ALTHO' 'tis not my Intention in these Preliminary Discourses to ramble through all those common Places, which relate to the Old Testament in General, yet I thought it improper to put a Trea­tise of this Nature into the Reader's hand, with­out any foregoing Address or Ceremony. As I was frequently obliged to set down several [Page 2]things in my Annotations for known or granted, because I could not prove them there at large, without running into perpetual Digressions, which I always studiously avoided; so I judged it à propos to handle and prove them more copiously in these Dissertations, least the pre­judiced Reader should imagine that I have all along built upon a precarious Foundation. Now the things which I barely deliver'd in my Com­ments without farther Proof, may be chiefly reduced to these three Heads:

• 1. The Hebrew Tongue.
• 2. The Method I follow'd in my In­terpretation.
• 3. Whether Moses was the Au­thor of the Pentateuch, and what end he pro­posed to himself in writing.

I shall begin with that concerning the Hebrew Tongue, and ma­nage the other Points as they follow in order. But before I proceed any farther, the Reader is to be informed, that I never designed to dis­cuss all the Questions that are usually proposed concerning that Language, but only such as are of absolute Necessity towards the better understanding of my Commentary, which I shall handle just as they come into my Head, without confining my self too Religiously to Method and Regularity: Therefore he is not to expect any compleat elaborate Discourse at my hands, which I neither promise here, nor ever had it so much as in my Thoughts to perform.

II. The Jews out of a Fond Affection to their own Country, and several Christians who are [Page 3]apt to be too much influenced by them, com­monly pretend, that the Hebrew Language was that which Adam, the first Parent of Mankind, spoke. The most plausible Argument for which Opinion, is deduced from a few Names and Etymologies; but tho' the Maintainers of it boast, that they put the Matter beyond all Dispute, yet I am inclined to believe, they are not so Invincible as 'tis pretended. To which purpose 'twill be necessary to hear the full Merits of the Cause, before we proceed to give Sentence.

• 1. In the first place they alledge the Name of the first Man Adam, which in the Hebrew Tongue alone alludes to the word Earth, out of which his Body was form'd, for only the Jews call the Earth Adama. This Paronomasia or Similitude of Names, plainly appears in the second Chapter of Genesis verse 7. Et formavit Jehova Deus Adam pulverem ex Adama, hoc est, terrâ. The Chaldees indeed have the word Adam, but then they call the Earth Arhah, which Term has no Affinity with the name of our first Parent.
• 2. For the same reason Eve's Name Hhavah is derived from the word Hhai, Living, because she was the Mother of all Hhai, Living, Gen. 3.20. Now this Etymology is corrupted in the Chaldee, which renders it chol bue enascha, of all the Sons of Men.
• 3. So in the second Chapter of Genesis, v. 23. She, says Adam speaking of his Wife, shall be [Page 4]called Ischah, Woman, because Meisch, she is taken out of Man. Therefore since this chiming of the words is to be found in no other Language but this, they conclude that it was unquestionably the very same that Adam spoke.
• 4. After Abel was kill'd, Seth was born to our first Mother, Eve, whose name she derives from a Radix in the Hebrew Tongue, Gen. 4.25. She call'd his name Scheth; For, says she, God has raised me up, Schath, another Son in the room of Abel.

These and several other Names are brought by the Rabbies, to prove, as they imagine, that Hebrew is the Primitive Language; and they urge them with that Assurance and Ostenta­tion, as if 'twere down-right Obstinacy to con­tradict so evident a Truth; but we have many weighty Reasons on our side, to incline us to believe, that the Primitive Language was no more related to the Hebrew, than it was either to the Chaldee or Arabick. But that the Reader may better comprehend our Meaning, we own that Opinion seems to be most probable to us, which maintains that neither Hebrew, Chaldee, nor Arabick, nor indeed any other Oriental Language, was that which Adam spoke, because in process of Time, and by the Dispersion of Mankind, it was split into several Dialects of the Eastern Tongues, and begot the above-men­tioned Languages, and some others nearly re­sembling them. Thus, for instance, the Lan­guage of the Old Romans, is neither that which [Page 5]the Italians, French or Spaniards use, and yet it produced these three Languages, and has left several of its old Remainders in them. I know the Rabbins are of a different Opinion, who pre­tend that it was preserv'd unmixt and intire in the Family of Heber; but I shall soon demon­strate, that this is precariously affirm'd, and wants Reasons to support it.

As for what relates to the Argument bor­row'd from the Etymology of Names, it is to be observ'd in the first place, that some of them are not so much proper Names given to the Children at their Birth, as Cognomina, or Sir­names by which they were known to Poste­rity, and so in process of time passed for pro­per Names. For which reason they might sometimes be changed, and yet the Parono­masia of the Primitive Language be happily preserv'd at the same time, as will evidently appear by the following Examples.

Adam, as all the World knows, is not a pro­per Name, but bestow'd on the first Man, [...], or by way of Pre-eminence, and so our first Father might be thus call'd by the Hebrews, tho' his Contemporaries call'd him otherwise. Nor is the Agreement of the words, which we confess falls out patly enough in the Hebrew Tongue, an Argument to the con­trary, for therefore Man might be call'd Adam by the Hebrews, because they knew the first Man's Body was form'd of Clay. Thus in the Latin Tongue, which I believe no Man in the [Page 6]World ever dreamt to be the Primitive Lan­guage, we might say that God call'd the first Man Homo, because he was form'd ex humo, i. e. out of the Ground. Besides the same thing might accidentally happen in the words Isch and Ischah, as amongst the ancient Latins ^(a) vir and vira were in use.

We might here produce the frequent Altera­tions of Names, even of those we call Proper, but the Reader may find them in the Learned Grotius's Annotations on Gen. 11.1. and in Huetius's Demonstratio Evangelica, Propos. 4. c. 13. §. 4. We shall at present content our selves to give an Instance or two, not taken notice of by them, of an Etymology happily expressed in another Language. Every one has heard of a Famous City in Egypt, which the Greeks call'd [...], which name (for 'tis of Greek Extraction) is rightly derived [...], from dirt, because it was built in a dirty place. For thus Strabo in his Seventeenth Book, Page 552. of the Geneva Edition put out by Casaubon, [...]. — [...].

Now if the Books of the Hebrew Prophets were all lost, Who would not Swear that this City had no other Name? Who would not believe that it was built by some Greeks that settled there, or by the Posterity of Lagus, and bore this Greek Name ever since its beginning. However 'tis undeniable from Ezekiel 30.14, 15. that it was call'd Sin by the Egyptians, which word signifies dirt, as Bochart has observ'd, Phaleg. l. 4. c. 27.

The same has happen'd in the name of ano­ther place not far distant from Pelusium. Dio­dorus Siculus in the first Book of his Bibliotheca mightily commends Actisanes the Aethiopian, who after he had conquer'd Ammoses King of the Egyptians, and subdued the whole Coun­try, neither put the Guilty to death, nor yet wholly dismiss'd them unpunish'd, but carried multitudes of the Condemned, he thus used them, [...] (or [...]) [...]. Cutting off their Noses, he transplanted them into the farthest parts of a desart Region, and built a City, and called it from this accident Rinocolura. Strabo in his sixteenth Book makes the same Remark, and so does Stephanus upon this word. Now those Persons that do not know, that the Egyptians at this time did not speak Greek, would easily suffer themselves to be perswaded, especially seeing it named among the Cities of [Page 8] Egypt, that Rinocolura was the very name by which this City went among the Egyptians.

But if any one would rather desire to see Ex­amples fetch'd from the Holy Scriptures, he may observe how the Seventy Interpreters turn the Proper Names of the Bible into Greek, Gen. 11.9. [...] (Babel) [...]. Therefore the name of it was called Confusion ( Babel or Babylon) because there the Lord confounded the Lips of the whole Earth. See likewise Gen. 31.47. & 32.20.

Nay what is highly remarkable, Moses has deriv'd the Original of his own Name from an Hebrew word, and has introduced the Daughter of Pharaoh speaking Hebrew, who without que­stion exprest her self in the Egyptian Tongue, Exod. 2.10. The Child grew up, and his Nurse brought him to the Daughter of Pharaoh, who called his name Mosche; because, said she, I drew him out of the Water, Mishithinou. And the reason of it is plain, for since Moses saw he could easily imitate the Egyptian Origination in the Hebrew Tongue, he made no Scruple to bring in this Princess, expressing her self after that manner. But in the Egyptian Tongue he is called [...], that is, taken out of the Water; for with the Old Egyptians [...] signified Wa­ter, and [...] taken out. Thus in the New Testa­ment, he that was called by the Syrians Chipha or Chepha, was called [...], Peter, by the Greeks; and so that Paronomasia, which our [Page 9]Saviour used in the Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaïc, was conveniently enough translated into the Greek Tongue, Matt. 16.17.

