ページの画像
PDF
ePub

here used, we must understand that kind of enjoyment which the Bible sanctions-that pure and holy delight, which the the righteous will forever enjoy.

These two ultimate ends are not capable of separate existence, but form one grand object; although for practical purposes and in imitation of the inspired writers, we may speak of this object in only one particular respect at a time; i. e. we may speak of it either as it regards God or creatures. How is it possible that the two things should, in their nature, be separate; since the glory of God consists in the very production of this good?

ness. This display is made in
the promotion of the happiness
of his creatures.
The promo-
tion of their happiness, is, then,
the object of the divine opera-
tions that in which God de-
lights-the chief thing, as it re-
spects them, which he has in
view-it is that in which his glo-
ry consists-it is his glory.

f

When, therefore, we inquire for the chief end of the divine administration; the answer is, that it is the good of the universe; that, as it respects God, it is his glory; as it respects creatures, it is their happiness.

If it be objected, that the happiness which God enjoys in contemplating the works of his hands-in beholding the happi. ness of his creatures, is greater than that which they enjoy, and that therefore it may properly be considered as his chief end; the answer is, that, if the things were in their nature separable, it might be considered in that light. If it be said, that the glo

To perceive the force of this question, let us suppose these two ends in their nature separable. We will then set out with the theory, that the good of creatures is God's chief end. Why is this his chief end? Because he delights in their happiness in itself considered-it is his nature to promote this happiness-ry of God, or his happiness, and in the production of such forms the greater part of this immense good, consists that il- complex object, I see no objeclustrious display of himself tion to it. which he styles his glory. This is the true and only solution. But it is little more than a paraphrase of the proposition that the glory of God is his chief end; and we are thus brought back to our main position, that the good of the universe comprising both these particular ends, is this

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

The view of the subject now given, is not incumbered with those difficulties that embarrass the other two theories.-It' seems more consonant with Scripture; and it affords much useful instruction.

It shews us,

1. The duty of co-operating with God in the promotion of human happiness.

2. The duty of aiming at the glory of God in all that we do.

3. That it is a true reason of praise to God, that he glorifies himself.

4. The

astonishing wisdom

and goodness of God in the production of a system, in which his own glory and the eternally increasing happiness of his virtuous creatures are most intimately and indissolubly blended. He delights in their enjoyment

and they derive their chief happiness from beholding and promoting his glory. Their voices are in unison with the angelic choir, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will to men."

MISCELLANEOUS.

STRICTURES ON AN ARTICLE IN THE CHRISTIAN OBSERVER.

To the Editor of the Panoplist.
SIR,

As it is understood, that "the CHRISTIAN OBSERVER is republished in this country, exactly according to the English copy, and of course, that no observations on any part of its contents can be admitted into the American edition, the following strictures are sent to you for publication in the Panoplist.

In the Christian Observer for June, 1812, a writer has offered to his readers some remarks on the Hebrew Language; among which is the following: "It is a remarkable peculiarity in the Hebrew Language, that the names of things are frequently descriptive of their properties.'

On this observation I would remark, that Hebrew names are indeed descriptive, or significant, but this is by no means a peculiarity of the Hebrew language. The fact is the same in all the languages of which I have any knowledge; and I can speak with confidence of twenty which I have carefully examined. Neither in this respect, nor in any other is there any thing peculiar in the Hebrew. All the lan

guages, which I have investigated, are formed from the same primitive words; which are few in number; and the chief peculiarities which now exist in the different dialects, are the different modes of forming the derivative words, by prefixes, affixes, and combination. The verb is the root of most words, probably of all; and names are formed from verbs, expressive of their origin, uses, or properties. The names of rivers are formed from verbs which signify to flow-the names of hills and mountains, from verbs which signify to raise, or to collectsome plants are named from verbs which express growth; others from their most obvious qualities. But in all languages, the same analogies are pursued. Thus, in Latin, liber signifies free; and the bark of a treeboth from the same root, to part, separate, or loose-hence to strip or peel; and liber, bark, being used in early ages as a material for writing, came to signify a book-but this is not peculiar to` the Latin, for our northern ances. tors used the like material for the like purpose; and though they used a different word, still book signifies primarily bark Thus also writing was originally

[ocr errors]

performed on stone, or other hard substance; hence the radi cal sense of write is to scratch, rub or grate. Our word write is the same word as grate. The former we receive from our ancestors of the north by tradition; the latter, we receive from the French gratter-Greek Харатт The Romans used a different word scribo, but still scribo is to scratch or grate; the identical English word, to scrape, and the French graver, Spanish grabar, to engrave.

The writer further observes, that "the names of persons also in Hebrew, are frequently either memorials of the circumstances which attended their birth, or prophetical of their character, and of the events which befell them or their posterity." For the truth of the first part of this observation we have Scripture authority; and I do not now recollect that any similar fact is recorded in profane history except the name Cesar. But it is extremely natural, and the practice may have been common among other nations. When names did not exist they were to be invented, or words already invented were to be applied; and what could be more natural than for parents to select a word for the name of a child, which should commemorate the circumstances attending his birth, or their own feelings on the occasion? Eve called her first-born son Cain, "for she said I have gotten a man from the LORD"—or a man Jehovah, as the words are rendered by some translators. Now Cain is our English word gain; and Eve doubtless thought her son a great acquisition; but his future conduct did not justi

Her sec

fy her expectations. ond son she called Abel, han for which the reason is not assigned. The word is usually understood to signify mourning, or grief, or vanity; but erroneously. Abel was a "keeper of sheep," a shepherd; and that is the signification of his name. From the same source with this name, numerous pastoral tribes of antiquity were denominated Balli or Palli, shepherds. The denomination was formerly used in Ireland, as we learn from Vallancey, and in Asia, and Africa, the Balli or Palli, are now or have been till lately, very numerous. See Asiatic Researches, vol. 2, 3, and 6. Hence Pales the goddess of sheep folds and pastures, among the Romans; and hence the name Palestine, or more correctly Palestan, the country of shepherds. In the Syriac , Abel or Hebel, signifies a shepherd; and the name of the son of Adam is written with a jod, Abil; but from the same root.

