CHAP. I. The Reasons, general Principles and Method of this Enquiry.

THE knowledg of Jewish Measures and Weights, hath been so much neg­lected by most Men; partly, as exceeding difficult, if not impos­sible to be attained; partly, as not necessary: that I cannot hope to per­suade the generality, even of Scholars to study it; but find it needful rather [Page 2] to give an Apology for this attempt to search them out.

I observed a considerable part of the old Testament to be employed in de­scribing carefully the Measures of No­ah's Ark, of the Tabernacle; and the Ark of the Covenant therein kept; of Salomon's and Ezekiel's Temples, with their several parts, and sacred Utensils thereunto appertaining. I perceived therein the most antient, beautiful, and magnificent proportions of Architecture to be recorded; and the usefulness of such Buildings to main­tain God's publick Honour and Wor­ship to be suggested. I could not but observe, that near a thousand Years distance from Moses, Ezekiel requires the true old Cubit, Epha, Shekel, and Gerah, to be used at the Restauration of the Church and State, by him pro­phesied of.

These appearing in the Text to have been so long kept unaltered; I thought they, or some of them, might be spread into other Places, and by the careful methods of God's Providence, or the diligence, of the Learned, especially Teachers of his Church, a­mong [Page 3] the Jews or Christians: that the memory of them might be preserved above 1000 Years more, in order to our more satisfactory understanding of the old Testament, which was written for the use of the Christian Church to the end of the World, Rom. 15.4. 1 Cor. 10.11.

I was confirmed in these hopes, by considering that the Roman Foot Quadrantal and Congius in Measures, and their Ounce and Pound (as Vil­lalpandus proves) in weight, have continued near 2000 Years. And I saw reason to believe, that the Egyp­tian Cubit had been preserved there, from the utmost Antiquity of the Pyramids unto this day.

Moreover, I considered, that this Enquiry was the fitter for a Minister of God's Church; because the Priests were antiently appointed to be Keep­ers of the Standards or Overseers of all Measure and Weight, 1 Chron. 23.29. Wherefore, for exercise of my A­rithmetic and Geometry; I resolved, in my younger days, to try what ser­vice they could do me in this Search: and having made then some progress [Page 4] in this Study, I have been persuaded now to add my riper Thoughts there­unto, for the service of a Commentary on the Bible, designed by some Learned Clergymen of our Church.

The Principles on which I pro­ceed are,

I. Standards of Length and Ca­pacity, that may still be seen, and compared with ours: to which I joyn Antient Shekels, which being both Weights and Coins, are presu­med to have been tried and found a­greeable in the Ballances with Stand­dard-weight; and therefore are to our purpose equivalent to Standards: all these attested by credible Persons, who have seen them, and compared them with ours.

II. Arithmetical Principles of Re­duction, which are demonstrable, and acknowledged true by all competent Judges. The first Principle bears upon Sense, assisted by Mechanical Ge­ometry; the second upon Reason, used in the most simple and abstract Objects thereof, viz. Number and Measure.

[Page 5]The Method I have taken is most natural.

1. To consider the Measure that re­lates to meer Length, the first or most simple Dimension which determines Breadth; also if the length of two sides of a Parallelogram be given.

2. Hence to procced to Measures of Capacity, which have three Dimen­sions.

3. Lastly, to consider Weight, which supposes a solid Body, but superadds the notion of Gravitation in a Ballance wherein two heavy Bodies are com­pared.

As to a standard of Length, I con­sidered, that although the Anci­ents often speak of the breadth of Barly-Corns to determine it by, and might probably use them at first to determine a Digit by six of them, as the first perfect Num­ber; and then by Nature's four Fin­gers on a Hand, come to determine a hands-breadth, and by six of these, a Cubit: yet they must necessarily find, in the first Age, as now, varie­ty, or inconstancy in these Productions of Nature, and therefore must soon [Page 6] see a necessity of setling a Standard-digit, Hand-breadth, and Cubit, ei­ther by mutual Agreement, or rather by the Authority of the Father of the Family, the most natural Gover­nour.

Accordingly we find a Cubit men­tioned in the building of Noah's Ark, by which all its Dimensions are de­termined, and a great number of equal Cubits must be put into the hands of the multitude of Work­men, which must be employed in building so great a floating Vessel or Ship; and their Cubits must be made to agree to some Standard, or com­mon Measure, else the parts of it would be unfit to join to each other, and could not be made to serve the com­mon End of them all, the preservation of Noah's Family, and the other living Creatures therein to be included.

This Agreement of the Oriental Measures in their Digits, and conse­quently in their Palms, and Cubits of the same number of Palms, is ex­presly delivered by Abulfeda, in words cited by Greaves, in the Preface to Abulfeda's Description of Chorasmia, [Page 7] which he hath set out: where al­though he acknowledgeth, that Cu­bits of eight Palms were used by the Ancients, and of six by later Writers; yet he affirms, that in their Digits they all agreed, and their Miles and Parasangs determined by them, were just the same, although expressed in a less number of Cubits, when they used a Cubit of eight Palms, and in a bigger number of Cubits, when they used that of six Palms.

On these Grounds I judged, that if we could recover one old Eastern Standard Cubit, of a known number of Hands-breadths, we should be able to determine all their Measures of length by that Standard. Such I con­ceive and think I have prov'd the E­gyptian Derah, or Cubit, still kept at Cairo, to be, whose length is evi­dently six Palms. And this Mr. John Greaves, Astronomy-Professor at Ox­ford, in his Book of the Roman Foot, hath given us accurately adjusted, to the 1000 part of our English Stan­dard-Foot. What use this very Lear­ned Man intended to make of this Egyptian Cubit, I find not, but hear­tily [Page 8] wish that he had liv'd to finish the Work he intended, about the Measures and Weights of the Anci­ents. The Jewish Cubit he hath no where stated that I know of; only in his Epistle Dedicatory to Mr. Selden, he intimates it to be investigable by help of the Roman Foot: how he thence could have deduced it, I know not. But since his Death hath de­prived us of that great help, which we might have expected from his great Reading, Travels, Diligence, and Judgment; I have thought fit to single out this Cubit, from those ma­ny Foreign Measures which he hath with equal care adjusted to our Stan­dards, and to try, by comparing it with the best Notices of the Jewish Cubit, which my Reading hath sug­gested, whether this may not prove of the same length with the Cubit of the Sanctuary.

In the second place I have endea­vour'd to state the Epha, and other Jewish Measures of Capacity; de­ducing it from,

[Page 9]1. A fixt proportion to the Cube of the Cubit.

2. From the proportion of a known part thereof to the Standard Congius of Vespasian, still at Rome: Besides other useful Methods from the Capa­city of Eggs, which the Rabbins much insist on; and from the Weight and known Number of solid Inches of Water, that would fill either it, or its known aliquot parts.

Only I think fit here to advertise the Reader, that he is not to be of­fended, if he find some difference in the issue of the several Methods of investigating the Epha: because in all, I pretend not to Mathematical pre­ciseness in determining it; but in some have stated it as thereabouts. Yet observe that the finding it by the soild Inches of 1000 Ounces of Water, which is the least, doth not differ a Pint from the biggest Con­tent, deduced Mathematically from the Cubits Cube. And this small difference might arise, either from the neglect of Workmen, makers of Measures, who in making an Epha by Cubit-Measure, consider'd not the [Page 10] Centesimal parts of an Inch in the Cubit, as my Account doth: or else I may affirm that the Rain-water of those hotter Countries is lighter than our Fountain-water is; and therefore a thousand Ounces of such Water would fill up more solid Inches of room, than so many Ounces of our Water doth: and by either of these ways, the difference of the Accounts may be fully reconciled, or by the concurrence of them both.

Lastly; I descend to consider She­kel, and both to state its Weight ex­actly, and thence to deduce other Weights, and their Value in our pre­sent Coin. To which I shall say no­thing here, having produc'd, I think abundant evidence in that Chapter, which by help of the harmony in the last Chapter will prove all the other.

By help of this method, I have en­deavoured to make this Doctrine, hi­therto very intricate and uncertain, more easy, exact, and uniform than I found it; constantly reducing all our Measures of Length and Capacity to Inch-Measure, with its Decimals, as more commonly understood than Foot-Measure: [Page 11] reducing also Weights ra­ther to our Averdupois, with its De­cimals, than to the Troy Ounce; be­cause I have prov'd the Ounce Aver­dupois, to be exactly equal to the old Roman Ounce, and to be just equal to two Jewish Shekels, the conjunction of two Shekels, I believe, is the true original of it.

By this means, the several parts of this Enquiry, will help to illustarate and prove the truth of the other; the Measures of length will clear those of Capacity: and both of them may be proved or restored by help of the Weights. Only its requisite that the Student hereof should be acquainted with Decimal Arithmetic, and a little Geometry; otherwise the necessary Reductions, and some reasonings here made use of, will not be fully under­stood: However such Mathematical Reasons may safely be supposed true, because they have been examined and found so, by the most competent Judges in these cases.

CHAP. II. Of the Ammah, or Jewish Cubit, with the Measures thence determined.

MY designed Method obliges me in this Chapter to do three things:

1. To shew, that the present E­gyptian Cubit, is their old one, con­tinued to this day.

2. That the Jews Cubit, or Am­mah, was of the same length with the old one of Egypt.

3. To deduce the length of other Jewish long Measures from hence.

1. This being now in possessi­on, is favoured by presumption that it was so always, or in Moses his time; unless the contrary be shew'd, and the time of the change can be sufficiently proved. But of such change, or introduction of a new Cubit into Egypt, I cannot find the least intimation in History: on the [Page 13] contrary, we find it asserted by the Arabians, Patricides, and Elmacinus, and the Nubian Geographer, whose words may be seen in Hottinger's Smegma Orientale, and other Proofs in Kircher, that the Nilometrion, or Co­lumn divided into Egyptian Cubits, to measure the increase of the over­flowings of Nile, are as old as the time of Joseph's Regency there; yea, and that he first made them. Now because the same height of its increase, viz. about 16 Cubits, is agreed in all Ages (Herodotus, and the latest Writers consent herein) to have been necessary to the fruitfulness of Egypt; it follows, that this Cubit must all along be the same, sixteen lesser Cubits would be insufficient, bigger would be prejudi­cial. Here we have a natural necessity to keep to the same measure from the time of its first Constitution; and this natural Reason is a thing of so great consequence to the welfare of a whole Kingdom, that none can be thought of sufficient to move any Governour to alter it; nor can the inferiour People have any cause, or any ability to make such alteration; the Publick Standards [Page 14] being so religiously kept, first in the Temple of Serapis (besides on the Ni­lometrion) and afterwards in the Chri­stian Churches.

Hereunto we may add that which Proclus hath suggested concerning the Necessity and Antiquity of Geome­try among the Egyptians, that Nile, by its Annual overflow, used to cover with Mud the common Boundaries of Mens Land, viz. Stones, and Tren­ches, or Ditches; whence it became necessary to them, to determine, pre­serve, and recover each Man's proper quantity thereof, by exact measure of its Area or Surface, which must be found, by knowing the length of the Sides, and of the Perpendiculars of Triangles; or of Rectangular Paral­lellograms, into which any Plot of Ground may easily be cast, to which purpose they must necessarily study the first Elements of Geometry. But I must add, that they must also ne­cessarily fix, and Reason would ad­vise them to be constant to some Standard-measure of length; by the Repetition and Parts whereof, they might determine the lengths of the [Page 15] sides of those Figures that contained their land. And we know also that their Cubit was their primary Measure: By this they setled the length of their [...], which Herodotus mentions as used in Survey, because consisting of a known number of Cubits, it sa­ved the repeating of a Cubit so often, and was easily resolved into the num­ber of which it did consist. Where­fore to make any change in their Cu­bit would have been very unadvisea­ble, and apt to endanger loss in all sorts of Mens Estates, which had been setled by another Cubit before▪ And such change could never be ne­cessary, because the first setled Cubit, and its Parts, would certainly attain all the Ends of exact measuring, as well as any other Cubit that could be introduced, and might justly challenge to be preferred before any later, by its being setled and in possession already.

The Strength of this Reason may be understood more clearly by help of an Example, which I re­member in Herodotus his Euterpe. There he tells us, that in Egypt their setled Militia consisted of these two [Page 16] sorts of Souldiers, who were esteemed above all Tradesmen, the Hermoty­bie, and the Calasiries. The full num­ber of the latter of these was 250000 Men, who in courses were their Kings Guards, and every one of them had to maintain him and his Family, Land (free from Taxes) whose A­rea, or Superficial Content, was 12 Arourae, each Aroura being 100 Cubits on every side; which imports that it was the Square of an 100 Cubits. Wherefore to know how much Land this was in our Measure, I took the Cairo Cubit an hundred times, which is 182.4 in our foot-measure, as may be inferred from Mr. Greaves his Table: and by squaring this Number, I find an Aroura to be 33269.76 Square Feet English; which is considerably less than one English Acre, for that contains 43560 Square Feet. Hence it will follow that 12 Arourae will a­mount to 399237.12 Square Feet. And this divided by the Feet of an English Acre, will quote 9.165: which de­monstrates that the Land of each Ca­lasyry amounted to 9 English Acres, and .165 Millessimals of an Acre, [Page 17] or 1 tenth part of an Acre, 6 Cents, &c. above the 9 intire Acres: And it's clear that so much good Land lying where he places it, might maintain any of them with his Family very well. But if this Cubit were changed, whereby so many thousand Estates were set out, it must needs make a great change in all these Estates, consisting of so much Land set out by this first number of Cubits; which are now supposed to be all altered, and great disorder must be expected among these Men in whom the strength of the Kingdom chiefly lay. For if a longer Cubit were taken, those of them that were first served, would have more Land in each Aroura; but then there would be none left for those that should come to be served last; or else they must trespass upon the Land that did not belong to the Militia, which would beget Discontent and Sedition: if they took a less Cubit, this would lessen all the Souldiers Estates, more than any Man unskill'd in Geometry can expect, and would beget a Muti­ny, for want of a sufficient Mainte­nance for the Souldiers and their Fa­milies, [Page 18] as may appear by this In­stance: Suppose that instead of the Cairo-Cubit the Arourae of the Calasy­ries should be set out by the Roman-Cubit, which is not quite 4 Inches shorter, amounting, in our English Foot-measure, to 1.45, as may be in­ferred from Mr. Greaves his Table. An hundred such Cubits are 145 Feet, and the Square thereof making an Aroura, would be 21025 square Feet, and 12 such Arourae would be 252300 square Feet, which amount to little above 5 Acres, and three quarters, or Roods. Whereby its evident that much above a third part of every Souldier's Estate would be taken away; whence nothing less than great Distress in all their Families, and Rebellion against their Governors must be expected.