However I would by no means be thought to affirm, that the Name of Adam, and such-like, were changed: For it might so happen, that both the Primitives and Derivatives of the first Language were often preserved in the He­brew: But we must not conclude from thence, that therefore Adam spoke pure Hebrew. There are some Names, which with equal Felicity may be deduced out of the Chaldee; as for instance, the Name Hhavah, for Hhai signifies Living, no less in Chaldee than it does in Hebrew. Nay, there are some Names which cannot Analogi­cally be derived from the Hebrew Roots, al­though Moses deduces them from those Roots, which if we should urge, as the Rabbins do, to support the contrary Opinion, we should from thence conclude, that the Hebrew Tongue has no Affinity with the Language of the Antedilu­vians. Thus Gen. 2.1. And she brought forth Cain, and said, I have got (Kanithi) a man of the Lord. The Name Kajin, according to the common Rules, ought to be deduced from Koun, which signifies to Lament in Pihel; as Kajits the Summer, from Kouts; Tsaiid, Hunt­ing, from Tsoud; and several more of the like nature. From the Root Kanah we should more properly deduce Kanovi. Now, as we have ob­served, if we were minded to copy after the Rabbins, and follow their Conduct, we might [Page 10]say, That from hence 'tis evident, that the Hebrew Tongue is not the first, since Moses was not able to express in it the Etymology of the word Kain. We might gather the same from Genesis Chap. 5. v. 29. where the Father of Noah calls the Name of his Son Noahh, say­ing, he will Comfort us, Jenahhamenou, for if we are to derive the Name of this Restorer of Man­kind from Nahham, we ought to have called him Nohhem, that is to say, a Comforter, not Noahh, which can be deduced from nothing else but Noahh quievit. So that if a few happy Etymologies will prove the Antediluvian Lan­guage to have been the same with the Hebrew, surely those of a different Nature will demon­strate the contrary. But since both these Pro­positions cannot be true, what remains, but that we should own that the Hebrew Language is not indeed the first, but the Off-spring of it; as are likewise the Chaldee and Arabick, and that some Remainders of it are still preserved in these three Dialects. True it is, that the Original of the Name of Tubal Cain, which is neither to be traced out of Hebrew nor Chaldee, is plainly found in the Arabick, as we have shewn at the third ^(b) Chapter v. 22. Besides [Page 11]the Etymology of the word Babel is more happily deduced from the Chaldee word Bilbel confudit, than from the Hebrew Balal, which signifies the same; for there is a greater Affi­nity between Babel and Bilbel, than between Babel and Balal.

But to deliver my Sentiments freely, con­cerning the Antediluvian and some other anci­ent Names, many of them were not so much given them as Names at their Birth to distin­guish them from other Men, as they are to be looked upon as Sirnames, afterwards bestowed upon them for some particular Event or Acci­dent that befel them. And from hence it came to pass, as we have already shewn, that these Names were changed by the Hebrews, as 'tis certain some of them were changed by the Arabians. The first begotten Son of Adam was Cain, as Moses tells us, a Tiller of the Ground, which furnish'd the Arabians with an occasion to reckon the Lord knows who, one Habdel hharits, that is to say, the Servant of a Tiller, among the Sons of Adam; which rather signi­fies Cain's manner of Living, than another Son of our first Parents, as some People imagin'd. Concerning which Consult, Schickard in the Prooemium to his Catalogue of the Persian Kings. His other Son was called Hebel, that is, a fading thing that soon disappears, because he was kill'd by his Brother in his Youth. We know indeed that some Expositors have con­jectur'd, that from a Prophetical Spirit this [Page 12]Name was given him at his Birth by his Pa­rents; but a bare simple Conjecture can never amount to a Demonstration. A Person of sin­gular Piety, and consequently instructed in all the Knowledge of Divine Matters, which those Times were capable of, is called Hhanoch from the Verb Hhanach, that is, docuit, instituit, whence the Participle Hhanouch, doctus, learned. For this reason the same Man is called by the Arabians Idris, which signifies learned; for da­ras with the Hebrews and Arabians, is accuratè & subtiliter indagavit. His Son was called in After-ages Methouschelahh, i. e. After his Death a breaking out, to wit, of Waters, happened. After the Flood Peleg, that is, Division the Son of Heber, in whose days the Earth was divided, Chap. 10. v. 25. We have also observed on the ^(c) Tenth Chapter v. 8. that Nimrod was no very honourable Title for him to whom it was given. Perhaps we might discover several others of the like kind, if we had a fuller and larger History of those Times. But these we [Page 13]have cited, are more than sufficient to shew, that some of those Sirnames might be changed by Moses.

And therefore their Argument of Primitive Antiquity, deduced barely from Names, is not of that Consequence as the Rabbins, and those that implicitly follow their Authority may imagine. However since the other reasons that are alledged by the Jews fall infinitely short of this, we lie under no Obligation to trifle away our time in confuting them, especially since the Vanity of them has been already demon­strated by the Learned Huetius.

III. There seems to have been but one Lan­guage before the Deluge: This we are sure of, that there was but one in the Family of Noah, till the Fantastical Project of the Building of Babel was set on foot, that is to say, as long as they continued all in the same place. But after that, upon the account of some Differences arising at Babylon, Mankind was dispersed into several Provinces of the World, and when in process of time these distant Families preserved either none, or but a small Correspondence one with another, several new Dialects sprung up. Thus we see that the Latin Tongue has given birth to the Italian, Spanish and French Tongues, not to mention the several Dialects of each of these. So the Saxon Tongue alone begot the Modern German, the Dutch and English. We have See this handled at large in the sixth Dis­sertation. else­where shewn that the variety [Page 14]of Languages did not immediately arise by any sudden miraculous Impression of the Divine Power; and indeed those that maintain the contrary Opinion, own that there was rather a variety of Dialects, than of new Tongues.

Therefore the Primitive or first Language has upon several accounts been changed; as for instance, it was turn'd by the Arabians into the Arabick, by the Chaldees it was wrested into the Chaldean, and by the Canaanites insen­sibly changed into the Canaanean Dialect. The Jews, who fansied it to be the Hebrew Tongue, pretend it remain'd without Change or Corru­ption in the Family of Heber, which neverthe­less is no where attested in the Holy Scripture. Nay, on the other side, it sufficiently intimates, that the Posterity of Heber, who continued on the other side the Euphrates, rather spoke Chaldee, as we shall see anon.

Since therefore the Rabbins are not able to produce one positive Testimony out of the Bible, to prove that the Antediluvian Lan­guage came down intire and incorrupted to the Descendants of Heber, they endeavour, which is the last Refuge of a declining Cause, to evince it by far-fetch'd Reasons. They pre­tend that neither Heber nor his Son Peleg, from whom the Israelites are lineally descended, were concerned in building the Tower of Babel. But this is a downright Dream, supported by no manner of reason, as we have shewn in our sixth Dissertation.

• First, They pretend that the Family of Cham, assisted by some of the Posterity of Shem and Japhet, fell upon this design, and that Nimrod was the chief Surveyor and Encourager of the Work, which they gather chiefly from Gen. 10.9, 10. where Babel, Erech, Acchad and Chalne in the Land of Sinaar, are said to be the beginning of Nimrod's Kingdom. But nothing more can be evinced from hence, but only that Nimrod, after the rest of Mankind had quitted Babylon, continued there still with his Family, and was either the Master or Founder of those Cities.
• Secondly, They mightily in­veigh against the Impiety of the Builders of Babel in most Tragical Strains, and thence conclude that the Godly Patriarchs, of which number Heber was one, were not engaged in that wicked Design: But we have shewn, that though for certain reasons God Almighty was pleased to disapprove the Design, yet there was no Wickedness in it. Besides I would fain know who it was inform'd the Jews that Heber was so Pious and Godly a Person? I am sure his Piety is no where commended; nay on the contrary, Abraham's Ancestors who liv'd on the other side the Euphrates, are not obscurely charged with Idolatry in ^(d) Joshua 24.2.
• Thirdly, They [Page 16]pretend that the Posterity of Heber escaped the Punishment which this bold Attempt drew upon the rest of Mankind, since they always preserved the Hebrew Language in its Primi­tive Purity and Perfection. But we need not now repeat, that the Language, which after­wards was called the Hebrew, can with no more pretence set up for the first Tongue than the Chaldee, for we hope we have already demon­strated that Point, but I would fain ask them a few questions, If Heber and his Sons had no share in this Transgression (if it deserve that name) how happened it that the Posterity of Joktan, who was the Son of Heber above-mentioned, came to speak Arabick? How came it to pass, that most of the Children of Shem, who, as they pretend, was none of the Builders of Babel, that his Children, I say, who settled beyond the Euphrates, either spoke Chaldee or some other Language more remote from the Hebrew? In a word, whatever the Rabbins impudently prate of the Hebrew Tongue's be­ing preserv'd in one Family, it is, in my Opi­nion, the Product of their own empty lying Brains, which in all Ages of the World were known to be Famous for inventing of Fables, and Heber's Posterity liable to the common Fate of the rest of Mankind, as they came to be scatter'd into various Regions, so no doubt of it but they expressed their meaning in diffe­rent Sounds.

If we should then enquire, what was the Language that Abraham spoke on the other side the Euphrates, (letting bare Conjectures, or rather Rabbinical Comments alone) the most probable Opinion is, That he spoke that Lan­guage which not long after was received in those places, I mean the Chaldee. He lived till the seyentieth Year of his Life, perhaps, at Ʋr of the Chaldees, whither one of his Ancestors went and setled, after Mankind had resolved to seek their Fortunes in different Countries. After­wards he continued for some time at Haran in Mesopotamia.