With regard to the latter part of the above cited observation, it is doubtless true that some names among the Hebrews were prophetical, as the name of Jesus or Savior. But it is probable that many names supposed to be prophetical were not the proper names of the persons, but descriptive titles acquired by the men who bore them, from their character or profession.

It was customary among the Hebrews, as among all ancient nations, to give men titles expressing their character; a custom which we know still to exist

among the rude natives of America, who denominate their chiefs by descriptive titles-as

the big-knife, the turtle, the corn-planter. Thus, the names of the sovereigns of antiquity were assumed or given as titles of which we have examples in Abimelech, Nebuchadnezzar, and Pharaoh, which are not the proper names of men, but titles of princes, expressive of that character; yet these titles are the only names by which many princes are known in history. So Waldemir, in the north of Europe is a mere title. Brennus, the name of the Gallic general who invaded Rome, was a mere title, which we retain in prince, as the Romans did in princeps. Melchisedeck, which we consider as a name, was a mere title, signifying the just king, but in Hebrew is in fact two words. Hagar, the name of Sarah's handmaid, was an appellation descriptive of her service; the hired woman. The word, with the verb to which it belongs and all its derivatives, have come down to our times, unaltered; and therefore admits of no misinterpretation. This name therefore could not have been given to her at her birth, without a spirit of prophecy; but who would venture to suggest that her parents had this spirit? Abram if composed of the Hebrew ab-ram, signifies high or great father, expressive of his dignity as the head of a numerous family; but his father as we learn from the history of his descendants, and from Joshua, was an idolater. Was Terah then inspired? Had he divine direction in naming his son? Is it more probable that the Almighty would communicate supernatural powers to such a man, and for such a purpose; than that

the name should be afterwards acquired by Abram's distinction? Without recurring to the Greek and Roman languages, our mother tongue supplies us with indisputable proof, that names were all primitively significant. Alfred, signifies allpeace or devoted to peace-Edward, the happy or fortunate watch-Ethelbert,is noble-bright -Edgar, happy or fortunate weapon-Sigebert, bright victory

Ethelwolf, noble help-Edwin, happy bravery, &c. And who does not know that our common sirnames, as Smith, Walker, Saddler, Tanner, Cooper, &c. are significant, and that they were originally descriptive of occupation? Christian names were of earlier origin, but were primitively significant.

Equally true is it, that the names of towns, cities, and tribes, or nations, were originally significant; and I could fill the Panoplist with specific proofs of the fact. This is as true in all languages, as in the Hebrew, and we have evidence that the practice prevailed of assigning significant names to cities, before the Hebrews existed as a nation. From not attending to this circumstance, the translators of the Scriptures have made mistakes, in explaining names of foreign origin, as Hebrew words. Thus Jericho, they translate, his moon or month, notwithstanding the Scriptures inform us, it was the city of palm trees. Now, in the Ethiopic, the word signifies a palm tree. The name originated with a people who dwelt there before the Hebrews became a nation.

I would only observe further, that names were sometimes al

tered or entirely changed, as in the instances of Abraham and Israel, and they were not unfrequently translated into foreign languages. This circumstance has occasioned no small embarrassment in history, and some mistakes which are not yet corrected. Thus in ancient times, the Arabic gulf was denominated the sea of Edom or Idumean Sea-from the Idumeans who dwelt near its shore. As Edom signifies red, foreigners supposed that sense to apply to the sea, and translated the word redHence we have to this day, the improper appellation of the Red Sea; Greek ερυθρος, ερυθραίος, the Erythrean sea, that is red, ruddy. The writer in the Christian Observer proceeds, "The name of the first man, Adam, implies that he was formed of the ground." This mistake which has prevailed in the Christian world, for eighteen hundred years, ought to be corrected, and no longer remain an evidence of the

miserably low low state of etymological learning. The word Adam, which is common to all the languages of the stock of Shem, is not the name of an individual, or as we call it, a proper noun, but the common name of the human species. It is precisely equivalent to man and homo, in the languages of the stock of Japhet. The original or radical sense of the word is shape, form, and hence likeness, image-a word which expresses the external figure or appearance,and comprehends the whole race endued with a particular form, and by way of eminence, a beautiful or noble form. This is its common signification in the Scriptures. "Man

Adam, born of woman, is of few days and full of trouble." Hence the propriety of the use of the plural them, applied to man, in Gen. i, 26, 27. In the preceding verses, we have an account of the creation of plants and animals-in general terms. The account of the creation of man is also general, referring to the species. "And God said, Let us make man, Adam, in

our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, &c." Here the word used is the same as in Job, without the aspirate or ar ticle, and refers to the species as a distinct race. "And God created the man, in his image; in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, &c." The subsequent commands are also addressed to them, in the plural. In the next chapter there is a particular account of the formation of Eve; but the account in the first chapter refers to the species. When reference is had to the first man, in subsequent passages, the word used has the article prefixed, and might be translated the Man. The fifth chapter begins thus, "This is the book of the generations of man.” "He called their name, man," that is, the name of the species or race.

The writer proceeds to remark, "That the names of the ten antidiluvian patriarchs taken in succession, express the two grand truths contained in the Scripture-the natural misery of man, and his restoration by the death of Jesus Christ." He thinks it impossible to believe these names were given by chance; and impossible not to believe that they

« 前へ次へ »