Concerning the Antiquity of these Arourae, I cannot find when they were introduced into Egypt; For though Herodotus do not mention them till he speaks of Apries King of Egypt, whom Chronologers agree to be that Phara­oh who is called Hophra in our Bibles; yet he supposes them setled on the Military Men before his Time, and [Page 19] confines them to twelve of those Nomi, which are Shires or Praefectures in E­gypt, of which Sesostris, the most Mar­tial King of Egypt, was the Author or Founder; which makes me conje­cture that he setled these Arourae on the Souldiers, as well as that Division of the whole Land into 36 Nomi. If this be admitted, they were much el­der than Moses his Time, according to the first Book of Eusebius his Canon Chronicus in Graec. where he from A­fricanus, and he out of Manetho the Egyptian Priest, places Sesostris in the twelfth Dynasti, and afterwards pla­ces Moses in the eighteenth. Yet they will be of Antiquity sufficient to my Concern, if Sesostris setled them a­bout Moses's Time; to which the Learned Bishop Vsher makes Sesostris contemporary. But however this be stated, when I compare 100 Cubits, the side of an Egyptian Arourae, with 1000 Cubits, the side of the Side of the Levites Glebe-land in their Sub­urbs, and observe the decuple propor­tion exactly kept between them, I cannot but think both these Measures were used in the same Age; and that [Page 20] the way of setting out Land in the Jewish and Egyptian Countries, was near of Kin to each other, which serves my main End; although it be more than I was obliged to prove in this Paragraph, where I undertake only to evince that the Cubit in E­gypt could not easily be altered, with­out making great disturbance, or making new Measures to all their Estates hereby determined, which I suppose I have prov'd.

Besides, if it had been altered, it's reasonable to presume it must be by some of the great Empires who con­quer'd Egypt, who would have intro­duced their own Cubit: but that was not done, for the Babylonian Cubit of five Palms is shorter, that of six Palms the same with this (as we shall hereafter shew) and so need­ed make no alteration. The Greek and Roman Cubits are known to be shorter also than this: and the Turks, under whom they now are, have not introduced their Pike, corrupted of [...] or Cubit; for whereas there are two Standard-Pikes at Constantinople, they are both much longer than this [Page 21] now at Cairo, as may be seen in Mr. Greaves Table of Measures, compa­red with the Roman & English Foot.

I shall add, as over-weight, to con­clude this first Assertion, a probable Argument founded upon this proba­ble Principle; that the Ancient Ar­chitects, being left to their liberty of designing the outmost Lines of a stately Building, would chuse to deter­mine them by some round even Num­ber of the most known Measure where­by they wrought. So God himself de­sign'd the Ark's Dimensions in such numbers of Cubits; its length 300, its breadth 50, its height 20; all round even numbers: the like even numbers we find chosen in the measures of the Temple, 2 Chron. 3.3 length 60, breadth 20 Cubits; and the Oracle a perfect Cube of 20 Cubits in length, breadth, and height, 1 Kings 6.20. So the Learned Greaves found the Marble Stones of the Pavement of the most accurately built Pantheon at Rome, the larger of them precisely three Roman Feet, the less of them just half so much: which shews they took care to determine them precisely by their [Page 22] most known Measure, the Foot, or its most obvious part, the half Foot; and though the Number be not even, yet constant respect is had to even Feet, or equal division into Halves. Such respect therefore I hoped to find the old Egyptians to have had to their Measure the Cubit, in building the greatest Pyramid, and in deter­mining the outward Measures of the Tomb contained in it.

Wherefore, remembring that Mr. Greaves had given us exactly in our English Foot-Measure, the sides of the Base of the greatest Pyramid; and the length of the Tombstone con­tained in it, both which fall into odd Numbers and Fractions of our Measure, by which they were not de­signed; I resolved to try the Reduc­tion of this Foot-measure (which he had taken) into Cairo-Cubits, and I found them both to fall into round very convenient Numbers of Cairo-Cubits, making very reasonable allowance for such small error, as may justly, or ra­ther necessarily be supposed to have fallen out, either in the first measuring of the Pyramid's Base, or in the late [Page 23] measuring which Mr. Greaves perfor­med, and I least suspect.

Particularly, First, the sides of the square Base of the greatest Pyramid are delivered, p. 68, of his Pyramidographia, to be 693 English Feet. For reduction these must be divided by 1.824, which is his length of the Cairo-Cubit in our foot-measure, the quote is, 379.934, which is so very little short of 380 Cairo-Cubits, that I think it reasonable to believe, that the old Architects de­signed just this even number of Egyp­tian Cubits. For if we suppose Mr. Greaves to have missed but .12 of a Foot, which is not one Inch and an half in taking this long Measure of near 700 Feet, then the side must be put 693.12: this Number divided by 1.824, will give precisely, 380.

Or rather, if we suppose the old Ar­chitects Cubit to have been but one thousanth part of a Foot shorter than the present Standard (and such error is scarce perceptible by Mens Eyes▪ and there is greater difference in al­lowed Measures try'd by the Stan­dard, and ordinarily used) its de­monstrable that such a Cubit being [Page 24] repeated 380 times, would make the side of the Base shorter than now it is found; for 380 multiplied into 1.823, produceth but 692.74, which is shor­ter than Mr. Greaves hath found it. Wherefore since such small difference from Mathematical Exactness of Computation must necessarily fall out, in designing such vast Foundations, either▪ from imperceptible difference in the Measure applied, or from in­equality of Ground, or oversight of Workmen: I conclude, that the Measure at first intended, was just 380 Egyp­tian Cubits. And I incline to it the rather, because the Square of this Number, which is the Area of the Pyramid's Base, is as remarkable a Square as can be pitch'd upon in the whole Table of Powers of Number, viz. 144400, and might therefore more easily please the mind of the De­signer.

2. In like manner I remembred, that Greaves, p. 96, 97, gives the length of the Exteriour Surface of the Tomb, contained in the midst of the greatest Pyramid, to be in our Foot-measure 7.296. This reduced into [Page 25] Cairo-Cubits, by dividing by 1.824, gives just four such Cubits: and if there be found a difference in the Mil­lesimal Parts of the Foot-measure, (which I cannot now correct, having not the Book by me, but my own Notes taken out of it) I am sure it is less than a Barly-corns breadth.

Wherefore that Tomb, or Stone-Coffins length, may reasonably be judged to have been designed just four of their ancient Cubits. And this designment could not agree so exactly with the same number of their present Cubits, unless the old Measure had been continued unto this day. Thus this Tomb will preserve to us the old Egyptian Cubit, four times repeated, as the Monument of Cossutius at Rome preserves the old Roman Foot: but with more significancy concerning the usual proportion observed of old in humane Bodies; that in most comely shaped Bodies, the length, from the Elbow to the Fingers end (called a Cubit) being four times repeated, gives the Stature or Tallness of a Man. And the differnce between the length of the hollow part of this Coffin, fit­ted [Page 26] to his Body that should lie therein; and the length of its exteriour Surface might instruct the beholders how much shorter he was than those elder and taller Men, from whose Arms, it's credible that the Egyptian Cubit was taken at the first; this difference was very near an English Foot.

Upon review of both these Instan­ces, I cannot believe that the old E­gyptian Builders of this Pyramid and Tomb, could make them by chance to agree with such well-chosen even Numbers of the Cairo-Cubit, if the same Measure had not then been in use, and had not guided them in their Work; it being scarce possible that they should design and work by some other Measure, and pitch upon other fitting Numbers of such Measure, and yet that the Work remaining should so justly agree with both other well-chosen Numbers and Measures, and with these also.

For proof of the second Propositi­on, viz. That the Jews Cubit was of the length or measure with the old (or new) Egyptian, I offer some ge­neral [Page 27] Evidence from Historical Obser­vation of these and older Times, use­ful to this and other Measures.

2 dly, Particular Evidence.

1. The Mosaical History assures us, that the Jews Progenitors went into Egypt, a then flourishing King­dom, in the condition of a Family of about 70 Men, and were there Sub­jects at the best, who must use in all Commerce, the legal Measures of the Kingdom in which they dwell, and not long after were made Bondmen, who cannot be supposed to be allowed to make Laws to keep distinct Mea­sures and Weights from the Nation which they serve. This little and low Estate they were in about 200 Years before their deliverance, and therefore must needs know the Egyp­tians Measures, but cannot be pre­sumed (and proof there is none) to have any distinct peculiar to them­selves.

Wherefore Moses often mentioning in his Laws, Weights and Measures, must needs mean, and by the Is­raelites be understood to speak of such as they know before in Egypt: [Page 28] for he never constitutes in his Law a new Cbit or Epha; and therefore pre­sumes them to know what Measures those words signify, by former use of them. Now it's evident that they and their Fore-fathers for above 200 Years must needs use the Measures of that Kingdom in which they were Sub­jects, and in whose Markets they must buy and sell for so long a time.

And certainly it was neither un­lawful nor dishonourable, in any comparison with Slavery, to use the publick Measures of a Kingdom, fa­mous for greatest skill in the Art thereof: on the contrary, Moses is ce­lebrated for being skilful in all Egyp­tian Learning, of which Geometry and Arithmetick, both used in measu­ring, are the best parts.

Nor were the Jews so shy of imi­tating Egyptians, but that they did many of them receive a strong tin­cture of their Idolatry, their greatest degeneracy; and therefore would more easily comply with them in so lawful a practice as the use of their Measures was.

[Page 29]Besides, to take away all stumbling at this, I consider that it's highly pro­bable that the Egyptians received their Measures from their first King's (Mizraim) Authority, and he received them from his Ancestors, Ham and Noah: and so, I believe, did both Abraham's Family receive the same Measure from Noah, by the hands of Sem; and the Canaanites, with whom they dwelt before they came into Egypt, by the hands of Ham.

That the Philistines also in Canaan, before and after Moses his Time, used the same Cubit with the Egyptians, may be probably argued, partly from their descent from Mizraim, Gen. 10.6, 14. Partly from Herodotus in Eu­terpe his Affirmation, that the Cubit in Samos (which Bochartus hath pro­ved peopled from Palestine, i.e. the old Philistines) was the same with that in Egypt. For it's certain, that Mens Children, and the Colonies they send abroad, use to retain the Measures of their Ancestors.

Thus although the Jews Cubit be the same with that of Egypt; yet the Israelites might use it before as well as [Page 30] after their descent thither, both re­ceiving it from Noah and his Sons.

To which purpose I observe;

1. That there is no evidence that different Measures or Weights were yet introduced into those parts of the World.

2. It's evident by the Bishop of Armagh's Annals, that the Kingdom of Egypt was founded in the Year of the World 1816, which was 190 Years before the Death of Noah.

Now, Civil Government cannot be supposed to be without determi­nate Measures and Weights: nor is there any reason to believe, that Ham or Mizraim, in the life-time of Noah, could be unacquainted with those which he used, or could see any cause to alter them in his Life-time. They may justly be supposed to have had oc­cassion in that time of 190 Years, to have frequent commerce with him, and his Descendents, dwelling in o­ther Lands: and such Commerce would be facilitated by keeping the same Measures and Weights, but would be made more troublesome by changing them.

[Page 31]3. It appears by the same Chrono­logy, that from the death of Noah, to Joseph's Promotion and Authority in Egypt, there were but 283 Years, in which interval no change of Mea­sures, from what Noah's Family used, is read of. And that his Re­gency continued 80 Years; so that from his Death to their departure out of Egypt, were but 144 Years, to Moses his Birth but 64 Years. And several Arabian Wri­ters affirm, that Joseph, during his Regency there, set up the Nilometri­on, or Column, for measuring the In­creases of Nile; which Column is now divided by this Egyptian Cubit, and must reasonably be judged from the first to have been divided by the same; because, in all Ages the same number of Cubits, in the overflow, have been esteemed necessary for the judging of Plenty or Scarcity like to follow in that Country. And there is reason to believe, that the Column when divided by him into Cubits, was divided according to a Cubit that had been used and known before his Time, above 283 Years, constancy in these things being usual in all setled Dominions, is to be presumed rather than change, of which there can no proof be offered. And there are ma­ny Instances of Measures being pre­serv'd [Page 32] unaltered for a longer time than that, as we shall hereafter shew.

Now I only suggest, that the Nu­meration by Decads, hath been kept among all Nations, that I know of, from the eldest times of History; and yet it's as alterable by humane Autho­rity, or Agreement, as the Measure by Cubits and Epha's &c. or as the Cize of such Measures. Now that these Measures and Weights were of elder use than Jacob's descent into E­gypt, may be argued;

1. From the Measure whereby Noah's Ark was designed, viz. round even Numbers of Cubits, and such Cubits as were used and known in Moses his Time, else it would have been in vain to have described its Measures by a word whose sense was unknown. And if Noah's Cubit had been a different Measure from the Mo­saical Cubit, Moses must have reduced that into the then known Measure, be­fore he wrote the History, which we have reason to believe he did not; be­cause it cannot be expected that such [Page 33] different Measure would, upon re­duction, have fallen into such even round Numbers as Moses sets down; its length just 300 Cubits, breadth 50, height 20. The same reason holds in 16 Cubits height of the Flood above the Hills. So also we read of Sarah's preparing three Seahs of Meale, which are an Epha (the chief Measure of Capacity, and the sixth part of the Cube of a Cubit, as hereafter I shall shew) long before the Egyptian Bondage.

