"is every one that hangeth on a tree." Gal. iii. 13-citing Deut. xxi. 23.

66

THE

So much false, presumptuous, and even blasphemous criticism, I have seldom been condemned" to cast down" as a pioneer in the service of sacred literature! For, 1. waving the blasphemy of pronouncing "BLESSED AND ONLY POTENTATE, accursed!—And that "No one speaking by "divine inspiration, calleth JESUS accursed:" (avabɛμa). 1 Tim. vi. 15, and 1 Cor. xii. 3,— so derogatory to "the EVER BLESSED TRI

66

NITY," as the inconsistent Parkhurst himself, piously and devoutly styles them just before, p. 21, the whole fabric of his hypercriticism is baseless and visionary, built, 2. on a distinction without a difference ;-For

Ev

the preposition wept, "about," in Matthew, and E or E, " in or at," understood, in "in Mark, refer precisely to the same point of time, as is clear from the context ;-the exclamation having been but once uttered: and His last ejaculation, "in the very jaws of "death"-being expressive of the highest faith and resignation conceivable:"FATHER, into thy hands I commit my spirit !"

Luke xxiii. 46, in the words of another prophetic Psalm, xxxi. 5.—3. On a blunder, unworthy of an Orientalist, and especially a grammarian and lexicographer: Confounding Mark's Syriac rendering, 8, Eawi, of the Hebrew 8, HA, in Matthew; with an (imaginary) Hebrew participle passive mba, "accursed"-which does not once occur in that sense, throughout the whole range of the Hebrew Scriptures; though often occurring as the proper name of God; (signifying POTENTATE: as will be shewn hereafter) no less indeed than fifty-two times, as well remarked by the B. C. p. 147; and which, with the affix of the first person, uniformly drops the intermediate vau (according to the well-known grammatical rule for its exclusion, on the accession of a new syllable) being universally written 8, "My God," (like the Syriac) except in two cases, Ps. xviii. 47, and exlv. 1, erroneously, ns, in Leusden's and Foster's editions; but judiciously corrected into 8, in Montanus's Hebrew Bible of 1572, printed by Plantin; and by Walton, in his invaluable Polyglott Bible, (as Parkhurst himself admits,) and confirmed,

in the former case, by no less than sixty MSS. of Kennicott's collation; and in the latter, by fifty-four MSS.-4. Besides, the Syriac rendering, Eaw, in Mark, is now considered as faulty by the ablest editors of the New Testament, by Wetstein, and by Griesbach, in his second edition of the Gospels, 1796: who both give Hλ as the reading of the Cambridge MS. (formerly Beza's) and of Eusebius, supported by several additional vouchers, in the latter. And surely H, (as in Matthew), or Hλ, accords better with the context of Mark, in the very next verse-" He calleth Hav (Elias)" to which they bear a striking resemblance; but Exw, only a remote: and which might have crept into Mark's text, excluding the true word *, or H, by the unskilfulness of some early transcriber; hastily concluding, that because the last word of the exclamation was Syriac, (sabachthani instead of the Hebrew azabthani), the first ought to be so

too.

Since, therefore, none of the foregoing derivations of EL, will stand the test of sober and rational criticism, and that no others

K 4

others can be substituted, we are warranted to conclude, that it is itself an elementary root, and that it is not and cannot be a derivative; but rather the venerable parent of the proper names of GOD, through all the Oriental dialects; of ELOH, in Hebrew; ALAH, Chaldee and Arabic; and in Arabic, with the emphatic article AL," the," prefixed, ALALAII, usually contracted into ALLAI; in Ethiopic, ULLAH; and in the language of the South Sea Islands, ALOH; whence Captain Cooke found "ALO, ALO, the name of the supreme God of Hapaee,” one of the Friendly Islands-First Voyage to the Pacific Ocean, vol, i. p. 404, cited by Parkhurst, Heb. Lex. p. 24; who asks, "Could they have got this name from any "of the Mahometans ?"—or must we refer it to a higher and more ancient origin?

We surely must refer it to the remotest origin. And, accordingly, in the book of Job, which probably is the oldest record extant in the world; written above 800 years before the Exode of the Israelites from

Egypt, (as my chronological researches have led me to conclude: see THE INSPECTOR,

p. 184,)

p. 184,) occurs no less than fifty-three times; whereas, in the next oldest book, Genesis, it occurs only seventeen times; as the curious reader may find, on consulting those admirable helps to the Biblical student, Romaine's valuable edition of Calasio's Hebrew Concordance, and Trommius's masterly Greek Concordance, adapted to the Alexandrine version of the Septuagint. 8, its first-born, is found no less than forty-one times (as the B. C. remarks) in the single book of Job, out of fifty-seven passages in all, throughout the purely Hebrew Scriptures: And its plural again, D, (signifying GoD in a singular sense,) twelve times. also, in the book of Job; which all critics allow to be a highly poetical composition: But how does all this accord with the B. C.'s "safe conclusion?" p. 147.-"That the

66

plural Elohim is the true prose word; and "the other (Eloah) a word of poetry; not “used as a name of GoD in prose, till the "Jews, in their captivity, had learned to "Chaldaize:" And consequently, that “the plural Elohim is the word, in the applica ❝tions of which we may search for vestiges

66

"" of