Now 'tis manifest beyond all Dispute, that Chaldee was spoke in these places, in the days of Jacob the Grand-child of Abraham; for in Gen. 31.47. Laban is said to have called a heap of Stones erected in remembrance of the Cove­nant he made with Jacob, Jegar schaha doutha, which words are merely Chaldee, and signifie the Heap of Witness. Nor does the Language of his Grand-father Nachor seem to be any other than this, because Languages do not use to change in so short a course of time; for 'tis to no purpose to say that the Posterity of Peleg preserved the Hebrew Tongue among them­selves, since no reason can be assigned, why Laban, who descended from him, as well as Abraham, spoke the Chaldean Tongue, while the rest of the Gentiles spoke another. Besides if the Hebrew Language was in use among the Descendants of Peleg beyond Euphrates, cer­tainly [Page 18]some remainders of it would be shewn us, since 'tis an undeniable Truth, that the Ara­mean or Chaldean Dialect was spoken on the East of Euphrates. In short, no tolerable cause can be assigned, why only Abraham's Family should preserve the old Language in Canaan, and propagate it to his Posterity, and yet the other Children of Peleg in Mesopotamia should utterly forget it, and learn a new Dialect. As the Posterity of Peleg, that fixt their Habita­tions beyond the Euphrates, had frequent In­ter-marriages with the Inhabitants of those places, so likewise the Children of Abraham not only took them Wives out of their Father's Family, as Isaac and Jacob did, but also married Ca­naanitish Women, as is evident by the Example of Jacob's Sons.

The Sacred Writers expresly tell us, that in the following Ages, on the North and South of Mesopotamia, the Syrian Tongue was spoken, which the Jews did not understand; but we are no where told, that they were ignorant of the Language of their Neighbours the Ca­naanites. At the same time I do not deny but that there may be different Dialects in one and the same Language, as we find by experience in all Modern Tongues, but still those Dialects are understood by all the Neighbours.

When Sennacherib Monarch of Assyria, that is to say, King not only of the Nations beyond the Tygris, but likewise of the Ʋpper-Mesopo­tamia, sent an Ambassador to Hezekiah King of [Page 19] Judah, to stir up the People to a Rebellion: Hezekiah's Courtiers thus address themselves to him, because he talked in Hebrew. Speak, we pray thee, to thy Servants, in the Aramean or Syrian Language, for we understand it, but talk not to us in Hebrew, least the People that is upon the Wall should hear, 2 Kings 18.26. It also appears out of Daniel, Esdras and Nehemiah, that the Chaldean Tongue was spoken at Ba­bylon. Nabuchodonosor, Dan. 1.4. commands some Youths to be chosen out of the Jewish Nobility, that were carried to Babylon to be in­structed in the Learning and Language of the Chaldeans. So likewise Jeremiah speaks of the Chaldeans, Chap. 5.15. Behold, says the Lord, I will bring a Nation upon you from afar, O House of Israel, which is a powerful Nation, and an an­cient Nation, a Nation whose Language thou knowest not, neither understandest what they say.

But no where do we find any like this said of those Nations that were situated between the Mediterranean-Sea and the Jordan. The Dia­lects of the neighbouring People were indeed easie to be distinguished from the Jewish Tongue, as Nehemiah particularly tells us of that of Asdod and some others, Chap. 13.24. but 'tis no where affirmed, that they were not un­derstood by the Jews.

V. Having thus shewn that Hebrew was nei­ther the Primitive Tongue, nor preserved in the Family of Heber, nor yet Abraham's Mo­ther-Tongue, it now remains for me to enquire [Page 20]where it was spoken: To give my own Opi­nion freely, though it is different from that of several Learned Men, who therein agree with the Jews, I suppose it was the Language of Ca­naan, and that the Posterity of Abraham learnt it between the Mediterranean-Sea and the Jordan, but by no means brought it thither out of Chaldaea; neither can I discover after the se­verest Examination, the least Absurdity in this Opinion; for here we have a Chaldean remove himself with his whole Family into another Country, and having past the Euphrates and Jordan, wanders up and down Canaan for a hundred years, enters into Covenant with the old Inhabitants, acquires a prodigious Wealth among them, marries several Concubines, gets Children, lives in mighty Credit and Reputa­tion, and consequently has frequent Conversa­tions with them. Now after all this, Can any one think it strange, that he learnt a Language which has so great an Affinity with his own Mother-Tongue, and that his whole Family conform'd themselves in their Speech to the Natives of the Place. Add to this, That Isaac passed his whole, and Jacob the better part of his Life among them, that the Children of them both were brought up in the same Country, and had their Wives from thence. So that upon a due Survey of the matter, it had been a downright Miracle if they had still preserved the Chaldean Tongue, so little reason have we to wonder, that the Canaanitish Language became familiar to these People.

And therefore I look upon that Opinion to be ill grounded, which supposes that the Isra­elites spoke a different Language from the Peo­ple of Canaan. 'Tis certain that Isaiah plainly calls Hebrew the Language of Canaan, Chap. 19.18. In that day, says he, there shall be five Cities in the Land of Egypt which shall speak the lip of Canaan; which is all one as if he had said, the Language of Canaan. For the word lip, both there, and in Gen. 11.1. signifies Speech, because the Lips are no less serviceable in speak­ing, than the Tongue it self.

Nor is this Opinion supported by bare Pro­bability, or to be called a Conjecture merely deduced from the Name, for Bochart, in the second Book of his Canaan, Chap. 1. has fully demonstrated it to be grounded upon Truth, which we shall lay down before the Reader in a few words, because in some Particulars we dissent from that admirable Man. His first and strongest Argument to prove the Language of the Canaanites to be the same with that of the Hebrews, is brought from the Names of Men and Places, which are purely Hebrew. N. Fuller in the fourth Book of his Miscellanies, Chap. 4. maintains the contrary Opinion: Though I grant, says he, all those names to be purely Hebrew, yet I deny that any of them were Canaanitish names, or given by those People; I rather believe that the old names that were imposed by the Canaanites, the Primitive Inhabitants of that Country, were afterwards pronounced and expounded by the [Page 22]Hebrews, who succeeded them in that Land, after the Hebrew manner. Which Hypothesis, were it true, no Argument could be formed out of the Antediluvian Names to prove the Anti­quity of the Hebrew Language, and yet Fuller would not willingly grant this, nor indeed any of the Patrons of this Opinion. But in truth this is no better than a Chimaera, to which the Holy Scriptures give not the least Countenance; for though we should allow that some of these words were disguised with a Hebrew Sound and Termination, yet who can imagine that all of them were served after this manner, and that neither Moses nor Joshua should in one single Line inform us, that they changed all the names, before the Israelites possessed themselves of the Land of Canaan. Now besides that this is altogether Incredible and without President, there are two things that demonstrate it to be absolutely False. One is, That Moses and Joshua give us an account of the Alteration made in several Names, by which it appears, that this was the particular Case of some few Cities, and not common to them all. Consult Gen. 23.2. as also Numb. 32.38. and Joshua 15.13, 14. c. 19.47. The other is, That not only the names of those Cities in the Possession of the Israelites are of Hebrew Extraction, but also of the neighbouring places which they had not sub­dued, as Gaza, Asdod, G [...]th, Hekron, Ascalon, which belonged to the Philistines, Tyrus, Sidon, Barepta, &c.

The Second Argument to prove the Cana­anean Original of the Hebrew Tongue is de­duced from hence, That though the Sacred Writers expresly tell us, that several of the neighbouring Nations were of a Language dif­ferent from the Hebrews, yet there is not the least thing like this said of the Canaanites: We have already taken notice that this was fre­quently observed of the Chaldeans. The People of Egypt are called Lohez, Psalm 114.1. that is to say Barbarous; besides there was an Inter­preter between Joseph, who pretended himself to be an Egyptian, and his Brethren, see Gen. 42.23. likewise Psal. 81.6. In the mean time, though the Hebrews maintained such frequent Correspondences with the Canaanites, and trans­acted so much Business with them from Abra­ham down to Joshua, yet we find not the least mention of an Interpreter passing between them.

The Third Argument arises from the very use of the Interpreter whom Joseph employed; for if only Jacob's Family spoke Hebrew, How was it possible for Joseph to get an Interpreter? He could have no other but some Fugitive Ser­vant, who would have soon known both Joseph and his Brethren.

The Fourth is by Bochart, derived from the Remainders of the Phoenician Tongue, which in the second Book of his Canaan, he emply de­monstrates to be purely Hebrew.