We have also Shekels, the Original Weight mentioned in Abraham's Time, both in Abimelecb's Gift to Sarah, as the Septuagint and Targum Onkelos express it, Gen. 20.16: and in his purchase from Ephron the Hit­tite, in the Hebrew Bible, Gen. 23.15, 16. And just before Jacob's going into Egypt, his Mony out of Canaan passing by its Weight (which there­fore must be agreed on) in Egypt, Gen. 43.21. And there being no Mark to distinguish these Weights and Mea­sures before the descent into Egypt, from those of the same name men­tioned by the same Writer after it; [Page 34] it is to be presumed, they signify the same quantities exactly, else the Word must be equivocal, which ought not to be presumed without full proof.

2. For special evidence of the equality of the Jewish & Egyptian Cubit, it wil be requisite to reduce this Cubit to our Inch-measure, and Decimals there­of. Whereas Mr. Greaves hath given us it from Cairo-Standard, in English Foot-measure, thus, 1.824, that is, 1 Foot, 8 Tenths of a Foot, 2 Cente­simals, and 4 Millesimals of the same Foot; most Englishmen will more clearly apprehend its length, when re­duced thus, 21.888, that is 21 In­ches, 8 Tenths of an Inch, and as many hundreth and thousanth parts of an Inch.

A Geometric Method to exhibit to the Eye, those small parts of an Inch, as in the Scheme hereunto annexed.

The whole Line is an English Foot divided into 12 Inches; each Inch also is divided into Parts called Decimals. Only I have annexed to this Foot, a very short Line, that's but the twentieth part of an Inch, or, [Page 35] 05, five Centesimals; because our Foot, with this small addition, is (proxime) the side of a Cube, con­taining the true Epha, or Bath, as I have endeavoured to demonstrate in its proper place.

The first ten Inches thereof, numbred from the right-hand towards the left, are contrived so as to be the Base of a Right-angled Triangle, whose Ca­thetus is but one tenth part of an Inch high, and its Hypotenuse is drawn sloping from the top of the Cathetus to the beginning of the Base. The use of this Triangle is this; Parallel Lines to the Cathetus, taken between this Base and this Hypotenuse, with Compasses, or observed by our Eyes, are true Centesimal or Millesimal Parts of our Inch, often mentioned in this Treatise: they are Centesimals, when taken from the just Inches of the Base; Millesimals, when from the Decimals of an Inch. So a Perpendicular from 4 in the Base up to the Hypotenuse, is just 4 Centesimals: and if it be taken from 8 tenths of an Inch, further to­wards the left hand, the Perpendicu­lar will be 4 Centesimals, and 8 Mille­simal [Page 36] Parts of an Inch; which being added to 3 Inches, and 6 Tenths, al­ready actually divided on the Line▪ will give us a precise Jewish Palm▪ So .912 the Digit, and (Inches) 10.944 is the Jewish Span, or half a Cubit; and therefore being doubled, gives the whole Cubit. Wherefore these Lengths are marked in a distinct Line near the Base of our Triangle, that the redu­ctions to Inch-measure made in this Discourse, may be more fully under­stood by beginners in this Skill.

Arg. 1. From the Number and determinate measure of 6 such Palms agreed generally by Christians, Jews▪ Persian and Arabian Mahumedans to constitute the Jewish Cubit: The Sum or Result of which, agrees ex­actly with the Egyptian Cubit now specified. Among Christians, I will only mention Jerom on Ezekiel, and elsewhere generally. The Jews may be seen cited in Arias Montanus his Tubal Cain; in Waser, and Hottin­ger's Preface to his Book de Cippis. Persians and Arabians own this in ge­neraller terms concerning the Eastern [Page 37] Cubits, elder and later, as Greaves hath produced them in his Tract of the Roman Foot, and his Preface to the Description of Chorasmia, by Abul­feda.

I avoid the dispute about different Cubits; it seems to me all founded in the more indefinite signification of Ammah; which it's certain from the Arabic, signifies often generally any Measure, whereby the Dimensions of Bodies are adjusted. Now because this may be done by any known length divided into known parts, or repeated as need requires; it's no wonder if it were done sometimes by a Rule divided into five hand­breadths, sometimes by one of six, other times by one of eight hands breadth, as convenience might prompt. But the legal setled or sacred Stan­dard, most properly or peculiarly cal­led Ammah, or Cubitus Verissimus, as the Vulgar Latin translates it, in Ezek. 43.13. this all agree to be of six Palms.

This proper Standard-Cubit only I took as the rule of other Measures; and I believe the Scripture always means this, when it useth Ammah [Page 38] without any mark of distinction or limitation in the Context: for words of different significations being set alone, are to be understood in their most famous or noted sense; else there will be so much place for equi­vocation, that the use of all Speech and Writings, even of the Bible, will be destroy'd. And the Scripture marking out a distinction in a few places, shews it was carefully writ­ten; and that that distinction is not to be understood, where not express'd. Non est distinguendum, ubi lex non di­stinguit. Exceptio sirmat regulam i [...] non exceptis.

Particularly; I observe non inti­mating a difference of Cubits, but one in Moses his Books, Deut. 3.11▪ where speaking of the Dimensions of the Bed of Og, a Foreigner from Is­rael, who therefore had not respect to the Jewish Standard, he saith, his Bed was measured by the Cubit of a Man, i. e. an ordinary Man, not like him; and a more precise Measure in this case was not at all needful. The other two places that intimate some difference of Cubits, are in Ezek. 40 [Page 39] 5. & 43.13. Now he writing while he was Captive in Babylonia, must be thought to have observed that Mea­sure differing from the Jewish Stan­dard, was there often used, even by the Jews also, who must use the Mea­sures allowed in the Kingdom where they live; and therefore being to give them the Measures of the future Temple, he was obliged to intimate that the Cubits whereby they were expressed, were not such as in this Foreign Kingdom they oft used, but longer by one hands breadth.

This being premised, I pursue my Argument, by shewing, that the Eastern People determined their Di­git, and consequently this hand­breadth, by the breadth of six Barly-Corns making a Digit, 24 a hand­breadth, as appears, not only by the Jews, but by the Nubian-Geography, Ali Kushgi, Abulfeda, &c. taking or­dinary Barly; yet the better and plum­per, rather than the worse: Optimum in suo genere mensura reliquorum. Now six such Grains (any Man's Eyes may satisfy him) will make a­bove 9 Tenths of an Inch English; and [Page 40] although there be some inconstancy in different Grains, it may rationally be fix'd in order to a setling a Standard, at .912 of an Inch, as a middle rate, which is sometimes exceeded by Na­ture, but oftner she falleth short of it; that is, the Eastern Digit may be exactly stated at 9 Tenths of our Inch, 1 Centesimal, 2 Millesimal parts thereof.

Wherefore since there be 4 Digits in a Palm, it shall be by Multiplica­tion of .912 into 4, 3.648; that is, 3 Inches, 6 Tenths, &c. And the Digit .912, multiplied by 24, pro­duceth 21.888, which is just the Cairo-Cubit, as was to be demon­strated.

Here observe, that this Hands-breadth, and Digit, agree well enough with middle-siz'd Men among us; and these may well be kept constant in this Sandard, as so agreeable, both to the nature of the Vegetable Barly, and the animated useful part of Man, which were before Standards, and these derived from them: whereas in Measures more lately constituted, as the Greek and Roman Cubit and Foot, [Page 41] it's manifest that they make their dif­ferent Palms, and Fingers-breadth, by first fixing the Cubit or Foot, then dividing the Foot into 12 parts, and calling them, though different in the several Notions, by the Names of Fin­gers and Palms, to which they are somewhat near, but with great un­certainty.

My first Argument bore upon Na­tures usual bigness of Barly, compa­red with the agreed number of Fin­gers-breadths and Palms in the Jews Cubit, adjusted with the Egyptian: My Second shall be from Divine Au­thority, of Ezek. 43.13. parallel to 40.5. describing the Cubit the Altar should be built by, to be a Cubit and a Hands-breadth. The most natural Exposition of which place, I con­ceive to be this, that they should de­termine the Altar's Measure by a Cu­bit, which should contain one Hands-breadth more, than that Cubit which they now ordinarily saw and used in the Babylonians Country, where now they were Captives.

[Page 42]Hence I infer two things useful to my purpose.

1. That the Hands-breadth was a Measure fully known and agreed of in Babyloniae, the same that in Judaea: For if they had differed in this, as they did in the usual Cubit, it had been in vain for the Prophet to de­scribe the Sacred Cubit by an additio­nal Hands-breadth, whose true quan­tity was as unknown to them, as the true quantity of the Sacred Cubit is intimated to be: he ought first to have stated a Sacred or true Jewish Hands-breadth; but he not doing so, and yet purposing to lead them to an exact Jewish Cubit, by these words implies the Hands-breadth used in Ba­bylon and Judaea to be the same. Other Hands-breadths, as the Roman and Greek, differ considerably, as their Feet do.

2. Because it's agreed that the Jew­ish Cubit was just six Hands-breadths, and affirmed here to be one more than the Babylonian; it follows that the Babylonian now used, was but of five Hands-breadths in length: wherefore in our Inch-measure, if we substract the [Page 43] Hands-breadth 3.648, from 21.888 the Cubit, the Remainder is the Ba­bylonian Cubit 18.240, which is not a quarter of an Inch longer than ours. And the addition of this Palm to 18.24, makes the Egyptian Cubit as before: Or rather thus, 6 multiplied into the Hands-breadth 3.648, pro­duceth 21.888.

I am confirmed in belief of such a Babylonian Cubit often used, as dif­fered in number of Hands-breadths, but agreed in the quantity of every single one, by these things;

1. By a Testimony out of the Mis­ne Chilaim, cap. 17. cited by Arias Montanus; that there were two Standard-Cubits kept in Susan, which he referrs to, one of five Palms, the other of six. And Dr. Castle in his Lexicon in Ammah, proves from Jo­phe Toar, that there were even in the Sanctuary, Cubits (or Measures) of 5, 6, and 10 Palms; which might all be of convenient use, for the measure of little and greater Lengths, if they agreed in the quantity of the Palms whereof they were made; because all Sums of Length measured by them, [Page 44] might easily be divided by 6, and so reduced to the setled Standard of six Hands-breadths; but otherwise such diversity of Measures must breed infi­nite confusion and uncertainty.

So we can find the number of our Yards in any length, as a Mile, al­though we measure it either with a two-foot Rule, that is shorter, or with a Pole of 16 Foot and an half, that's so much longer; but still the Stan­dard-foot must be supposed in both of them to be fixed; only we find it convenient, both for dispatch and truth, in measuring greater Lengths, to use such longer Measures, as have in them the shorter, often exactly re­peated.

2. By a Testimony of Abulfedas, who in the Preface to his Description of Chorasmia, informs us, that the Ancients used another Cubit, consist­ing of 32 Digits (that is, eight Palms) besides that of 24 Digits, or 6 Palms: yet this made no real difference in their Measures, because they all a­greed in the Quantity of the Digits, and in the Sum of them, and conse­quently in the Quantity and Sum of the Palms.

[Page 45]3. By a passage in Herodotus, (who flourish'd not much above 100 Years after Ezekiel) in his Clio, describing the height of the Wall of Babylon to be 200 Cubits, adds for greater exact­ness, that they were Royal Cubits, which are three Fingers-breath lon­ger than the [...], moderate­siz'd Cubit.

Hereby he seems to intimate these two things to my purpose.

1. That the Babylonians had, and might most obviously have been con­ceived by his Reader, to have used a middle-sized Cubit, meaning, one like the Greek Cubit; for to such Readers use he wrote: but he informs them, that in determining the Wall's Height, they used a longer, called the Royal Cubit.

2. He informs us, that that Royal Cubit, was 3 Fingers-breadth longer than the other. Here by Herodotus his Fingers-breadth, I think we must understand, Greek Inches, which they called [...], because he wrote for the use of the Greeks, who must not be supposed generally to understand the Babylonian Fingers-breadth.

[Page 46]This sense of Herodotus being ad­mitted, we have here intimated all that I designed in this Argument to prove; viz. That the Babylonians had two Cubits; one of a cize near agree­ing with the Greeks, which differs very little from our English Cubit; and which being shorter, might be oft­ner used: another, a Hands-breadth longer: for three Greek Inches are somewhat more than three of ours, and the Eastern Hands-breadth we have shewed to be but three of our Inches with a Fraction annex'd, which was too nice a Matter for the Histo­rian to take notice of.

And agreeably hereto I find, that Almamon the Learned Calif of Baby­lon, about 900 Years ago, did make use of such a Royal Cubit, consisting of six Palms, in the measuring of a Degree of a great Circle of the Earth on the Plain Sinaar.

The Issue of these Observations, in relation to the Text of Ezekiel, is this; that whereas there was a less Cubit of five Palms, often used in Ba­bylonia, the Prophet informs them, that they should not determine the [Page 47] Altar's Measure by his numbers of Cubits in that short one; but in the larger Cubit, called the Great Cubit, Ezek. 41.8. which had a Palm added thereunto; and was the fitter, as agreeing with both the ancient Mea­sure of the Sacred Buildings; and al­so with the Royal Standard of the Prince under whom now they were. Which Royal Cubit, I suppose to have been kept there from the Ages nearest to Noah; as the Egyptian, with which it agrees, we have suggested to have been setled by Mizraim, and derived from Noah.

In passing through this Argument, we have observed a near agreement between the Babylonian lesser Cubit of five Palms, and the Greek Cubit, which Herodotus supposeth known by his Readers. I will now express it precisely, that of Babylon in our Inch-measure, I said, was 18.24; that of the old Greeks was, 18.13; the diffe­rence is not a Barly-corns breadth. And our Cubit is no more less than the Greeks.

