K-ha-noos, the name for the same creature in the Arabic, and would seem to prove, that the words in both languages, were derived originally from the same root, Cha-nass, and shows them to have sprung out of the same origin, and family: that of Abraham the Chaldean. With this view it is extremely singular, that the Greek translators should have rendered the Hebrew word Nachash-which we believe arose out of the root Cha-nass-to signify a snake, or opis or ophi, which are terms in that language for the serpent, instead of having translated it Pithe-kos, which is the Greek name of the Ape, or any creature of the Simia race, and has for its head the Orang-outang or wild man of the woods. They must have been influenced by some such reasons as we have already given, namely, that as the snakes in the warm countries, and islands of the Greeks, were very beautiful, glossy and shining in their appearance, they seemed to have supposed that the word Nachash, meant this creature, as that any thing which was highly burnished and glittered in the rays of the sun, was one of its ideal meanings.

But if they had discovered its other meaning,-which was, to deceive, and seduce, by subtilty, cunning, &c., they no doubt would have translated the word Nachash, Pi-the-kos, which was in Greek, the Orang-outang, or any creature of the Ape genus. The word Pi-the-kos, is more than fifty per cent affinity to both the Hebrew and Arabic names of the same creature. We will exhibit them together, that the reader may at once perceive their likeness: Nach-ash, Kooph, which are Hebrew, Kha-noos, K-ha-nass, which are Arabic, and Pi-the-kos, which is Greek. Do they not evidently bear to each other a strong consanguinity in sound and formation.

And why should they not? As the ancient Hebrew, the ancient Greek, and the ancient Arabic, were all spoken in small countries, bordering on each other, at a time but little removed from the time of the flood, and must of necessity at that period of the world, have been much more alike; springing as they did, out of the language of Noah, and retaining their then affinities, far more than such of them as now remain, can possibly be expected to do except the Arabic alone, for the reasons already given.

But to return from the subject of the creature's name, more