We shall add a Fifth, which proceeds from the manifest Footsteps of Paganism, that are [Page 24]easily to be traced in this Language. For since Tongues are Images of the Sentiments of our Mind, and are form'd and modell'd according to the Opinion of those People that use them; it cannot otherwise happen, but that the com­mon Speech of any Country, must derive a great Tincture from the received Opinions of the Inhabitants. Thus learned Criticks have observed, that the Arabians have more than five hundred names for a Lyon, more than a thou­sand for a Sword, two hundred at least for a Serpent, and fourscore for Honey. The reason of it is, because the Arabians use frequently to talk of these things, since their Country is so pester'd with Lyons and Serpents, is inhabited by a Warlike People, and abounds in Honey. 'Tis an easie matter to observe both in the Greek and Latin Tongues, though we were destitute of all other Arguments, which are indeed innu­merable, that the Greeks and Latins were of Opinion, that the Gods beheld the Actions of Mankind, and were Faithful Witnesses of the Truth, from those frequent Forms of Swearing, which they used so everlastingly in all their Conversations.

I will not give my self the Trouble to con­firm a Truth, which is supported by so many Examples, not to mention the Custom of all the Modern Languages, but come immediately to the Point. The Hebrew Tongue which flou­rished, and was for some time cultivated by the Canaanites, a People who had strange Notions [Page 25]of the Divinity, and were infected with Poly­theism, retain'd several visible Footsteps of those Errors, even after it became the Mother-Tongue of the Hebrews, who had quite different Senti­ments. The Phoenicians not only believed a Plurality of Gods, but ranked several Men in the number of their Deities (as Eusebius tells us Praep. Evang. l. 1. c. 6.) and therefore more frequently made use of the word Elohim, which is of the Plural Number, than the Singular Eloha God, which we see still continued in the Hebrew Language, though they maintain'd the contrary Opinion, and were always zealous Assertors of one God. Hence it comes to pass, that sometimes they joyn a Verb in the Singu­lar Number to it, pursuant to their own Notions of the Unity of God; and sometimes in the Plural, after the manner of their Neighbours, though they only meant one God by it, see Gen. 1.1. Chap. 20.13. and our ^(e) Annota­tions on those places. 'Tis also observable, that the same word Elohim does not only signifie the Supream God, but likewise Angels and Magistrates. The reason of which is plain, Be­cause [Page 26]the Phoenicians did not observe a sufficient distinction between God, Angels and Magi­strates, since several Men were reputed as Gods by them. For otherwise if this Language had been invented, and cultivated by a People free from Idolatry, as the Hebrews afterwards were, they had neither communicated a name be­longing to the Divine Nature to Creatures, nor had they used it plurally in their ordinary Dis­courses. 'Tis certain we have nothing like this in any of the Modern European Languages, nay not in the Arabick of the Mahometans, who profess themselves like the Europeans, to be in­vincible Adversaries to Polytheism.

Every one knows that the Hebrews invete­rately hated that Opinion, which supposes the Divinity to be [...], i. e. resembling the Humane Nature; neither is it to be imagined, that these People, who were the Worshippers of one invisible eternal God, if they had had the inventing of their own Language, would have in their common Talk so much favoured the abovementioned Opinion, from which we see most Christians now-a-days carefully ab­stain for the same reason. But the Holy Scri­ptures afford us an infinite number of Examples of this [...]; and Salom. Glassius, a most industrious and learned Writer, bestows the longest Chapter of his Sacred Rhetorick, which is the Seventh, Tract. 1. in enumerating them: And true it is, that mention is made of God's Soul, Face, Eyes, Ears, Nose, Mouth, Neck, [Page 27]Arms, his right and left Hand, Fingers, Heart, Bowels, Bosom and Feet. Not is this all, for an observing Reader may find several other re­markable Instances of the [...] upon other Occasions. We find attributed to God Sadness, Repentance, Anger, Hatred, Jealousie, a Knowledge, not from Eternity and constant to it self, but acquired by Experience, Remembrance, Forgetfulness, Laughter, Noise, Labour, Vows, Going down, Rising up, Walking, Sleeping, Watching, and several things of the like nature, which though they are said more humano, are yet to be under­stood [...], which the abovementioned Learned Author has ingeniously remark'd, whom the Reader, if he pleases, may consult himself. These frequent Examples were for­merly insisted upon, and abused by the [...], from whose Errors nevertheless the Hebrews were always free, as they were from the Idolatry of their Neighbours.

Some feeble Objections may be urged against this Opinion, but they are so effectually con­futed by Bochart, that a Man must be incura­bly Obstinate, who after he has read his Rea­sons, will still persist in the defence of them; so that since they will fall down of their own accord, if we do but remember what has been already advanced, 'tis not necessary to dwell any longer upon them. But some body perhaps will think to affright us with the Title of Holy, which is a Compliment the Jews have passed upon their own Language. Now if they mean [Page 28]no more by it, but that Holy Laws were given them by God Almighty in that Tongue, and other most Holy Revelations made by the Pro­phets, we have no Controversie with them up­on that Article; we grant it all, and urge it as well as they. God, if he had so vouchsafed, might have declared his Will in the Indian Lan­guage, but this had not conferr'd the least San­ctity upon the Indian Letters and Accents, nor ought the Indian Tongue to have been accounted less Holy for its Penury and Barrenness. Our Saviour and his Apostles revealed the most Holy Doctrines of the Gospel in the Galilean Tongue, which was known, but despised by those of Je­rusalem. The Apostles also preached the Go­spel to the Gentiles in every Language, which is no less Holy for all that, than if they had delivered it in the same Tongue which Adam spoke, for that lies not in empty Sounds and Words, but in the Things and Thoughts. And 'tis perhaps out of Envy to them, that the Rab­bins have expresly forbid Prayers to be said in any other Language but the Hebrew, nay not excepting the Syrian. Rabbi Jochanan's Pre­cept in Talmud Schab, Fol. 12.2. as 'tis gene­rally known, so 'tis deservedly laught at, Who­ever Prays to have his Necessities relieved in the Syrian Tongue, the Ministring Angels do not assist him, for the Ministring Angels do not understand Syriack. 'Tis not worth the while to confute those People, who believe, as the Rabbins do, that this is the Language of the Angels, and [Page 29]will be that of the Just after the Resurrection Those that can so easily swallow such Stuff, de­serve indeed the name of great Opiniatres, but are not, I believe, much affected with solid Rea­soning.

VI. 'Tis now high time to come to some­thing else, which no less disagrees from the Rab­binical Opinions than the former, but is of much greater use in the Interpretation of the Sacred Volume. 'Tis commonly boasted by these high­flyers, that the Hebrew Language is infinitely the finest in the World; in short, they are so liberal in their Commendations of the Hebrew Style, that they despise all other Tongues in comparison of that. We confess indeed there are some Beauties and Elegancies peculiar to the Hebrew Tongue, as there are to all the Tongues in the World, but at the same time believe it is not to be compared with others more refined and copious Languages. But before I proceed any farther, I am to inform the Reader, that it is consider'd by us, not such as perhaps it was in its flourishing Condition, but as we find it in the Holy Writings. I freely acknowledge that there were much more words, and a greater Variety of Phrases used, than we find in this small Volume; but as far as we can judge of it by its remainders, we have just reason to believe it to be a barren, ambiguous, unrefined Lan­guage, which now we shall endeavour to prove.

The Excellency of every Language consists principally in three things, viz. Plenty of Words [Page 30]and Phrases, Perspicuity of Speech, and Purity; the Rules for which are copiously laid down by those that have treated of Rhetorick. Now 'tis certain that several Languages, but especially the Greek, are much superior to Hebrew in all these Considerations, and 'tis a plain Case, that Hebrew can with no Pretence be said to be the finest Language in the World.

In the first place, Those that attentively read over the Holy Writings, or consult the Hebrew Lexicons, will be soon convinced that it has but very few Words, and very few Phrases. There are not only the same words, but (what argues a miserable Poverty) we meet with the very same Expressions every where, but espe­cially in the Historical Books. The same Thread of Narration, the same Particularities of Style and Expression are visible all along: Nor is this only observable of the Writers of one Age, for all the Historians of all Times and Ages, have writ exactly after the same manner. I would demonstrate this Assertion more at large, were not most Men convinced of the Evidence and Truth of it: Therefore I will dwell no longer upon so plain a Chapter, I will only add, That the very Rabbins, who generally omitting the true Praises of their Country, still affect to Honour it with their Romances and Legends, are uncontrolable Witnesses of the Poverty of their own Language, since for the Interpretation of the Law, they are obliged to coin innume­rable Words for the present Occasion, or else to [Page 31]setch them out of the Syro-Chaldaick and other Languages: And in these the Talmudical Books abound, and without them they could never be able to deliver or express their own meaning. Every one knows that there are at least ten times more words in Buxtorf's Rabbinital The­saurus, than in his Bible-Lexicon. Nevertheless, with all their Foreign Assistance, this Copia Rabbinica falls infinitely short of the Graecian and Latin Treasures.