This makes me conjecture, that the first Planters of Greece coming from [Page 48] Asia, brought thence that Measure: a little neglect, in process of time, might easily make those small Alterations. Agreeably hereunto I find in these Western and Northern Parts, very near approaches to the Eastern Cubit of six Palms: for such is the Ell at Frankford on the Main, at Florence, and at Dantzick; and such is the Stan­dard Foot at Riga; as may be seen in the Table of Foreign Measures, given us by Sir Samuel Moreland.

Third Proof taken from the Mea­sure of the outward Wall of the Tem­ple, which is given by Josephus and the Talmudists, in very different Mea­sure; whereof Josephus his Measure seems to be the Jewish Stadium, or Furlong, composed of 400 Jewish Cubits; and the Talmudist's Measure is 500 Roman Cubits; which they may reasonably be presumed to mea­sure by, because when they wrote, the Jewish Polity had been dissolved some Centuries of Years; but the Roman Monarchy, and consequently the knowledg of their Measures, flou­rished. By comparing these, Jacobus Capellus hath stated the Jewish Cubit [Page 49] to be to the Roman, as five is to four; which is the only way to reconcile Jo­sephus with the Talmudists, in a Mat­ter wherein they may both be presu­med to have been good Witnesses, suffi­ciently skilful, careful and faithful. For proof of this Proposition of Jew­ish and Roman Cubits, Jacobus Capell. de Mens. &c. may be consulted. An Epitome of his Argument is delivered by his Kinsman Ludovicus Capellus, in his Discourses about the Temple, prin­ted in our Polyglot. Pag. 23. Col. 1. a­bout the middle.

That which I have to supperadd to him, is;

1. To reduce the Roman, and thence his Jewish Cubit, to our Eng­lish Inch-measure.

2. To shew that his Jewish Cubit, so found, comes within a Barly-corns breadth of the Egyptian Standard; which yet I suppose he knew nothing of, but which is my main Concern to prove. These I shall soon dispatch together.

For Reduction, observe, that the Roman Foot, on the Monument of Cossutius, now by most thought the [Page 50] truest, in English Inches and Deci­mals thereof, is 11.604; to which if we add half thereof, we have the Roman Cubit in our Inches, 17.406. Then by Capellus his Proportion, as 4 is to 5, so is the Roman Cubit 17.406, to the Jewish 21.757. Thus his Ar­gument, from the measure of the Tem­ple's outward Wall, finds such a Jew­ish Cubit; as wants little above one tenth part of an Inch of the Cairo-Cubit. And it's no wonder, if in such a length as a Furlong, such a lit­tle quantity be mist (from the Cubit) which is less than a Barly-corns breadth: therefore I may even hence conclude, that these Cubits agreed.

Nevertheless I will suggest, that there is another Roman Foot a little different from the forementioned, that on the Monument of Statilius, which in our Inches is 11.664: if this be ra­ther chosen, (as it hath some great Approvers) the Roman Cubit will be 17.496; and by the former propor­tion, the Jewish will be 21.87; which is nearer our aim, the Difference being only one Centesimal part of an Inch▪ But the former Approach satisfies me.

[Page 51]The fourth Argument, shall be from the consent of some Learned of the East, if not to the Word, or particu­lar Standard that I point at, yet to a Measure agreeing therewith, which is the thing I seek. Here I shall first mention Abulfeda, whom Kircher in his Oedipus cites, expresly affirming, that the Jew's legal Cubit, was equal to the Egyptian Cubit of 24 Digits, which he calls their less Cubit, in comparison with a longer Measure sometime used by the Egyptians, con­sisting of 32 Digits, or eight Palms. Now Abulfeda being King of Hamath, a City and Territory very near Judea, and not far from Egypt, and exceeding curious and diligent in the Doctrine of Measures in the East, I confide very much in his Testimony, agreeing with such Reason as I have before pro­duced. But Kircher appears not to have known the Egyptian Standard, and therefore could not improve this Testimony of Abulfeda, to the deter­mining of Scripture-Measures; and Abulfeda being a Mahumedan Prince, although not unacquainted [Page 52] with the Bible, yet took no care to explain the peculiar Measures thereof, which is my Business.

Another Testimony I shall offer from a Learned Jew, Rabbi Gedaliah, who deduceth his Assertions from the Doctrine of Maimonides, who so throughly understood the Talmudists, that his Judgment may well represent the sense of all the Jews. But I take it rather from Gedaliah than the rest; because he, under the conduct of Mai­monides, and other Jews, hath ad­justed their Notion of their Cubit to a known Standard among us, viz. to the Standard of the Cubit or Ell of Bononia, where he resided. This Te­stimony of his may be seen cited at large, and translated by Hottinger, in the Preface to his Tract, de Cippis He­braicis: And the Bononian Ell is given us reduced to English Inch-measure, by my Honoured Friend Sir Samuel Moreland, and by Sir Jonas More, to be 25.76 Inches and Decimals.

Now, Gedaliah affirms two things in his Adjustment:

1. That 14 Jewish Digits are equal to half the Bononian Cubit: Whence [Page 53] I infer, that 28 such Digits are equal to the whole Bononian Cubit; and consequently that the Bononian Cubit, 25.76, being divided by 28, the Quote will be a Jewish Digit. This Quote is in Decimals of our Inch .92, a lit­tle bigger than the Jewish Digit by me formerly assigned, viz., 912; and therefore 24 such Digits will give a Jewish Cubit somewhat longer than mine, viz. his will be 22.08, which exceeds mine a little above the breadth of a Barly-corn, viz. 2 Tenths of an Inch.

But then in the second place he af­firms, that the Jewish Cubit is equal to ⅞ of the Bononian, wanting one Digit.

To examine this, and to compare it with his former Assertion, I found it necessary to divide the Bononian by 8:8) 25.76 (3.22; and this Quote so found, must be multiplied by 7, the Product is 22.54. Hence substract 1 Digit (by his Account) .92; the Re­mainder is affirmed by him to be the Jews Cubit 21.62. Now, this is less than his former Account by .46, very near half an Inch; and is also [Page 54] less than the Cubit I assign 21.88, by above a quarter of an Inch, viz. by .26.

Thus it's plain that my Length as­signed to their Cubit, lies between his two Mistakes, which contradict each other; Nevertheless, I think he hath done us very good Service by the approaches to Truth, which are in both his Mistakes: and I see reason to believe, that in both these Attempts to express the Jewish by proportion to the Bononion-Cubit, he slipt only, through want of skill or accuracy in the Doctrine of Fractions, which if he had understood, he might have made his Accounts to agree better. However, the worst of his Accounts differs but a quarter of an Inch from me, and his other is nearer agree­ment; so that he differs more from himself than from me, or is nearer agreement with me than with him­self. And by his so near approach to me on each side, he confirms me in my Opinion, that I have assigned a Standard sufficiently agreeing with the Doctrine of the Jews concerning their own Nation's ancient Cubit, [Page 55] which is all I undertook in this Argu­ment.

After I had finish'd this Discourse, it was suggested to me, by a Learned Friend, that Rabbi Gedaliah's words, wherein he affirms the Jewish Cubit equal to ⅞ of the Bononian Cubit, wanting one Digit, are capable of a­nother sense than that wherein I took them, viz. he may mean, That a Digit—.92 Decimals of our Inch, be­ing taken out of the Bononian Cubit —25.76: the Remainder, which is 24.84, must be considered, and ⅞ of that will be the Jewish Cubit. Where­fore divide 24.84 by 8, it quotes 3.105: multiply this Quote by 7, the Product will be 21.735 for the Jewish Cubit, which differs from mine not much above 1 Tenth of an Inch; and therefore still the more confirms mine Assertion, and brings him nearer to agreement with himself, which makes his Testimony the more valuable.

My last Argument for this Cubit, should be taken from its greater fitness to all the uses, to which a Cubit-mea­sure is assigned in the Scripture. As [Page 56] to give more convenient grandeur to the Tabernacle, to the Temple, and to those other sacred Things that be­longed to God's Service in them both. But all these things will require larger Discourse than can be allowed in this Work. Wherefore I shall only in­stance in two things.

1. In the Height of the Table of Shew-bread, because the account of that will be very short, and yet seems clearly to favour this Measure which I have proposed. Moses expresseth its Height to be one Cubit and an half, Exod. 25.23. This, in my Account, ariseth to above 32 Inches and three quarters, viz. in Decimals 32.83, which is a convenient height for a Table. But if we take a shorter Cu­bit, suppose the old Roman Cubit, its height will be, in English Measure, but two Foot and two Inches above the Floor, which seems very inconve­nient for a Table.

2. In the Capacity of Noah's Ark, of which because the most Learned Dr. Wilkins hath written very parti­cularly, I will only add this general Remark; That if instead of a Cubit [Page 57] of 18 Inches, our Cubit which is 21.888 be admitted, the Capacity of the Ark, built according to Moses his Numbers of Cubits, will be very near twice as great, which will make it much more convenient for all the Ends to which it was designed. For such an Ark made by this longer Cubit, will be to its like made by a shorter Cubit, as the Cubes of these different Cubits are to each other; but the Cube of my Cubit is very near double to the Cube of 18 Inches, therefore so will the Capacity be: The Major all Geo­metricians know to be true, and the Minor any Arithmetician may find; therefore the Conclusion is true.

Our third Proposal, was hence to determine other Scripture and Eastern Measures of Length: Now this is easy, because it's agreed of lesser.

[Page 58]So also, 2. of their biger Measures, [...], a Fathom, 4 Cubits, Ezekiel's Reed 6; Canna, or a Pole, was 8 such Cubits, in English Feet 14.592.

It will not be necessary for me to give the Proofs of the Proportion of these Measures to the Cubit, or to each other: this is generally agre'd on, and the com­mon Writers on this Subject have pro­duced them: Wherefore I have thought my self only obliged to reduce them to [Page 59] our Standard-measure, supposing the Cubit to have been already rightly stated. And the like Method I have used about the Measures of Capacity, deduced from known Proportions to the Epha, and the other Weights de­duced from Shekel.

I shall only add this Observation, That because so many Measures were determined by relation to the Cubit, the Egyptians and Jews were obliged to be constant in the Standard thereof, else the proportion to all their other Measures would be altered, and the ancient Measures of all their Lands, and best Buildings, would be greatly disturbed: as we might shew by in­stancing in the Levites Suburbs, set out by 1000 Cubits on each side of their Cities, and the Egyptian [...], men­tioned by Herodotus, which were de­termined by 100 Cubits on every side.

CHAP. III Of the Epha, and other Measures of Capacity thereby determined.

MY next endeavour shall be, to find the true Capacity or Con­tent of the Jewish Epha; which I think will be most exactly express'd, both by the number of solid Inches (English) of Water, which is contain­ed, and by the number of Gallons and Pints, or known parts thereof, taken in Measures agreeing with our Stan­dards. But both these must be found by help of the ancient Roman Stan­dards yet remaining, to which both the Greek and Jewish Measures have been reduced by the Ancients.

For the clearing of my way of ex­pressing the Capacity of this Measure, I must premise two things.

I.That the most exact and Geome­trical way of expressing the Capaci­ty [Page 61] of any Vessel, or Measure, is by expressing, in known terms, the so­lidity of a Body which will precisely fill it; the fittest will be Water, such as drops from the Clouds, which we suppose not to differ so considerably in the several Regions of the World, as Spring-waters do. Now, the Solidity of all Bodies is best express'd by help of a Cube, whose equal sides and height we know by a Standard-Mea­sure of length; such is a cubic or solid Inch, whose side is the twelfth part of a Foot, and a Foot the third part of the Iron Yard, kept at Guild-hall for the Standard of England.

And it appears, that this way of determining Measures of Capacity, is not only most Geometrical, but also exceeding Ancient; because the Egyp­tians made their Ardob to be the Cube of their known Standard, the Cubit; and the old Romans made their Qua­drantal, the Cube of their Standard, the Foot, as both Festus, and the an­cient Verses of Rhemnius Fannius wit­ness; which I need not transcribe, being obvious in divers Writers; my design being only to shew, that the [Page 62] Ancients aimed at this Correspendence between Measures of Length, and those of Capacity.

And indeed, a Cube is the only re­gular Solid which I have observed to be described in the Scripture, by all its Dimensions of Length, Breadth, and Heighth; and there such cubical Dimensions are assigned (what ever is the Mystery of it) to the most Sacred Type, the Holy of Holies, 1 Kings 6.20 and to the most holy Antitype, the New Jerusalem, Rev. 21.16.

Perhaps (because the simplest Soild hath all possible Dimensions in it) it may intimate;

1. The solid or compleat felicity of the Heavenly State, respecting the Length, Breadth, and Height of Divine Love, Eph. 3.18. which is the Fountain thereof.

2. The perfect rest and constancy thereof, because the Hedra, or Resting-Bases of the Cube, are six, which Euclid hath shewed to be a perfect Number: and they are all Squares, whence the Cube is less subject to be shaken, than the other regular Bodies. [Page 63] Something to this purpose is intimated in the old Maxim, [...].

II. I premise, that amongst us English, it is agreed, that our Wine-Gallon, now most frequently used, contains precisely 231 Solid or Cubi­cal Inches of our Standard-Measure; and our Corn-Gallon, which is the Statute-measure of Capcity in Eng­land, contains 272 such Inches: for although Mr. Oughtred affirm it to contain ¼ of a solid Inch more (which is very little difference) divers others since, upon exact tryal, see no cause to add that Fraction to its Capacity.

For these Reasons, and to shew the dependance of the Epha on the Cubit already stated, I shall express my opi­nion concerning the Content of Epha, &c. in a number of our solid Inches, and in Decimal Fractions thereof, rather than any other sort of Fractions, which are more troublesome or diffi­cult to be understood and reduced.

I conceive that Epha was about 1747 solid Inches of English Measure, not much distant from the English [Page 64] Foot Solid, which is 1728; and is near the Inches Solid of 1000 Ounces of Water. Or in Wine Measure it was 7 Gallons, 2 Quarts, and about half a Pint. In Corn Measure, 6 Gallons 3 Pints, and 3 Solid Inches.

This Capacity of Epha, or at least For approach thereunto, I shall endea­vour to prove by four Arguments.

• 1. From its proportion to the Cube of the Cubit of Israel, formerly sta­ted.
• 2. From its proportion to the Corus, or Chomer.
• 3. From its proportion to the Seah.
• 4. From the agreement of this Ca­pacity with the content or solidity of 432 Eggs, whereby the Rabbins ordi­narily determine it.

But I confide more in the two for­mer Arguments, because taken from bigger Measures, than in the two latter, which arise from less. And therefore have altogether omitted the investigation from Number and Weight of Grains of Wheat, which I find elsewhere used: because every [Page 65] little Errour (which is unavoidable in small Measures) grows greater in the progress by multiplication; where­as little Errours in bigger Measures, when we pass from them to lesser by division, grow still less than the for­mer, which tends to exactness.

Arg. 1. Epha is the sixth part of the Cube of the Egyptian Cubit, which Cube is called an Ardub: but the sixth part of that Cube, or an Ar­dub, is 1747.7 solid Inches: therefore so is Epha. The proof of the Major is from the express affirmation of the Arabian Accountants and Mathemati­cians, Alsephadi and Ebn. Chalecan, printed in Dr. Wallis his Arithmetic; cap. 31, and received from Dr. Pocock. Only there the Epha is by an usual commutation of the quiescent Letters, and of the Labial p into b, called Oeba, or as Dr. Wallis expresseth it, Waibah. But Salmasius, and Dr. Castle, and all the Learned in the Eastern Lan­guages, that I have met with, ac­knowledg that Arabic Word to ex­press the same Measure, that the Jews call Epha. And the matter [Page 66] seems clear, by comparing the Hebrew Exod. 16.36. with the Arabic Tran­slation, in which Waibah is put to express the Hebrew Epha.

Add hereunto, that it may be de­duced from what Golius affirms, treat­ing of Corus as a Bablylonish Measure; that at Babylon also the Ardub was e­qual to six Ephas: for he asserts 40 Ardubs, equal to 720 Seahs, which are known equal to 240 Ephas. Where­fore divide the number of Ephas by the number of Ardubs, the Quote wil [...] be 6; which shews that one Ardub i [...] equal to six Ephas.

Thus this Proportion appears ac­knowledged wide in the East; al­though I do acknowledg that severa [...] Ardubs of different Capacity from this are mentioned by Kircher, as used among the Egyptians; and othe [...] [...], stated by the Greeks. Ye [...] this sense of the word being as full attested, and this being determine [...] by a sure Standard, I shall consider only in this sense, having no use of it other various significations.

Thus the Major is proved by Authorities; the Minor is demonstrab [...] [Page 67] thus. The Egyptian Cubit reduced to English Inches, hath been proved to be 21.888. This number multi­plied by it self, produceth its Square; that multiplied by the Side, or first Number, produceth the Cube, which is the Content of the Ardub in solid Inches.

Lastly; This being divided by 6, the number of Ephas in Ardub, the Quote is 1747.7. The Arithmetical Operations need not be set down at large in this Paper, but may be tried by any Arithmetician at his leisure.

But because it is not easily credible that the Ancients, in making their Ardub, did consider the thousandth, or the hundredth part of an Inch (which yet I have expressed by Re­duction from Greaves his Measure of the Egyptian Standard, that I might not willingly depart from his exact­ness) and because the Abatement of the Centesimals of an Inch, in the side of the Cube, will err less from pre­ciseness, than the addition of a like quantity, and will reduce the Epha to a Measure so well known among us; I have express'd it also by an English [Page 68] Foot Solid; which will be found to come from the sixth part of the Cube of 21.8; for the Cube thereof is, 10360.232: and that divided by s [...] Quotes 1726.7, differing less than two solid Inches from the Foot solid▪ 1728.

From this approach to Agreement we may not only help our Memory▪ but also probably conjecture, that a [...] our Foot is two thirds of our Cubit so the Eastern People had a Measure which we may call their Foot, which also was two thirds of a Cubit, some­times used among them, viz. a Cubi [...] of five Palms: Which differed no [...] much from our Cubit, as I formerly shewed. And the Cube of that Foo [...] of theirs, was probably the Origina [...] of this ancient Measure, the Eph [...] which a little exceeds our Foot Solid as also such their Foot and Cubit, i [...] length, a little exceeded ours.

However it's certain, that the excess of the Cubic-Root of an Eph [...] above our English Foot, is not quit five Centesimals of an Inch, or no [...] the twentieth part of an Inch.

[Page 69]I have also observed, that the Epha, or Bath, contains just 1000 Ounces Averdupoise, or 2000 Shekels weight of pure Rain-water; which being lighter than our Fountain-water, and of a more constant equality in its Weight than Spring-waters are (which differ a little in weight from each o­ther) takes up a little more room than so many Ounces of our Water will do: so that though we reckon 1726 Cubic-Inches to 1000 Ounces of our Fountain-water, we may well al­low about 1747 such Inches to 1000 Ounces of their lighter Rain-water.

And it's evident that the Ancients determined their Vessels of Capacity by weight of Water. So the Roman Congius held just 10 pounds of Water, and that of Rain, as Dioscorides hath noted: their Amphora 80 such Pounds, their Sextary 20 Ounces. And it's certain, that the reckoning of Weights by round Numbers of Shekels, or their double, which are Ounces, is most ancient. And universally, that most ancient expression of Job 28.25. He weigheth the Waters by Measure, intimates, that their ancient Measures [Page 70] of Water were of a known weight, else it were impossible to weigh them by measure, or thereby to estimate and adjust their Weight. But this will be clear when we handle She­kel.

Here I thought fit to remark, that the concurrence of the Measure of this Solid Foot, and of the Weight of 1000 Ounces of Water, might recommend this Measure called Epha, or Bath to the first Founders or Authors thereof: and this happy concurrence is the true cause, that all their Measures and Weights may be investigated and prov'd, both à priore, by beginning with the simplest Measure of Length, and thence proceeding till we end in the Weights; and à posteriore, or per­egressum, by beginning with the weight of a Shekel, and passing through all the Measures of Capacity, until we come to the Cubit, their Root; as I shall shew in their Harmony at the end of this Discourse.

The Reduction of this Measure to our usual Measure by Gallons, &c. i [...] thus performed: divide 1747.7 by 231, the Inches Solid in a Wine-Gallon [Page 71] the Quote will be 7.566: which sig­nifies seven Gallons; half a Gallon, or two Quarts, and about half a Pint. The like Method may be used for the Corn-Gallon. This may suffice for the first Argment, which may pretend to accuracy, because its Major is the affirmation of Mathematicians, refer­ring the Ardub, and its sixth part, the Epha, to a known Standard, the E­gyptian Cubit; and the Minor is cer­tain by true Calculation. Those that follow pretend not so high, yet are of good moment, because they make some approach of agreement here­with; and many Witnesses agreeing in the Main, do corroborate each others Testimony.

Arg. 2. Is taken from the Chomer or Corus, which all agree to be the same, and to contain 10 Ephas, and is made the Rule of Epha, by Ezekiel 45.11. regulating prudently the less by the greater. Now Josephus, lib. 15. cap. 11. saith expresly, That [...]: Wherefore he hereby intimates, that Epha, the tenth part of Corus, was [Page 72] equal to the Medimnus Atticus. The Content hereof we must first find in Roman Measure, to which the anci­ent Greeks and Romans have reduced it; and then we must reduce the Ro­man Measure, by help of Vespasian's Standard Congius, still remaining at Rome, to our English Standards: and so we shall see how far Josephus his Estimate of the Epha, agrees with, or differs from that which I have pro­posed.

But I must premise, even to the first Reduction, that two things are agreed among the ancient Greek Wri­ters:

1. That Medimnus Atticus was e­qual to 48 Chaenices. So say Pollux, Aarpocration, Galen, &c.

2. That one Chaenix was equal to three Cotylae. So Pollux in two pla­ces, in words at length, not subject to so much corruption, through mis­take, as Characters are; and Cleopa­tra, and others.

Hence the first Reduction to Ro­man Measures is thus made; every Cotyla is equal to half the Roman Sex­tarius, and consequently 12 Cotylae to [Page 73] the Roman Congius. So Galen, and the Author of the Hippiatric Weights and Measures, Dioscorides, and others, to be seen in the Treatises set at the beginning of Stephanus his Appendix to his Thesaurus. Herewith agrees what the same Authors and Cleopatra affirm, that 4 Chaenices are equal to the Congius, or to 12 Cotylae. Hence it follows, Medimnus Atticus being e­qual to 48 Chaenices, must be equal to 12 Congii Romani; for 48 divided by 4, which is the number of Chaenices in a Congius, quotes 12.

For the second Reduction, where­by the Roman Congius, and the Greek Medimnus, Chaenix, and Cotyla, may be brought into solid Inches of Eng­lish Measure, and so compared with our Measures of Capacity, I offer this Expedient. It is agreed, and the In­scription on the Congius of Vespasian, witnesseth it, that Measure contained just 10 Roman Pounds of Water, or Wine. Each Roman Pound was 12 Roman Ounces; each Roman Ounce hath been found, by Greaves and o­thers, to answer exactly to 438 Grains of our Troy Weight: Where­fore [Page 74] it wants 42 Grains of our Troy Ounce. And just so many Grains as Dr. Chamberlain in the State of Eng­land affirms, doth our Averdupoise Ounce fall short of the Troy Ounce, which is 480 Grains. Hence I con­clude, that our Averdupoise Ounce, is the same Weight with the old Ro­man Ounce, which hath continued to be used, both in Rome, and here in England to this day, from the eldest Times. And we must consider, that the name Averdupoise, which signifies Weighty, was not at first given to this Ounce, but to the Pound, consisting of sixteen of eighteen such Ounces; which therefore was much more weighty than the usual Roman Pound, which had but twelve such Ounces: which Pound is not used among us, although the Ounce, as part of a weightier Pound, be still retain'd.

Sir Jonas More hath calculated a Table (founded in Experiments, con­cerning the Weight of any known Number of solid Inches of Water, made by Dr. Wibberd and others, whereby we may turn any given Oun­ces Averdupoise of Water, into solid [Page 75] Measure, expressed in Inches and Deci­mals thereof; which because it is short and useful for my purpose, I will transcribe.

For an Example to shew the use of this Table; Let us take the 10 Pounds of Water that fill the Roman Congius; and because each Pound is 12 Ounces Averdupoise, call them 120 Ounces; the highest Figure signifies 100 Oun­ces. Wherefore take out of the Ta­ble the Number answering 1; and be­cause of the two Cyphers which make it an hundred, remove the Separatrix two places further; thus writing 172.556. So also for the 20, remove [Page 76] the Separatrix one place thus, [...] This Sum gives the solid Inches of Water that fill the Capacity of Congi­us Romanus; and shew it to be less than our Wine-Gallon of 231 Inches, by almost 24 solid Inches. So Cotyla containing 10 Ounces of Water, is found in solid Inches, 17.25; and Chaenix containing 30 Ounces, must be in solid Inches 51.76. So, lastly, to determine the Medimnus by the solid Inches of Water that it contains, mul­tiply the Content of Congius by 12, the Product is Medimnus, [...]

The Medimnus thus found, when compared with our proposed Epha, proves bigger than it by 737 Inches, or above three Gallons Wine-measure. This shews that although I have ex­ceeded the common estimate of Epha, which makes it the Cube of the Ro­man [Page 77] Foot, on very weak grounds, yet I have not gone so far as Josephus.

Nor can I recede from the Reason I have alledged for Josephus his affirma­tion, but shall answer his Authority, by saying;

1. That I conceive he did not intend to assert a precise Mathematical Equa­lity between Epha and Medimnus; but to express the content of a Jewish Measure, as an Historian, somewhat near the truth, by comparing it to this most famous approaching Mea­sure, known among the Greeks, in whose language he wrote.

2. That an Epha heaped up, will answer very well to a Medimnus not heaped: this seems a sufficient concili­ation, that he respected an Epha cu­mulated; my number respects only an Epha strickled (as the Country-men speak) which is most certain and con­stant; because the Breadth or narrow­ness of the Measure, will alter the heaping very much.

To this head I shall adjoin another approach to Epha, by help of the Greek Chaenix, which is founded on a probable emendation of Hesychius, [Page 78] which I crave leave to propose, be­cause the place is certainly corrupted, and I have not met with any attempt to mend it. Thus it is now printed; [...]. That it is an Egyptian Measure, is truly and judiciously affirmed; but that it contained but four Chaenices, is far from credible, for that would make it all one with the [...], or Congius, which it far exceeded by the acknowledg­ment of all.

Therefore I have thought it proba­ble, that Hosychius did write it, either in Characters thus, ΔΔΔΙΙΙΙ [...], as Herodian informs us the Greeks anci­ently wrote 34, putting three [...]'s for 30, because each Δ stood for [...], or Ten, being the first Letter of that word, and each Ι for single Units. And some Transcribers afterward be­ing ignorant hereof, did take Δ to sig­nify 4, as in later Times it doth, and the Ι's the same; and to avoid Tau­tology, wrote [...]. Cer­tain it is, that there should be, and probably was, either a Word or Cha­racter signifying 30 (either ΔΔΔ or λ) placed before [...], to make it fit [Page 79] to signify the number of [...] in an Epha; which word, or Character, is now lost. And that no Number is so fit (as thirty) to be added, will appear by the coincidence of 34 Chae­nices with the former Calculation from the Cubit. Thus Chaenix— 51.7 multiplied into 34, produceth 1757.8, and this differs from my assertion but the third part of a Pint, which is as little as can be expected in so big a Measure.