If we enquire into the Cause of the great Sterility of the Hebrew Language, we shall find it to be the same as has been observed of other Languages. Where Arts and Sciences lie under Contempt, and sew Treatises are written, there must of necessity be a great want of words to express several things; for Men never im­pose Names on things or the Notions of the Mind, of which they never think, dispute, or write. For example, Before the Greeks dili­gently cultivated Philosophy, there were a thou­sand things of which Men never thought, and for expressing of which they had wanted fit words, if they had not coin'd new ones. The same thing befel the Romans, when they first be­gan to treat of Philosophical Subjects in Latin. I call those things Qualities, says Cicero, l. 1. c. 7. Acad. quaest. which the Greeks call [...], which very Term among the Greeks is not used by the Vulgar, but only by Philosophers, and several Instances there are of the like nature. The Logi­cians too have their particular by-words which [Page 32]the People do not understand, and this Method is common to all Arts: For either new words are to be coin'd, or else they are to be borrow'd from else­where; and if the Greeks follow this Conduct, who have for so many Ages exercised themselves in these Affairs, How much more Lawful is it for us to do it, who but now begin to treat of them? By this Instance, which may be back'd with several Arts unknown to the Hebrews, 'tis easie to perceive how great a Penury of words they must unavoidably labour under. As they were in a particular manner ignorant in Grammar, Rhetorick, and the whole Circle of Philosophy, as appears by their Writings, they must conse­quently be destitute of all those great Assistances that those Arts use to furnish. Poetry indeed, as far as the Genius of their Language would permit, was cultivated somewhat better by them; several things are majestically and beau­tifully said in their Songs, but yet so as to con­vince every impartial Reader, rather what they might have done, if they had used the same Application with other Nations, than what Per­fection of Eloquence they had already acquired.

Secondly, Want of words begot Ambiguity, for when we are destitute of proper Terms to explain our meanings by, we must wrest them into another Sence, or else express particular things in words common to several more. For Metaphors, as Cicero well observes, l. 3. de Orat. c. 38. are like borrowing, where what a Man has not of his own, he supplies himself with elsewhere. [Page 33]Now if one and the same word signifies several [...]hings, one in its proper Acceptation, the rest [...] a borrow'd or tralatitious Sence, 'tis no easie [...]atter to distinguish its several Significations, [...]nd when Particulars are called by common Names, it often happens that we do not clearly [...]nderstand, in what respect they differ from [...]ther things of the same Genus. For instance, Erets signifies among the Hebrews Clay that Vessels are made of, a Tract of Ground either [...]ore or less suitable to the present Occasion, [...]he whole Globe of the Earth, and the Men that [...]nhabit it; so that 'tis hard to say, which is its proper Signification, and which Figurative. When an universal Designation is fixed upon this word, which is express'd by chol, All, 'tis doubted whether the whole Kingdom, or a less compass of Ground, or the Globe of the Earth, or whe­ther all Men, or only some, are to be under­stood by it; so that nothing but the Context, or the Nature of the thing in debate, can assist our Conjectures. When figurative Words and Phrases cannot be so urged, as fully to express the things they describe, how far they may be urged without an Error, is often doubtful.

Now if we consider the various Significations of the indeclinable Particles, and how almost all the Tenses are confounded in the Verbs, and add to this their everlasting change of the Gender, Number and Person, of which subject abundance of Learned Men have written carefully, we shall have no great reason to boast of the Perspicuity [Page 34]of the Hebrew Tongue. Read but over Chr. Noldius's Concordance of the Particles, and Glas­stus's Grammatica Sacra, two well approved and excellent. Treatises, and when that is done, I believe the most obstinate Man will be con­vinced, that perhaps no Language in the World is fuller of Ambiguity and Obscurity than the Hebrew.

But yet I would not be so understood, as if a General Scheme of the Jewish Religion and Hi­story could not be had out of the Books of the Old Testament; for as that is not of it self ob­scure, the chief Matters relating to it are so fre­quently inculcated, that by virtue of those Re­petitions, they are made plain enough. Besides we do not every where meet Ambiguities and Reasons to doubt, though 'tis certain there are but too many of them. Hence it is that no­thing belonging to the Religion or History of the Israelites in general, has been called in que­stion, though infinite Disputes have happened among the Learned, concerning some particular Circumstances, and other abstruser Matters, which are never to be decided by any Light of the Understanding, or any Application of Mind. Our Commentary all along abounds with such sort of Questions, wherein we cannot pretend to state Matter of Fact, but only deliver what we think our selves, and what others before us have conjectured; for there are infinite places so unaccountably perplext, that 'tis easie to de­monstrate the Impossibility of finding out the [Page 35]genuine Meaning of them, and every Person that has but a competent Knowledge of these Matters, will be soon sensible of this Truth, if he does but carefully consider it. For this rea­son those Persons that pretend to be influenced by the Truth, and not by a Party, will not easily condemn another for his Opinion, provided it does not hurt the Sum and Substance of the Book. But this is not a place to talk of these Matters.

In the Third place this sufficiently shews, that the Hebrew Language was never cultivated with any extraordinary care, for as the Culture of Ground has this end, to procure Plenty of wholsome Fruits for the Tiller, so are Lan­guages for no other design cultivated, but that Men may have plenty or words to serve them upon all Occasions, and withal a Perspicuity of Oration, without which the greatest Plenty is useless. For certainly the end of Speaking, is not to amuse or tire our Hearers with multi­plicity of words, but that we may be under­stood, and by the Mediation of Speech, to con­vey our Thoughts into the Minds of others.

Now the Hebrews not only neglected Gram­mar, and those other Arts and Disciplines that help to enrich a Language in words, but were utterly unacquainted with Rhetorick that serves to refine them. Upon this account they every where trample upon the Rules of the Rhetors, even those that do not depend upon the change­able Wills of Men, but are built upon the ever­lasting [Page 36]Rules of Reason, and ought to have the same Authority all the World over. No body doubts but that Clearness is one of the greatest Happinesses any Tongue can boast of, since in­numerable Mistakes may arise from words not rightly understood, which are not only trouble­some in the common Offices of Life, but ex­treamly dangerous in Matters of greater Con­sequence. But the Hebrews, as we find, never took any great Pains to render their Language Perspicuous.

If 'tis not, it ought at least to be a Matter of Commendation among all People, neither to use fewer words than are necessary to make a Man understood, nor more than are requisite, especially in a simple Narration, that so our Hearers may fully comprehend our meaning. A Narration, says Cicero, who was not only an admirable Orator, but a great Master of Speak­ing, lib 1. de Inv. cap. 20. ought to have three Qualifications. it ought to be Concise, Clear, and Probable. We shall not meddle with the two last, as having already treated of Perspicuity, and because a Dispute about Probability is im­pertinent here, but let us see what he says of Brevity. 'Twill be short, says he, if we begin no higher than the present occasion demands, and do not ramble into far-fetch'd Stories; and if we re­late a thing in General, without mentioning every little Particular; for, generally speaking, 'tis enough to say such a thing was done, without de­scending into the Circumstances, and if we proceed [Page 37]no farther in the Story than things are worth knowing: And if we do not make Digressions into Foreign Matters: And if we so speak, that from what is already said, the Reader may sometimes guess at what is not said: And if we not only omit whatever is destructive of Perspicuity, but also whatever neither hinders nor helps it: And if every thing is only told once, and if we do not be­gin with that where we left off last. Though these Rules are agreeable to Reason, yet the Jews neglected them, as might be proved by a thou­sand Instances if there was occasion for it, which the attentive Reader will easily discover in our Annotations. Unless we carry this along with us, while we strive to accommodate the Hebrew Histories to the Precepts of Rhetorick, we spoil all, and do not understand what they mean. They are frequently defective in what is ne­cessary, and abound in Superfluities; both which, unless they are supplied, or else are known to be redundant, 'tis impossible to understand them. An Emphasis is urged where there is none at all, and when any thing is omitted in a Narration, though 'tis by no means Rhetorical, that they'll tell you, against all Sense and Reason, ought not to be understood. Hence arise those angry Wars between the Interpreters, and bold Decrees pass concerning the Sence of some ambiguous places, which 'tis a mortal Sin to endeavour afterwards to revoke. Hence proceed Anger and Hatred, and all those Mischiefs which Theo­logical Quarrels usually draw after them.

There is another Rule likewise which is fre­quently neglected in the Narrations of the He­brews, and yet is not undeservedly commended by the Skillful in Rhetorick. As we have al­ready seen, they not only advise us to make the Narration as clear as we can, but also Methodical and Open, That what is first transacted be first re­lated, and the Series of Things and Times so pre­served, that Matters be told exactly as they were done. How Religiously the Hebrews have fol­low'd this Rule, let only the Book of Genesis de­clare for them, the good Order of which Hi­story will raise a thousand insuperable Difficul­ties, if we do not remember that the Jews were no Slaves to the Regularities of Time and Action. Thus what is said concerning the Dispersion of the Nations in the tenth Chapter, ought to be placed after the ninth Verse of the eleventh Chapter. The third, fourth, fifth and eighth Verses of the eleventh Chapter are likewise Inversions of the Narrations, as also the 23d Verse of the 24th Chapter. See the Notes on Chap. 20.2. Chap. 36.6. Chap. 34.1. and what we have re­mark'd in the Chronological Tables on this place.

If from these Observations that respect intire Sentences, and the due ordering of them, we pass to single Words and single Locutions, we shall find the Precepts of Rhetorick no less neg­lected there. But at present we will only con­tent our selves to produce two or three Instances of words used in a Figurative Sence. And here, [Page 39]as the Rhetoricians tell us, All Disparity is to be avoided, because every Metaphor is, or ought to be, grounded upon some likeness. Upon which Score neither the Romans, nor the Graeci­ans, instead of to occasion a Dearth, durst have said to break the Staff of Bread. Which Expressi­on being not rightly understood, has made very Learned Men fall into strange Mistakes, as we shall shew in a proper place.

Because, as the Masters of Eloquence observe, the chief Excellence of a word figuratively applied, consists in making a greater Impression upon the Sense; therefore all gross sordid Images are care­fully to be avoided, that may nauseate the Hearer. Therefore by this Rule it was not lawful to say, That God was a War-like Man, That he was roused up like a Sleeper, and like a valiant Man, who after he has slept out his Wine, cries aloud. And several other Expressions of the like nature.

I will instance in no more, for these are suffi­cient to convince the most prejudiced Reader, that the Hebrew Language is extreamly Rude and Impolite. But before I dismiss this Article, I must inform him of two things, and then take my Farewel of it. The First is, That we by no means pretend to deny, that the Hebrew Wri­tings are here and there imbellish'd with extra­ordinary Sentences, and that there are many sublime Passages, but especially among the Pro­phets. But this is not enough to give a Lan­guage the Denomination of Polite, since no Tongue in the World can arrive to a sufficient [Page 40]Perfection of Purity, without a long and labo­rious Application to Grammar and Rhetorick for some Ages at least. A Book ought to ob­serve from the beginning to the end of it, all or most of the Rules of Elocution and Order, to make it pass for an elegant and regular Com­position. For as Pliny says, l. 3. Ep. 13. Even the Barbarians now and then invent finely, and discourse magnificently, but none but learned Per­sons can dispose things fitly, and paint them with an agreeable Variety.

The other is, That whatever has been hither­to said by us concerning the Hebrew Tongue, has only a relation to the Words and Stile, as the People commonly used them, but not to the things themselves that were revealed by God to the Jewish Prophet, and by them communi­cated to the World. No sound Christian ever denied that these things were always of the greatest Moment, and sometimes to be above the reach of Humane Understanding. But though God Almighty discover'd them to us by the Jews, yet he permitted them to use such a Stile as was most Familiar to themselves and their own Country-men: For the Spirit, by which they were influenced, by a wonderful Con­descention, accommodated himself to the re­ceived Customs of their Language. Hence it comes to pass, that the Apostles deliver'd the Doctrine of Christ not in an Attick Stile, or with Plato's Eloquence, but after their own way suit­able to the People, for though they were Di­vinely [Page 41]inspir'd, yet they were but indifferently skill'd in Humane Learning, as we are told by St. Paul, 1 Cor. 2.1. and elsewhere. And herein the Divine Wisdom manifestly appears, that these Heavenly Truths should be reveal'd to, and, for several Ages, preserved by a Barbarous unlearned People, as the Greeks called them, and yet not the least tittle of them be known to those Nations that were in full Possession of all Arts and Sciences. That this was not done rashly, but pursuant to the Will of God Al­mighty, St. Paul teaches us, [...]. But this en passant, least any Censorious Reader should imagine, that we confound Divine and Humane things together; but to carry on this Argument as it deserves, would take up a greater space than the narrow limits of this Dissertation will allow.

VII. As long as the Jewish Government stood, and the People kept unmixt from other Nations, we may probably suppose they preserv'd the Strength and Purity of their Language; so that from Moses down to Esdras, it receiv'd no sen­sible Alterations. For while they were not de­bauch'd with the Manners of their Neighbours, consequently they made no change in their Wri­tings; by which means their Language might have been extreamly alter'd, even whilst it was inrich'd and polish'd, which we know was the Fate of the Latin Tongue. And therefore 'tis not strange if we observe little or no difference of Stile in the Sacred Historians.

But after that the Tribes of Judah and Ben­jamin, as well as the other Ten, were carried into Captivity, and those that went not beyond the Euphrates, were scatter'd up and down the Neighbourhood, among Nations that spoke dif­ferent Dialects of the Canaanitish Tongue: When the Jews, I say, after Seventy years, return'd into Judea at last out of several Countries, their Lan­guage could not avoid being vitiated with a mixture of other Dialects. At that time, says Nehemiah 13.23. I saw Jews, that took to them Wives from Asdod, Hammon and Moab, and their Children spoke one half (Hhatsi) in the Speech of Asdod, and knew not to speak pure Hebrew: And thus they spoke after the Tongues of several People: Nehemiah indeed expresly tells us, he prohibited such Marriages, but 'twas not in his power to hinder the Jewish Language from being corrupted by that mixture: Nay, those that came from Chaldaea no less intro­duced Chaldaisms. In following Ages, when in­finite numbers of Jews not only lived in Judea, but in the neighbouring Nations, as Syria, Egypt, nay, and in remoter places, and yearly visited Jerusalem upon the Score of their Religion, it must of necessity follow, that not only those that lived out of Judea, but even the Inhabitants of Jerusalem, that daily convers'd with these Stran­gers, and married among them, must strangely adulterate their Language. So that at last, in­stead of the true genuine Hebraism, there sprung a Syro-Chaldean Mixture, as appears by the [Page 43]words of that Language that are to be found in the New Testament, not to mention now the Dialect of the Talmud.

As other Writers have demonstrated these Matters more copiously, and a detail of Parti­culars is not our business here, I will only ob­serve, that within some Ages after their return from the Captivity, the old Hebrew, as we find it in the Sacred Writings, was no longer the Mother-Tongue of the Jews, and therefore those that had a mind to be Masters of it, were obliged to study and peruse the Holy Volumes. Now though they had no more Hebrew Books than we have at present, yet in this matter they were much Happier than we, because the Tongue they spoke, had so great an Affinity with the ancient Hebrew, and therefore was no small help towards the attaining it. For this reason we find, that the Seventy Interpreters have ^(f) explained several obscure words out of Chaldee, or Arabick, rather than the Hebrew Books, where sometimes they are extant but once, or are read in a different Sence.

But now if we consider the lamentable Con­dition of the Jewish Republick, on every side [Page 44]oppress'd, and over-run by the Kings of Syria and Egypt for many years, we shall find they had no opportunity to apply themselves to the Study of Grammar: And indeed some Learned Men, after a careful Examination of the Septua­gint Version, which was publish'd in those times, have long ago concluded that they nei­ther had any certain fixt Grammar, or Glossary, or Lexicon of the Hebrew Tongue: For they frequently violate all the Laws of Grammar, and in the translating of unusual words, the meaning of which is not to be gather'd from the Context, they are so strangely put to it, that it plainly appears they were not led by Grammar Rules, had no certain Knowledge of the true Signifi­cation of words but guess'd and conjectur'd as well as they could, and so blunder'd right or wrong through all the difficult places. I am not ignorant that Isaac Vossius, and some other Persons, who never gave themselves the trou­ble, I suppose, to compare it with the Hebrew Original, endeavour to defend this Translation, and say 'tis in many places corrupted by the Negligence or Boldness of the Transcribers, where there's an evident Mistake in the Tran­slating a Hebrew Word. But those that exa­mine this Version diligently, will soon perceive the contrary; nor indeed is it credible, that it was every where almost corrupted in the ob­scure places, to omit a hundred other things that may be said against so precarious an Hy­pothesis.

In those, and the following Ages, down to the time of the A.D 494. Masorites, though Jews seem wholly to have employed themselves in the Study of Allegories and Rites, but not of Philological Learning; which was the reason that they look'd upon this Transla­tion, which is far from being perfect, not only as the most exact thing of that nature in the whole World, but as Divinely Inspir'd. See the History of Aristeus, Philo in his Book de Vitâ Mosis, and Josephus Jud. Ant. l. 12. c. 2. No surer an Argument can be given, how far the old Hebrew was neglected in those times, than their blind Admiration of these Interpreters, who (to speak impartially) are rather to be pardon'd, than commended for their Performance.

In the mean time we do not say this, as if we thought that Translation to be of little use. On the other hand, we always believed it to be ex­treamly Serviceable, provided we help the Un­accuracy and defect of Method in the Interpre­ters with Grammar Rules, and the assistance of correct Lexicons. As their Authority ought not to over-weigh Grammar-Reasons, that are de­duced from the immemorial Custom of any Tongue; so where Grammar does not contra­dict, and where the Sence allows, it ought to be in great Esteem with us. The Opinions of that Age, which arose perhaps from some ancient Tradition, nay, even Conjectures that are sup­ported by the use of the Syro Chaldaïc Lan­guage, then in its flourishing Condition, are by [Page 46]no means to be dis-regarded by such as are well skill'd in the Sacred Philology.

But as in those things they are much supe­rior to us, so we mightily exceed them in Me­thod; for since we have most accurate Gram­mars, and follow fixt establish'd Rules, we no longer unriddle the Construction of a Sentence by guessing, nor are we carried up and down by uncertain Conjectures, as we may observe the Ancients were. We have likewise several Lexi­cons compiled, from all places of Scriptures compared together, by most Learned Men, and Concordances wherein are all the words in the Bible, and the places where they are to be found, most accurately set forth; by which Assistances we are now able more certainly to d [...]cover the various Signification of words, and with more Reason to defend them. Nor have we only very large Glossaries of the Hebrew Tongue, but like­wise of the neighbouring Languages, as Chaldee, Syriack and Arabick, and out of these can we more conveniently compare these Tongues with one another, than those that lived in the days of the Seventy Interpreters.