However, I trust not this Emen­dation alone; but if a better can be offered, shall thankfully admit it: Wherefore I will offer another ap­proach to the finding a Corus, and Epha, by help of a Roman Measure taken out of an ancient Anonymus Latin Author, cited by Salmasius, in his Epistle to Walaeus, called by him, Auctor vetus adjectus Scriptoribus Rei Agrimensoriae. He affirmeth, that dou Cori Culloum reddunt. Hence I would draw an Argument (which it appears not that the Authors from whom I take this Testimony, did think of) to determine an approach to the Capacity of Epha.

[Page 80]For if the Roman Culaeus (as it's oftner written with single l) be equal or near to two Cori, it must be so to 20 Ephas. Now the Capacity of Culaeus is intimated, both by Pliny, lib. 14. cap. 4. and by Columella, lib. 3. cap. 3. to be twenty Amphoreae, or Quadrantals, each of which is known from Sextus Pompeius his Ple­biscitum Siliorum, to contain 80 Ro­man Pounds of Water, or 8 Congil. So by this Argument the Roman Am­phora, and Jewish Epha, will be made equal, or near each other; for Mathe­matical Exactness is not to be hoped for in such Authors.

The Roman Amphora did contain 1656 solid Inches, and near half an Inch more; as appears by multiplying the Content of Congius 207.06 by 8. And this is indeed bigger than the Cube of the Roman Foot on Cossutius his Monument, by above three Pints of our Wine-measure, as Greaves at­tests he experimented, pag. 35. of his Learned Treatise on the Roman Foot. But still this 1656, is less than our Number 1747, deduced from the Egyptian Standard; and more below [Page 81] the Content of Medimnus 2484, which Josephus thought near enough. Wherefore since our number falleth a­bove the Amphora, which this Author must make equal to Epha, and below the Medimnus, which Josephus points at, as equal thereto; I hope, that be­ing in a mean, and keeping to a pub­lick Standard, I may have determined more exactly than either of them. And both their Testimonies will agree to assert, that I am not very far from the Truth, each of them coming nearer to me, than they come to each other. This is the sum of my second Argument.

My third Argument shall be, an at­tempt to prove my determination of Epha to be true, from Evidence, that the best Determinations which the Ancients have given us of the Capa­city of Seah, comes near to the third part of the measuring Number which I have assigned; this being agreed by all, that Seah was the third of Epha.

And here I shall first consider, what Suida affirms, referring to a Number [Page 82] of Roman Sextarii, which we know by the Standard yet remaining: and then supply what is confestly deficient in him, by the elder Testimonies of Josephus, Epiphanius, and Hierom.

Suidas, in [...], which is the He­brew Seah, altered after the Greek fashion, affirms it to be the Roman Modius, filled so as to run over its brinks; and that it holds in Liquids 15 Sextaries, or 25 Pounds. The weight in Water annex'd, secures us he speaks of the Roman, not the Attick Sextary. Now fifteen Roman Sexta­ries are equal to two Congii and an half; which in solid Inch-Measure of Water, 517.66, being 300 Ounces in Weight. But this is less than the third part of our Epha, that being 582: So there wants above a Quart of our Wine-Measure. And Suidas im­plicitly confesseth his Measure too little, by saying it must be [...], heaped up so as to run o­ver. This Heap might easily sup­ply the Quart wanting in the Ac­count in Water, which will not be heaped, and which indeed is less than [Page 83] commonly is allowed to the Modius, it being usually reckoned sixteen Sex­taries, and that would bring the Capacity of Seah to agree with mine within a Pint.

However, to inform us that the Modius was less than Seah, Epipha­nius tells us, that it was equal to Modius, and ¼. And Josephus, lib. 9. c. 2. and Hierom, on Matth. 13.33. say, it was an Italian Modius and an half. I know that the Modius is a disputed Measure; therefore to avoid that dispute, I counted by Sextaries, which being ⅙ of Congius, are in­disputable. And if the least Capaci­ty of Modius be taken, yet 1 and an half will somewhat exceed the Ca­pacity I have assigned. Therefore the Seah which my Number requires, falls between a confest Defect in Sui­das, and an Excess in Hierom and Josephus, yet not far from either of them, and therefore is probable, be­ing nearer to both Extreams in those Authors, than they are to each other.

[Page 84]My fourth Argument is from the agreement of this number of solid Inches, with the content of 432 Hens Eggs, whereby the Jewish Do­ctors frequently determine the Ca­pacity of Epha; as may be seen in Buxtorf's Lexicon, in [...] in Arias Montanus, Tubal-Cain, &c. Now if we divide my Number 1747, by 432, it will quote 4.04: which shews, that little above four solid In­ches must be in an Egg, that 432 of them may make this quantity. And Experience attests, that the larger sort of Hen Eggs, which yet are common, will contain four solid In­ches of Water, or two Ounces and a third: and Measures when taken from Nature, are rather taken from the bigger Instances, than the less, as the Greek Foot from Hercules his Foot, and the Cubit from the Elbow to the Fingers end of a tall Man.

This experimental way I chuse as more easy, than the Geometrical re­duction of an Egg to a Sphaeroid, or two Conoides, which few would un­derstand. [Page 85] I might also shew, that as some, both Jews and Christians, have assigned less Capacity to the measuring-Egg than I; so others, particularly Capellus, have given more: And that this Capacity may there­fore be called a Mean Capacity, al­though it come near to the largest sort of Hen Eggs; but it is sufficient to have pointed at these things.

The Fruits of this long, because difficult investigation of the Epha, will be gathered in the easy determi­nation of the other Measures of Ca­pacity, whose Proportions thereunto are generally agreed on. For besides a Bath, which is equal to it, it will follow, that

[Page 86]

[Page 87]In this Reduction to our Measures, I have used the Wine-Gallon, because more generally known and used a­mong us, notwithstanding the Corn-Gallon is the Statute-Measure. And because the Epha and Homer after this Reduction fall out to answer very near known Meafures; Homer to three Quarts; Epha seven Gallons, a Pottle and half a Pint. Also in the Corus I have express'd the last seven solid In­ches, although in Epha, its tenth part. I often omit the seven Tenths of a so­lid Inch as inconsiderable, because it grows considerable when it's multi­plied by Ten.

To remove the Objection which lies open against these Measures, that thereby an Homer becomes too great a quantity of Manna, to be allow'd, as it was by God to every Man, for his sustenance in the Wilderness; let these things be considered.

1. That Divine Bounty is con­cerned to proportion to each Man, now travelling, so much, that he may rather leave somewhat, than lack.

2. That Manna being like Corian­der-seed, of a globular figure, when it [Page 88] was in the Homer, must necessarily leave many empty Spaces, between every three or four Sphaeres, which had no Food in them; and these Vacuities added together, may reasonably be esti­mated about a third part of the Vessel's Capacity. For the solidity of a Cube, many of which will fill up a space without any empty Interstices, is al­most as big again, as a Sphere, whose Diameter is equal to the Cube's side: the Geometricians say, as 1 to .523 ∷

3. It being light food, must needs be inwardly porous, and of a spongy contexture of Parts.

4. It would probably waste some­what in dressing by the Fire, as it melted and wasted when the Sun grew hot. By these Reasons the three Quarts at first measuring will be reduced to to about three Pints of an oily liquid substance, which will not be too much for a Traveller, that needs eat thrice a day.

The Homer being thus freed from an obvious Objection, before I leave it, I think fit not only so observe the An­tiquity of the Numeration by Tens in these Measures, Corus holding 10 E­phas, [Page 89] Epha 10 Homers: but also to add, that I have observed, that the Athenian Measure, Cotyla, (which, as I have intimated, held 10 Ounces of Water, and so was half a Roman Sex­tarius) must needs therefore be the tenth part of an Homer, as I before shewed it to be the twelfth part of the Roman Congius. And we shall less wonder that Athens carried on this Subdecuple Proportion in one of their Measures; if we consider that Athens was a Colony both from Sais in E­gypt, and from the Phaenicians, as the best Antiquaries and Geographers agree.

By help of this Observation, we may note, that this Cotyla is a common Measure, to most (if not all) the Measures of Capacity, used among the Jews, with other Eastern People, and these Western famous Nations, the Greeks and Romans: and so may serve to shew the Harmony between them, and their Reduction to such an ancient Standard as the Congius of Vespasian, which is yet kept at Rome; and may suggest a probability that the common Original of them (as also the rise of [Page 90] Mankind, and of the most necessary Learning) was from the East. Ten Cotylas make an Homer, hence the Jewish Measures may all be determi­ned: two of them made a Sextary; hence the Congius, and other Roman Measures, three of them made a Chae­nix; hence the Medimnus, and other Greek Measures. The word also is received at Rome, as well as at Athens; and I find, by Dr. Castle's Lexicon, that it's used by the Syriac and Ara­bic Writers of the East, although not found in the Hebrew Bible, wherein I meet not with any less measure than the Log. However, because its Root, and other words akin to it, are found in the Hebrew, and other Eastern Languages, but no Root nor Kindred in the Western: I rather believe that its Original was in the East, and the Greeks received it thence, than that the Eastern Nations received it from the Greeks.

By this Analogy between Eastern and Greek Measures, I am induced here to mention the Metretes, which St. John mentions, chap. 2.6. which we translate a Firkin, which is eight or [Page 91] nine Gallons Ale-measure: at which rate the Water which Christ made Wine, will rise to about 100 Gal­lons; which may well seem too much for our Saviour, the great Teacher and Pattern of Temperance, miracu­lously to provide for the Guests at a Wedding, after they had well drank before.

To remove this Difficulty, our Cri­ticks have said many things, which I need not repeat. But I will add one Notion about this Metretes, which I have not found amongst our Commen­tators, which if it be admitted, will altogether prevent the Objection. I find in Cleopatra's Discourse about Weights and Measures, which with others of that Subject, is in the Ap­pendix to Steven's Thesaurus, that Metretes, among the Syrians, consists of six Sextaries. Now it's known that the Greeks and Romans too, did often so extend the Name of Syrians, as to comprehend the Jews, especially those of Galilee, that just toucht Sy­ria, strictly called.

Wherefore I conceive St. John, speaking of this Miracle done in Galilee [Page 92] on the Syrian Coast, calls that [...], which the Syrians called so, and that is the Roman Congius, consisting of six Sextaries. Now I have shewed already, that this is near a Pint less than our Wine Gallon. And so the Miracle will produce about ten Gal­lons and an half of our English Mea­sure; which if the Guests were of any considerable number, might easily be drank without danger of Intempe­rance, especially since Marriage-En­tertainments did use to last for many days, Judges 14.12.

I shall conclude this Discourse with the consideration of Solomon's Brazen Sea, that capacious Vessel for Water required in the Temple-Service. Its Height is five Cubits; its Diameter, called Breadth, ten; its Figure af­firmed to be round: but it's not de­termined in the Scripture, whether this round Figure were an Hemisphere or a Cylinder, equally wide at the bottom and the top, or a decurted Cone that was wider at the bottom than the top, where its wideness is expressed; or whether some other ir­regular [Page 93] Figure of a protuberant Belly. Yet it's ordinarily represented to us in Cuts as an Hemisphere.

But the main Difficulty ariseth from the Capacity of it, which in 1 Kings 7.26. is expressed 2000 Baths; and yet in 2 Chron. 4.5. it is affirmed to hold 3000 Baths. The Hebrew Co­pies, and the ancientest Translations, constantly delivering this different Ac­count; it's not prudent to affirm ei­ther place to have been corrupted by Error of Transcribers.

Therefore I think Grotius hath well suggested, that in the first place ordi­narily, when it was not filled up, it had 2000 Baths of Water in it; but, secondly, upon extardinary Occasions, when more was requisite, as at the great Festivals, it could, and did hold that greater number of Baths. This answer gives a good general Reason of a different Content ascribed to this Vessel.

But when we come to express the Cubits of its Dimensions in determi­nate Numbers of Inches, and after Multiplications suited to the Figure, divide the Product by the solid Inches [Page 94] of the Bath, or Epha, we shall find Difficulties to arise, which this Answer will not remove.

For instance; Let us suppose the Figure of this Sea to be Cylindrical, because I shall soon shew this to be more likely than that of an Hemi­sphere. The Diameter of the Base of this Cylinder being ten Cubits, must, according to our determination of the Cubit, be in Inch-measure 218.88; and its Height five Cubits, is in Inches 109.44. To find the Solidi­ty or Content of this Cylinder, we must, first, find the Area of its Base, by this Analogy taught by Archime­des. As 14 is to 11; so is the Square of its Diameter, viz. 47908.4544, to the Area of its Base 37642.1357. Then we must multiply the Area by the Height; the Product of which Multiplication is the Cylinder's Con­tent, viz. 4119579.44. Lastly, This divided by the solid Inches of Epha, 1747, will quote 2358.08; the num­ber of Ephas contained in that Cylin­der. Hence it appears, that it will contain above 2000 Ephas, or Baths, which is the Number expressed in [Page 95] the Kings; yet not 3000 as the Chro­nicles faith, but there want 642 Baths almost.

Hence we may learn, that since a Cylinder of these Dimensions is some­what too little to hold the 3000 Baths; therefore an Hemisphere, which is commonly offered to us of such Height and Diameter, will be much more too little. For Archimedes assures us, that it is but two thirds of such a Cylinder, and therefore will hold but two thirds of its number of Ephas, viz. 1572, and so will want 428 Baths of the 2000, or lesser Number.

Wherefore we must conclude, that either our Cubits, and Ephas, one or both, are too big; or that this Figure is to be rejected as too little. But be­cause we have given much proof of the truth of our Cubit and Epha, and no Proof is given of this Hemisphe­rical Figure, let that rather be reject­ed: but because our Cylinder doth not only answer the less number of Baths, but gives us above a third part of the superadded thousand, which is in the Chronicles, I dare not reject it. For I acknowledge that it's possible, [Page 96] that the Author of the Chronicles ad­ding 1000 to those in the Kings, might only by that round Number intimate, that it held many hundreds of Baths, upon extraordinary Occasions, above those 2000 which the Author of the Kings had expressed, as ordinarily contained in it.

And indeed it's certain, that he doth not in this matter of the Sea, speak according to Geometrical accu­rateness: for when he had said that 10 Cubits were its Breadth or Diame­ter; he adds, that 30 Cubits would compass it round: whereas Geometry assures us, that above 31 Cubits are requisite to make the Perimeter to a Diameter of 10. And yet it's ordi­narily allow'd in Discourse, that pre­tends not to Mathematical Rigour, to say, that thrice the Diameter is the Circumference; so may this Sacred Historian say, in a round Number, that the Sea held 3000 Baths, when in strictness its Content was not quite so much, but yet considerably above 2000.

Those that are not satisfied here­with, may safely assert, that this Sea [Page 97] was either so much wider at the Bot­tom, or so much swelled in the Belly, that it would contain 642 Baths more than the Cylindric Figure will yield; because there is nothing contrary here­unto in the History. And it will be more reasonable to adjust the Figure which the History determines not, to the Capacity which it doth express, than to reject the Measures asserted by so much proof, because they do not perfectly agree with a Figure which is pitch'd upon only by conjecture.

Since I came to this resolution of the Difficulty now before us, I have been confirmed in my Opinion, by reading in Dr. Lightfoot's prospect of the Temple, Cap. 27. Sect. 3. that both the Talmudists, and the Rabbins, have acknowledged that 3000 Baths cannot be contained within the Di­mensions of ten Cubits wideness, and five height assigned by Scripture, un­less the Figure of this Molten Sea be affirmed to be wider than that of a Cylinder below the Brims. Thus far their Assertion agrees with my Ac­counts, and assures me, that their No­tions, both of the Cubit's Length, and [Page 98] of the Ephas Capacity, were not great­ly different from mine, because they own with me, that this number of Ephas is indeed somewhat too great for the Capacity of a Cylinder, the Dia­meter of whose Base is ten, and its Height five Cubits; but that what's wanting in this Figure, may be well supplied, by widening it towards the bottom, which I also have owned; We differ only in the manner of wi­dening it sufficiently below the Brim. For the Talmudists assign this way, That it was made square at the bot­tom, each side ten Cubits, and rose in this Figure of a Parallellipedon (as the Geometricians call it) up three Cubits high, but the other two Cubits of its height were a Cylinder, whose Base had ten Cubits in its Diameter. But surely they did only conjecture that this Figure would enlarge it suf­ficiently, and never calculated its Ca­pacity carefully. For upon a strict cal­culation of the Content of this their compounded Figure, I find that it will be too little by above 250 Baths. And yet the Cubit which I have as­signed and calculated by, is longer than [Page 99] Dr. Lightfoot's Cubit, and therefore will make the Sea sufficient to hold more than his: and the Bath I have assigned, is less than his, and there­fore more of them will be contained within the given Dimensions; and so both my Measures are fitted to remove the Difficulty; whereas by his Mea­sures, bound to the Talmudist's Fi­gure, it's made insuperable, and in­volves an impossibility. But adhering to my Measures, I find that a Parallel­lipedon, the side of whose Square at bottom is ten Cubits, and its Height full five Cubits, will contain 3001 Baths, and a little more: whence it's plain, that if two Cubits of its Height had been Cylindrical, it must needs hold less by a considerable quantity, the Angles being taken away, which held much. Yet because in this Pa­rallellipedon we have above a Bath more than we need, we may take off a lit­tle of the Corners near the top, and there make it Cylindric, that so it may both answer the Scripture's Hi­storical Dimensions of about thirty Cubits, compassing it round at the top, and in some Measure agree with [Page 100] the Talmudist's Tradition of a little Cylinder uppermost, though it must be much less in its Height than they affirm. For it's certain, by the Prin­ciples of Geometry and Arithmetick, that if 3000 Baths of the Measure which I have assigned, be compre­hended in a Figure, compounded of Parallellipedon and Cylinder, whose Diameter is but ten Cubits, and their Height taken together but five.

That, first, the Parallellipedon must have its side in Inch-measure 218.88: The Square whereof we have shewn to be, 47908.4544; and the Height of it must be, in Inch-measure, 109.24, which is five Cubits wanting less than a quarter of an Inch. So the Con­tent of this part of the Molten Sea, will be 5233519.558.

Then, secondly; the Cylinder's Base having its Diameter 218.88, the Area thereof will be 37642.1357, and its Height must be but .2, two Tenths of an Inch; so will the Content of that short Cylinder be, 7528.427: Where­fore the Contents of both parts of this Figure being added together, will be 5241047.985. This Sum being [Page 101] divided by the solid Inches of the Bath 1747, will give in the Quote 3000, with an inconsiderable Fracti­on overplus, which I allow'd, because I would not affect overmuch precise­ness, neither would I take too little. By this Process I have both demon­strated the Defect of the Talmudists Figure, and also shew'd how it may be mended, so as to serve the End for which it was intended; Rectum enim est index sui & obliqui. And now I shall leave it to the Reader's choice, either to take the Figure with a protu­berant Belly, which I before propo­sed, which seems more Ornamental, being like that of the Cisterns used in Noble-mens Dining-rooms; or to take the Talmudical Figure with this E­mendation which I have offered. And I have thought fit to examine this Talmudical Notion the more dili­gently, both because the learned Dr. Lightfoot in the place fore-quoted doth (according to his usual modesty) desire it might be considered; and be­cause it seemed to me proper to oppose this Doctrine of the Talmudists, con­cerning [Page 102] the Figure of this Molten Sea, to the Conjecture of Josephus, who intimates it to have been Hemispheri­cal, (which Geometry demonstrates to be insufficient for the reception of so many Batlis; and it's certain he had never seen it, for it was broken and carried away at the Captivity, Jer. 52.17, &c.) and their Authority concern­ing things Sacred, weigh much more among the Jews, than any Opinion of his.

CHAP. IV. Of Shekel, and other Weights and Coins thence determined.

I Shall not distinguish between Shekel considered as a Weight, and the same as a Coin, having no concern to enquire about the Letters and Impress that it bears, but only to express its Weight, in Weight known among us, whence its Value in our Coin will easi­ly be deduced. I conceive that it was just of the Weight of half an ounce Averdupoise, now and anciently used here in England; or it weiged 219 Grains used in our Troy-Weight, and so wanted 21 Grains of the half Ounce Troy.

This is proved;

1. By many Shekels still remaining that differ not sensibly from this Weight, which may reasonably be thought to have been tried by the Jew­ish [Page 104] Standards, when they were coined. Of these Villalpandus reckons up many; and Greaves two; one in the Library of King Charles the First, of Blessed Memory, weighed by Arch-bishop Vsher; and another in Mr. Selden's, weighed by himself, as he witnesseth, in his learned Treatise of the Roman Denarius, p. 76, &c.

I have also seen and weighed two Shekels with Samaritan inscriptions on them (which although I had not opportunity to weigh them to a Grain) yet I do testifie they weighed within a very few Grains, as is above expressed. Nor can I find any sufficient reason to reject these as counterfeit; and if any will believe them to be such, yet it must be ac­knowledged, that they are made so as to agree in Weight with the Testi­monies of the Ancients, which is sufficient to our purpose, because their value in our Coin may certainly be de­duced thence. For since it's known that now, by the Laws of our Mint, 62 pence are coined out of every Troy Ounce; it will follow that 2 s. 4 d. and a farthings worth of Silver, with 3 [Page 105] Centesimals of a Penny over, must be contained in 219 Grains, which is the Shekel's weight. By this Analogy; as 480 s. are to 62 d. so 219 s. are to d. 28.28 Decimals of a Penny, which make 1 Farthing, and near the 8 th part of a Farthing.

My second Argument is taken from Testimony of Antiquity, thus: The Shekel was equal to the Roman half Ounce, but that was 219 Grains of our Troy Weight: therefore so was the Shekel. The Major is affirmed by Jerom on the 4 th Chap. of Ezechiel, to contain four Drachms of the Latin Ounce. The Greek Author of Farrier-Weights saith, [...], [...]-: which is the Mark for [...], or Se­missis: where [...] plainly signifies the Shekel, and is falsely rendred in Stephanus by Siciliquus, which is a­greed to be but a quarter of an Ounce, whereas this is affirmed to be half, by the Author.

So also Stater, which is known to be the same with the Shekel, is twice affirmed by Cleopatra, to be four Drachms, which is half an Ounce.

[Page 106]To these may be added the clear Testimony of Moses Nehemanni Ge­rundensis, related in Arias Montanus; wherein he owns himself to have for­merly doubted of this which was So­lomon Jarchi's Judgment, but to have been convinced and satisfied by weighing a Shekel with Samaritan In­scription, which was just half an Ounce. Many more Testimonies of Rabbins might be added, but I think them not necessary.

Only I will add a Testimony of An­ton▪ Augustinus, concerning two fair Carthaginian Coins, weighd by him, which each of them answered to four Drachms, or rather little more. Now it's known the Carthaginians were a Tyrian-Colony, and that the Jewish Coins agreed in Weight with those of Tyre the Talmudists affirm. Hence the Major seems abundantly evident. The Minor is vouched by Greaves, who diligently compared and tried the Roman Standard Ounce, with the Ounce and Grains of our Standard. And Villalpandus, with o­thers, have from the Weight of Water in the Congius yet remaining, proved, [Page 107] that the Ancient and Modern Roman Ounce, is exactly the same unaltered by Time.

From hence I collect, or conclude also, that our English Averdupoise Ounce also, being (as I before shewed) the same with the Roman Ounce, when they are both reduced to Grains of Troy-Weight, was probably in­troduced into our Kingdom by the Romans, when they gave Laws, and planted Colonies here, and hath thence continued unchanged to this day; which is not commonly observed, because we use the Averdupoise Weight only about heavier Commodities, not in weighing Silver and Gold, and therefore do not divide that Ounce into Grains, as we do the Troy-Ounce, which I suppose was introduced by the Normans, because it take its name from a French Town Troyes in Cam­paigne. I may add also, that it's pro­bable hence, that both the Roman Ounce, and our Averdupoise Ounce, had their more remote Original from the Eastern Shekel doubled: and evi­dence may be given, that such Weights [Page 108] and Coins, consisting of two Shekels, were sometimes used in the East by the name of Selahs; but I must not digress farther.

A third Argument may be taken from the constant Tradition of the Jews, that their Shekel weighed 320 common Barly-Corns, in Schalsheleth: but these Corns ordinarily answer 219 Grains of our Weight; therefore, &c. Nevertheless it must be acknow­ledged, that there is no perfect con­stancy in this matter of Experiment, which I have made with success; yet variety of a few Grains will frequent­ly fall out. But because Nature alters not much in the Weight of ordinary Barley, this may be accepted as a Proof, that we have assigned Shekels Weight, at least very near to exact­ness: but perfect accuracy is rather to be sought in the former Arguments, which bear upon the Jewish and Ro­man Standards, than on this which resolves it self into Nature's Constan­cy, to produce Grain near alike in dif­ferent Times and Places; but yet doth [Page 109] reserve to her self a liberty of making some variety.

Such was the Shekel of the Sanctua­ry, or agreeable to the Standards of Weights and Measures there kept. Another Shekel half so heavy, is con­tended for by some Modern Jews and Christians: I confess I am not satis­fied that there was any such Shekel. A piece of that Weight I acknowledg, but constantly it bears the Inscription of half a Shekel, called a Bekah, Exod. 38.26. However, it is sufficient that my care to determine the Sanctuary Shekel, doth fully determine also the Weight of its half, which must be 109 Grains and a half. They who are willing to see Arguments on both sides, may find them in Hottinger de Cippis, p. 110, &c. to whose Judg­ment I have nothing material to add. Also the near approach of the Roman Denarius, and of the Attic Drachma, to the fourth part of the Shekel, to­gether with their difference from each other, and from the precise quar­ter of a Shekel, is well stated by Greaves, distinguishing the intrinsick [Page 110] Value rising from meer Weight, and the extrinsick rising from the Stamp, and Laws peculiar to several King­doms, in his Treatise fore-quoted, to which I therefore refer the Reader; my Business being only to give the true Weight and Value of Shekel in our English Coin, and not to com­pare it with those Foreign Coins for which it was sometimes exchanged by the Trapezites, who made considera­ble advantage by the Trade.

The Consequents of our thus stating the Shekel, are these.

1. Hereby all its Parts, and the lesser Weights or Coins, in known proportion to it, are determined: particularly hence it follows, that the Bekah, or half Shekel, is in Grains Troy 109.5. The quarter thereof, called Zuza by the Talmudists, is Gr. 54.75. Its twentieth part, which is called Gerah, Exod. 30.13. and is understood to be the same with Agu­rah, 1 Sam. 2.36. by Rab. Solomon and David, though we translate it indefinitely a piece of Silver, must be Gr. 10.95: which wanting but [Page 111] the twentieth part of a Grain of eleven Grains, may pass for just so many. And accordingly is well tran­slated in the Septuagint, by the Greek [...]: for there are Attic Oboli still remaining of this Weight mentioned by Greaves, which give another Ar­gument to evince, that the Shekel's Weight hath been rightly stated by us, because its twentieth part, the Ge­rah, or [...], is found by the remain­ing Coins to be right.

And it's highly probable, that the Athenians being a Colony, partly from Egypt under Cecrops, partly from Phaenicia under Cadmus, brought this Egyptian and Phaenician little Weight or Mony with them. I find also in Cleopatra, that the Obolus At­ticus is called the Drachma Aegyptia­ca, and is there affirmed to be the sixth part of the Attic Drachma; and consequently hence we may learn to reduce to ours most other Greek Weights, whose proportion to the Drachm is given us in Galen, Dio­scorides, and several other Greek Wri­ters.