Of what prodigious Advantage a certain Me­thod, made up of immutable Rules, is, may for instance sake be soon known from the Latin and Greek Tongues. In Cicero's time the Greek Tongue flourish'd in Greece and Asia; he not only learnt it at Rome, but in Greece it self, and both writ and spoke Greek not amiss. Who would believe now, that in any of his Translations out [Page 47]of Greek, any Passages could drop from him that are liable to Censure? Yet for all this, some Learned Men have discovered several Mistakes in him, and the reason is, because he acquired the Greek Tongue rather by Custom than Rules; for which consult H. Stephens's Lexicon Cicero­nianum. Nay what is more, do not we see that Cicero and Varro, the most Learned of the Ro­mans, have committed such miserable Mistakes, even in the Derivations of the Latin Tongue, that we are ashamed of them? For though the Latin was their Mother-Tongue, and they daily took pains to learn Greek, yet they were altoge­ther Ignorant of the Etymologick Art, and there­fore committed unaccountable Errors. The case of the LXX Interpreters is the same, for being wholly Strangers to our Grammatical and Cri­tical way of Interpretation, they often mistake, and unexpectedly fall into those Errors, which we may easily avoid.

VIII. If what I have advanced concerning Philological Learning being little minded by the Jews under the second Temple be true, as it evidently appears by what has been already said, and might be made out by many more Argu­ments, we may probably suspect that the Holy Volumes were not always transcribed with that Exactness and Care by the Copyists then, as they deserved. 'Tis certain the LXX Interpreters, whoever they were, which 'tis not our business now to enquire, seem to have made use of a very faulty Manuscript, and sometimes were not able [Page 48]to guess the ductus literarum, as Learned Men have long ago observed. I own indeed, that all the various Lections, which may be collected in their Translation, are not owing to a vitious Manuscript, and that several of them perhaps ought to be imputed to their Conjectures. As ^(h) Gen. 2.2. Chap. 8.4, 7. and in abundance of other places: But then that very liberty they assume to themselves of guessing, is a plain De­monstration that it was not generally believed at that time, that the Copies were free from Faults, since they were supposed to stand in need of Correction so often.

Besides we find that the Book which the Ma­sorites made use of, and was of venerable Anti­quity without question, has frequently faults in the Text. Chetib, which are a­mended in the Margin. Keri, and which are often wanting in the Samaritan Copy. As for instance the [...] Finalis, which is to be found in the Samaritan, is often omitted in the word Naharah, a Girl, which ought not to be left out; and hi is frequently read for hou, which (generally speaking) is amended in the Samaritan Book. 'Tis true, these and some others of the like nature, are but small inconsiderable Mistakes, [Page 49]however they shew that Mistakes might creep in, and indeed did creep into the Text, and if they did it in a word so common and easie as Naharah, certainly they would much sooner do so in an obscure, difficult, and rare word, espe­cially where the Sence was abrupt, and the Series of the Oration did not help out the Transcri­bers, who did not understand it.

Nevertheless, because the Books of the Law were more frequently read than any of the rest, and are more easie to be understood, I must own there were but few Faults in them, and those of small Importance: And moreover that our Copy, I mean that of the Masorites, seems to be more Correct than the Samaritan, for which reason I have all along Faithfully set it down, not so much as changing a Letter. As I hinted above, some Faults are left by the Masorites, which might have been amended, but 'tis better, in my Opi­nion, that those very Faults should be left in the Copy, than that it should smell too much of a Critical hand, which I have often observed in the Samaritan, though it is not without its Faults, as Learned Men have long since taken notice.

After all, to deliver my own Sentiments, upon a serious Examination of the whole Matter, I am clearly of opinion that no Books of great Anti­quity, have arrived to our hands so correct as are the Holy Writings of the Hebrews, although 'tis certain they are much the oldest of any; I mean those that were copied out by the Dili­gence of the Masorites, and so transmitted to [Page 50]Posterity. And that this did not happen with­out a particular Providence, which has hitherto so miraculously preserved the Sacred Histories, and the Revelations of the Prophets, for the common Benefit and Use of Mankind, no Man is better satisfied than my self. I have likewise frequently in this Book defended the common Readings against the Conjectures of Learned Men; as any one may see that will peruse my Annotations. At the same time I freely own, that the most indefatigable and judicious Lud. Cappel, has infinitely deserved of the Sacred Learning, by his Critica Sacra, and Arcanum Punctuationis. To speak ingenuously, most of his Opinions do extreamly please me, and I have set them down as if they had been so many Demonstrations. But since I was obliged to chuse one certain Edition to follow, and that the most accurate, I have only followed the Maso­ritick Copy in my Translation, as being the most correct of all, and yet I have not neglected to set down in my Commentary, all the vari­ous Lections out of the Samaritan, and the Ancient Interpreters, that seem'd to be of any Moment. But I shall say more of this Matter in the following Dissertation.

SINCE after the Labours of so many Learned Men, who both in this, and especially the last Age, have endeavoured to Interpret the [Page 52]Holy Scriptures, 'tis my Lot also to undertake the same Province; I think it but necessary to acquaint the Reader upon what Motives I at­tempted, and after what manner I have perform'd it. I am sensible that I have engaged not only in a very difficult, but a most invidious Affair, by reason of the different Parties and Factions that disturb the Repose of the Christian World. For in a Business of this nature, if a Man does not do something singular to distinguish him from the rest, he must expect to meet with the Contempt and Laughter of the Learned and Unlearned, and if he advances any thing un­heard of, and untouch'd before, (which I dare presume to say is no easie matter) for his Re­compense he's sure to incurr the Hatred and Malice of the World, especially as 'tis manag'd by the Divines now a-days. Nevertheless after I had seriously revolv'd all this in my Mind, I was at last determin'd by the Authority of Philo Judaeus, who after he has commended the Di­vine Volumes of Moses as they deserve, and shown what a Fatigue and Trouble his Inter­preters must expect, [...], says he, [...], &c. Yet we must not therefore desist, but for the sake of Piety, strive to say something above our Power, and advance as far as 'tis lawful for Humane Minds to aspire, that are possess'd with the Love and desire of Wisdom. In the beginning of his Book [...].

Having therefore with God's Assistance, as I hope, undertaken this difficult Affair, I have all [Page 53]along endeavour'd neither to disgust the Nice Reader with any nauseous Repetitions, nor dis­oblige the Lovers of Antiquity with any new Doctrines. After what manner I have accom­plish'd it, I design to lay open in this Disserta­tion as plainly as I can; but first of all I shall shew with what Difficulties I struggled, and by what means I was able to overcome them, and in this Age particularly better than could be done in the last; not that we pretend to a greater share of Judgment, but because we have much better helps now to enable us to surmount them.

II. Before we come to the Interpretation of the Holy Books, 'twill be necessary to remind the Reader as briefly as we can, what is meant by the word Interpret, for we do not here de­sign to deliver all the Rules of that Art. Now since they that speak, make use of certain Words or Forms of Speaking, in order to be understood by others, and to raise the same Motions and Affections of the Mind in their Hearers as they feel themselves, those may be said to interpret other Mens words, (if we take the word in a large Acceptation) whoso express them in ano­ther Tongue, that they who hear the Interpreter speak, think altogether the same things, in the very same order and manner, as the Person that spoke first would have them. If all Languages were equally Copious, and furnish'd with words of the same Force and Energy, we might safely then render Word for Word, and Phrase for Phrase, and consequently we should only have [Page 54]occasion for a literal simple Translation. But since Languages do not answer one another so exactly, 'tis impossible to make a Verbal Tran­slation if the Narration is somewhat long. Many things must of necessity be explain'd in sewer or more words, as the occasion demands, if the Interpreter has a mind to be understood, and to gain that Point in the Minds of his Hearers, as he whose Interpreter he is desires he should. Nay sometimes though we increase or diminish the number of words, yet the same Notion cannot be express'd in two Languages, by reason of the Diversity of the Idiom. An infinite num­ber of Words and Expressions, whether Figura­tive or proper, are so peculiar to their own Tongues, that they can by no means be trans­fused into another, without a long and trouble­some Circumlocution, which cannot be inserted into a Translation.

From hence 'tis easie to conclude, That no Translation can be in all Respects compleat, that is to say, such a Translation, that after the per­using of it, the Reader shall think the very same things, and be affected after the same manner, as if he understood the Language out of which the Version was made, and was able to draw for himself out of the Original Fountain. And as this holds certainly true in all Languages in the World, so 'tis most sensibly perceiv'd in the Latin Translations of the Hebrew Books, by reason of the vast Disagreement between the Hebrew and Latin Tongues, as we shall more [Page 55]fully demonstrate below. We know indeed that the ancient Jews and Christians, who were igno­rant of the Hebrew Tongue, thought the Greek Version of the Old Testament, but especially that of the Pentateuch, commonly said to be done by the LXX Interpreters, to be the most absolute thing in its kind that ever was, [...], &c. Whether the Chal­deans learn the Greek Tongue, or the Greeks the Chaldean Tongue, and light upon both Scriptures, the Chaldean, and that into which it is translated, they admire and adore them as Sisters, or rather as one and the same both in words and things; not content to call them Interpreters, but Prophets, and Revealers of heavenly things, that happily expressed the genuine Thoughts of Moses with a most pure Spirit. These are Philo's words in his Book de Vitâ Mosis, which we could heartily wish were as true as they are remote from Truth. We should then have the best and surest Inter­preters of Moses, and the exemplar of a perfect Translation, which they were very far from obliging the World with.