[Page 112]The Attic Drachm by this rec­koning, must be in our Troy Weight 66 Grains; the Learned Greaves hath stated it 67. The difference of one Grain in so many, is so small, as not to be worth contending about; but I count my Reckoning sufficiently confirmed by its near approach to his.

But to return to our Gerah, or O­bolus. The determination thereof is useful, because it's proved by Arias Montanus, Waser and Hottinger, out of the Rabbins and Talmudists, that this is of the same Weight and Va­lue with the ancient Coin called Ke­shitah, sometimes translated a Lamb, probably because either of its Impress, or its old Value, being when Mony was rare, sufficient to buy a Lamb. This is mentioned Gen. 33.19 Jos. 24.32. Job 42.11 but is expressed by St. Ste­phen, Acts 7.16. to be a piece of Mony.

To this Head also belongs the In­vestigation of the Darchmon or A­darcon, both which words, by the Septuagint, are translated [...], [Page 113] as both signifying the same Coin. They are mentioned 1 Chron. 29.7. Ezra 2.69 Nehem. 7.69, 70. Our Learned Brerewood hath suggested, that the Septuagint understands by [...], not that of Athens, bùt of Alexandria, which was double there­unto, and therefore is known by its help: but he adds also, that both these names of Coin, relate to those Golden Pieces coined by Darius, and thence named by the Greeks [...].

But our best help to understand these Pieces, is from the Scholiast on Aristophanes, and Harpocration, who both affirm, that they weighed as much as the Attick [...], which Pollux and Hesychius assure us weigh­ed two Attick Drachms; that is, by our Account 132, or by Greaves's 134 Grains Troy. The forenamed Scholiast saith, that the Darius who coined these Pieces, was elder than that Darius who was Xerxes his Fa­ther. Now I find no Darius elder than him but Darius the Mede, whom Daniel mentions twice; but I find [Page 114] him not mentioned by this Name a­mong the Ancients any where else, save in this Passage of the Scholiast, and consequently in these Coins, which he explains. And besides, this evinceth it possible and probable, that the chief Fathers of the Jews return­ing under Cyrus, might bring with them much of that Mony, which had been coined by Cyrus his im­mediate Predecessor, to make an Offering to Sacred Uses, as is men­tioned Ezra 2.69. where we tran­slate it Drachms; but are to under­stand, such as Brer [...]wood calls Alexan­drian Drachms, or double Attick Drachms. For each Daric contained more than two of our Drachms Troy, which are but 120 Grains; whereas we have shewed these to be about 132, or more.

Now the Weight being stated, the Reduction to the present Value of our Mony, is not difficult: but it must be remembred, that this is not so constant as Weight, but is altered for Reasons of State, more frequent­ly, both in our Kingdom, and in o­thers. [Page 115] However, it's fit to be known, that now, out of every Ounce Troy of Gold, taken with its appointed Alloy, there is coined in Gold Coins, the Value of 3 Pounds Sterling, 14 Shillings, and 2 Pence: which is ex­pressed in Shillings, and Decimals thereof, thus, sh. 74.1664. Wherefore supposing the Daric Gold, and ours of the same goodness, we may find its Value in our Mony by this Analo­gism: As the Ounce Troy, which is 480 Grains, is to the Doric, which is 132 Grains. So is sh. 74.166, to sh. 20.395. The fourth term shews, that the Daric amounts to 20 Shil­lings, and about 4 Pence, which is a­bout a third part of a Shilling. And by the same method, the whole Sum of Darics, which we translate Drachms in Ezra may be computed.

Hottinger hath suggested, that Darchemon, is derived from an anci­ent Persian word Dram, signifying both a Coin, and a Weight of twelve Cherats: what those were he informs us not; but I find, in Arias Monta­nus de Siclo, the Arabian Cherat, to [Page 116] be derived from the Hebrew Gerah, by a usual change of G into Ch, and that it signifies a Siliqua, or the Fruit of the Carob Tree; and that he weighed twenty such against his She­kel, and found them equal thereunto. Hence I gather that each Cherat weighed 11 Grains Troy, and there­fore twelve of them amounted to 132 Grains; which agrees with our for­mer Investigation of the Daric, and shews the Persian Drachm to be just double to the Attick. Now, though I know such a Cherat differs much from the Greek [...], in Dioscorides and Cleopatra; yet in this estimate of an Eastern Coin, I prefer Arias Mon­tanus his Eyes, and his Scales, attest­ing the Weight of a Siliqua, or Che­rat, before the Testimony of those Fragments, which in many Instances are corrupted.

Because the Roman Coins men­tioned in the New Testament, had some relation to the Shekel, being se­veral of them often exchanged for it, and all of them parts of the Roman Ounce, which we have shewed to be [Page 117] two Shekels. I shall briefly on this occasion state their Weight and Va­lue reduced to ours. The only Silver Coin of the Romans, there spoken of, is the Denarius, which under the Caesars, in whose time Christ and the Apostles lived, was a little less than the Consular Denarius, of which Greaves hath writ very learnedly. By help of some of them which have fal­len under my examination, and by taking half the Weight of the Aurei of such Caesars, which Greaves hath given us, and prov'd that their Dena­rii were subduple thereunto; I esti­mate their Weight to be about 60 Grains of our Troy Ounce. Hence their Value in proportion to our Mo­ny (which now hath 62 Pence in an Ounce Troy) is 7 Pence 3 Farthings.

The other Roman Coins mention­ed in Scripture, were Copper, and are all known parts of the Roman, As, or Assis, which before, and long after Christ's Time, was just half a Roman Ounce, and so equal in weight to the Shekel: but its Value was but the tenth part of the Denarius, which is [Page 118] in our Mony but three Farthings, and a tenth of a Farthing, thus written f 3▪ 1. Hence it follows, that the Assarium, mentioned Matth. 10.29. which is determined by Cleopatra to be ¼ of the Ounce, must in value of our Coin be f. 1.55 a Farthing and an half. Hence also Quadrans, mentioned Matth. 5.26. which is ¼ of As: or 1/ [...] of their Ounce, is little above three quarters of our Farthing, exactly .77 Centesimals of it. And half this [...], which we translate a Mite, is .38 Centesimals of a Farthing, or a­bout a third part of a Farthing; yet was in weight half a Drachm of their Ounce, mentioned Mark. 12.42.

The Weights less than Shekel being thus stated, thereby we shall, second­ly, pass to the determination of those which are greater, and may be called Sums of Shekels.

• I. The Talent.
• II.The Maneh.

I. A Talent was 3000 Shekels, as may be collected by halving the Num­ber of the Israelites (because each one brought half a Shekel) which half of their Number is 301775, and is the Sum of the Shekels which they all contributed. Now Moses assures us, Exod. 38.25, 26. that these a­mounted to 100 Talents, with 1775 Shekels more: wherefore that Num­ber which dividing 301775, will quote 100, and leave 1775 in remainder, is the number of Shekels in a Talent: but only 3000 will do this; therefore 3000 Shekels are a Talent.

Hence we may easily reduce the Talent to Ounces, or Pounds Aver­dupoise, used in Weight among us; for we have shewed two Shekels to be our Ounce Averdupoise; therefore 1500 Ounces are in a Talent; which Number divided by 16, the Ounces of a Pound Averdupoise, gives the Pounds Averdupoise in a Talent, thus 16 ) 1500 ( 93.75. The Quote shews that 93 Pounds and three quarters of a Pound Averdupoise, are in a Talent. This [Page 120] Weight is the same now, and in for­mer Ages: but the Value of this Weight of Silver or Gold, alters in several Ages considerably, as Coins do every where.

However, the Value of a Talent;

• 1. Of Silver.
• 2. Of Gold.

In Mony now used, may be thus stated.

1. Every Shekel is in Pence of our present Silver Mony 28.2875, for I now compleat the Decimals of a Pen­ny, formerly omitted in estimate of a single Shekel, as inconsiderable; but now, being to be multiplied by 3000, they will grow considerable, and give the Pence of a Talent to be 84862.5: These divided by 12, give the Shil­lings thereof 7071.875: The Shil­lings and Decimals thereof divided by 20, give the Pounds Sterling, and parts thereof, l. 353.59375; the De­cimals are equal to 11 Shillings 10 Pence half-penny.

2. A Talent of Gold may hence be valued compendiously thus. Gold is now to Silver of the same Weight, [Page 121] As 14.356 to 1:

The Value of Gold above Silver hath grown, since the Roman Consuls Time, from 10 to above 14 and a third; and I guess it will grow still higher.

Secondly, and lastly; By help of the Shekel, we come to understand the Jewish Maneh, which was a round Number of Shekels; but with some variety in the Numbers thereof.

The best result of my search into this is, in these two Propositions.

1. That Maneh being set for a meer Weight, without respect to Coinage, contained just 100 Shekels. This seems clear, by comparing 1 Kings 10.17. (where it's said, that in each of Solomon's Shields, were three Ma­nehs, or, as we translate it, Pounds of [Page 122] Gold) with 2 Chron. 9.16. where our Translation affirms, that 3000 Shekels of Gold, went to one of those Shields. And indeed, although the word Shekel be not in the Original ex­prest, yet it must be understood; be­cause Ezekiel assures us, Ezek. 45.12▪ that by the Shekel, the Maneh was ad­justed. And Pollux, lib▪ 9▪ c. 6. affirms, that when we say a Golden One, we understand a [...]; as when we say a Silver piece, we mean a Shekel, al­though we express it not.

2. When the Maneh is set for a sum of Mony, or Coin, it contains but 60 Shekels ▪ To this number the parts of a Maneh, in Ezek. 45.12. added to­gether, do amount. And Josephus, lib. 14.12. affirms, the Jews [...] (which is derived from Maneh) to be two Pounds and an half, which rec­koning 12 Ounces to the pounds, as the Greeks and Romans in his time did, is just 30 Ounces, which we have shew­ed to be just 60 Shekels: and Rabbi Gedaliah, in Schalsh agrees with him. Neither is it unusual to take the same word in one sense, when it relates to [Page 123] meer Weight, as we do a Pound (meaning thereby the Pound Troy, used in weighing Silver) for 12 Oun­ces; and in another sense, the same word Pound, when it relates to Mony, meaning thereby the Pound Sterling, which of Silver Coin contains not quite four Ounces; and of Gold con­tains not quite the third part of an Ounce.

I will not digress to consider the great variety of Minae, used among the Greeks and Romans, but only suggest that the various import of the word in these Nations, seems to have proceeded from the inconstancy of its signification in the Oriental Tongues, from whence it its derived.

I will conclude with an observation of the Harmony or good Correspon­dence of the Measures and Weights thus stated. The Cubit will lead to all the Measures, and to the Shekel, with the other Weights thence deri­ved: and reciprocally the Shekel will lead, not only to the Weights, but to all the other Measures. Thus take the [Page 124] Cubit from the Egyptian Standard; its Cube is Ardob: the sixth of that is Epha, whose tenth is Homer, its tenth Cotyla, its tenth gives an Ounce Averd. of Water, half that gives the Shekel's weight precisely. So reciprocally take a true Shekel (as divers still remain) that doubled gives an Ounce of Water, this ten times is Cotyla, this ten times Homer, ten such are Epha, six Ephas an Ardub. Its Cube Root will agree with the Standard-Cubit of Egypt.

I will conclude this Discourse with the Proposal of a Method, whereby this Doctrine may be made useful to all Nations, most of which are unac­quainted with our English Standards of Measure, or Weight, to which only I have made my Principal Re­duction in this Book.

This I shall do, by shewing, that either the Jewish Cubit, or our Eng­lish Foot, may be expressed and un­derstood by a known Proportion to an universal measure, which is either already known, or may easily be found by the diligent enquirer in any Na­tion: [Page 125] such is a Thread with a Bullet annexed, adjusted by carefull tryals to that length, that every single vibra­tion of it, will spend just a second Minute; so that it will vibrate 60 times in a first minute. This length will be the same in all Nations and Ages, and may easily enough be found, either by help of a true Pendulum-Clock, or otherwise exactly enough for humane uses. And as its Motion will serve to measure all Time, so its Length, by the help of Arithmetical Operations, and application, may be employ'd to measure all other conti­nued Quantities. Its whole length may be called the Horary Yard, as a third part of it is denominated the Horary Foot, by the Learned Proposer of it, Hugenius, in his Treatise de Horologio Oscillatorio.

This Length being found in any Nation, may be applied to their usual Measures, whereby it will appear to the Eyes, how it must be expressed in that Nation, as in ours it is expressed by 1 Yard, 3 Inches, 25 Centesimals of an Inch; or by 39 Inches, 25 Cen­tesimals, [Page 126] whereas the Jewish Cubit was found by us to be shorter, viz. 21.888.

Wherefore to find what Proportion, or Rate the Universal Measure hath to the Jewish Cubit, it will be conve­niet to suppose this Measure divided into Decimal Parts, 10000; and then we may find how many such parts of that Length are in their Cubit, by this Analogy.

As the Pendulum Length in our known Measure, 39.25, is to the Jews Cubit in the same Measure, 21.888, so is the Pendulum's Length in Deci­mal Parts, 10000, to the Jews Cubit in such Parts, 5576 : 5. This fourth Proportion gives the Jews Cubit in its Rate to 10000, which are Terms most fit for general use; which was the thing sought for. Now, the Cubit being so determined, the Proportion of the side of an Epha answering there­unto, may be found by the Method in­timated in the Harmony of Measures lately delivered. And the Epha being made 1000 part thereof, will give the Ounce, whose half is the Shekel.

[Page 127]Wherefore by this Method, my labour in reducing these to our English Standard, may become useful to those that know not our Standard, and con­sequently to all that understand the Language in which it's now written, or into which it may be translated, if it find acceptance.