But since 'tis evident that, what Philo pre­tends was done by the LXX Interpreters, is im­possible to be performed, by reason of the great difference of Languages, as it has been already observed, we did not therefore attempt to tran­slate the Old Testament, because we hoped that those who were only well skill'd in Latin, might be able, after the reading of our Translation, to [Page 56]reach the meaning of the Prophets, as well as those that understand Hebrew, and hear them speak in their own Native Tongue; we thought 'twas enough to aspire towards it, as far as the most different Idioms of the two Languages would give us leave; and since without taking too great a liberty, we could not bend the He­brew Phrase to the Genius of the Latin Tongue, we often express'd the Hebraisms Word for Word, especially such as the Christian World has been long accustom'd to, or whenever we did not certainly understand the meaning of any place. Of which more hereafter.

But because the Hebrew Phrases, and manner of Expression, being different from all others, would give a great deal of Trouble to those that are only acquainted with Latin, we have added a plain Paraphrase more suited to the nature of that Tongue; by the reading of which, if they cannot attain to the very words of Moses, yet since we have in the same order express'd that in Latin, which Moses did in Hebrew, they will in some measure comprehend his Sense, and not as I imagine, deviate much from the true meaning of the Text. By this means what we were not able to compass by one single Version, perhaps we may perform by the help of the Paraphrase.

But after all, we thought we should not fully satisfie the Curiosity, if not of the most Learned, yet of those who were not altogether Strangers to Hebrew, if we did not in our Annotations ex­plain the Hebraisms, Opinions, Customs, Rites, [Page 57]the Allusions to them, and the nature of places, as far as we could arrive to the Knowledge of them, and give an account of our whole Tran­slation and Paraphrase. Thus in our Paraphrase we have in a few words shewn what our Opi­nion was; and in our Annotations more at large why we were of that Opinion: Nevertheless there is something in the Paraphrase, which is not always to be found in our Annotations; for in the former, the Reader will discover the Con­nexion and Series of the whole Oration, which for brevity sake we could not always attend in our Comments. Besides we have observ'd both by our own and the Experience of others, that especially in difficult Books, notwithstanding the Annotations of Learned Men upon every word, the Connexion was very often obscure, so that though all the words were well enough un­derstood, yet the Force and Order of the rea­soning did not appear. Therefore we thought our selves obliged to obviate this Inconvenience by making a continued Paraphrase, after the Ex­ample of several judicious As the Learned Pu­blishers of the Books in usum Delphini have generally done. Au­thors. Which Conduct, if it does not seem altogether so necessary in Historical Writings, as some who have not duly consider'd the Matter may imagine; yet the great Usefulness of it will at least appear in the Hagiographi as they are call'd, and the Books of the Prophets. However I dare without Vanity affirm, that several, who after they have read the Translation, think they [Page 58]understand the Series of the Oration well enough, will, if they cast their Eyes on our Paraphrase, even in the Historical Books, confess that they miss'd several things, which they fansied they understood very well. But I had rather the Reader should be convinced of this Truth, by the perusal of our Work, than by our own Boasting.

In our Annotations we have only endeavoured to open and illustrate that which is called the Grammatical, and by the School-men the Literal Sence. We have there laid down no Theolo­gical or Theoretical, no Moral or Practical Con­clusions, as well because it would have too much swell'd the bulk of the Work, as because after the Grammatical Sence is once fully understood, 'tis the easiest matter in the World to find out the Theoretical or Practical Doctrines, espe­cially to those that have read any Systems of Divinity or Morality. We have also meddled with no Theological Controversies, because it was not our Intention to gratifie this or that Party, but (what all good Christians ought to agree in) the lovers of the Holy Scriptures and of the Truth. As for those Persons that take a delight to know these Squabbles, which it were better for the Interest of Mankind that they were extinguish'd, they may have Books and Comments more than enough, written merely to gratifie a Faction, and these they may turn over at their leisure.

Perhaps some People will censure me, that I have not handled every thing more like a Divine, [Page 59]but let them know, whoever they be, that I purposely left that Province, to be manag'd by their sublimer Wits. We might indeed be justly blamed, if we omitted any thing we promised to perform, but since it was never in our Thoughts, as we have solemnly affirm'd, to re­tail Theological Dogma's, it would be hard mea­sure to condemn us for what we never pro­mised. Nay, they have our leave to despise these our Performances in comparison of Theo­logical and abstruser Contemplations. We'll not disown, if they please, that we did not penetrate into the obscure meaning of the Holy Writers, that lurks under the Cortex Grammaticus. Let us be thought to understand no more in the Sacred Books of the Hebrews, than the Authors were willing the People should understand, which Antonius in Cicero, speaking of the Graecian Learning, frankly owns of himself. If we have been able to attain but to this small Pittance every where, we shall mightily congratulate our selves, and others of vulgar Understanding, to whose Apprehension this was suited.

But as we had often occasion to doubt, whe­ther our Conjectures were right, and could not make out the meaning clear enough by the help of Grammar and Criticism alone, or else several meanings of equal Probability offered them­selves: The Reader may observe, that both in our Paraphrase and Commentary, we use a doubt­ful and no Dogmatical Stile, and perhaps he will there discover frequenter Reasons for suspending [Page 60]his Opinion, than in most Writings of this na­ture. But since every Man Believes and Doubts for himself, I must inform those Learned Gen­tlemen that have a greater insight in these Mat­ters, that I writ for my self, and such as stand upon the same level, and may they hug them­selves with the sweet Contemplation, that they know more than their Neighbours. Least we should betray any one into Mistakes, we made a scruple to assert some things positively, when neither by the assistance of others, nor by our own Endeavours, we were able to fix any cer­tain Judgment: However it does not follow, that People do not invent, because they do not affirm. As we vastly disagree from the Opi­nion of those Persons, who believe that nothing can be made out in Scripture, with the help of Grammar alone, unless Tradition comes in for a share; so we do not believe that it can explain and clear every thing: We are sure we have found it so. Now where the matter was not evident beyond all possibility of Dispute, we have taken care to restrain all rash Determina­tions, which would be an unpardonable Impo­sition on the World, if we should affirm things false, or things unknown; besides that, nothing can be more Scandalous, than to let our Appro­bation run before our Knowledge.

III. So much we thought our selves oblig'd to say, concerning our Manner of Interpreting in general, now we shall proceed to lay before our Reader the Difficulties that gave us no little [Page 61]Pain, when we first began to set Pen to Paper. If we rendred word for word, it was apparent that the Version would become unserviceable to those that were unacquainted with Hebrew, for whose use it was principally intended: For it had been utterly impossible for them to under­stand it, unless they perpetually consulted the Comments, where nevertheless many Gramma­tical Criticisms of small importance are omitted: And frequently too, those that are unskillful in Hebraisms, would have wrested them in a wrong Sence. And now, if to avoid these Inconveni­encies, we had follow'd a different Conduct, allowing our selves too great a Latitude; it was to be fear'd, lest in obscure places we might impose our own Conjectures upon the Reader, instead of the meaning of the Sacred Writers. I know 'twill be replied to all this, That a mid­dle way is then to be observ'd, whereby the Translation shall neither be made so servile and close as to become obscure, and mis-lead those that are only skill'd in Latin, nor too lax or re­dundant, so as to shew the Interpreter rather than the Writer himself. But so severe an Un­dertaking is much harder to be well perform'd, than 'tis easie to talk of it, as we shall shew by a few Examples.

'Tis a frequent Hebraism, And he lift up his Eyes and saw: Et sustulit oculos, & vidit. See Gen. 13.10. & 18.2. & 22.4, 13. & 24.62. & 31.10, 12. & 37.25. & 39.7. & 43.28. This Phrase with the Hebrews, as it appears by the above-mentioned [Page 62]places, signifies to look round about one, to see things at hand, and remote, and the like. We frequently meet with it in the other Books of the Old Testament in the same Sence; so that there is no room left to doubt of its Significa­tion. Now the Latins have the same Phrase, but then 'tis in a different meaning. Those that are afraid and ashamed, we use to say, dare not oculos attollere; and on the other hand, those People, tollunt oculos, that are possess'd with no Apprehensions, as it were easie to prove by several Instances. Therefore this Hebraism we saw, was not to be verbally translated.

There is a like Expression, Chap. 29.1. Et sustulit Jacobus pedes. And Jacob lift up his feet, and went into the Eastern Country. Now who could make any thing of tollere pedes? The Latins indeed say, Efferre, inferre, ferre pedem, but in another Sense.

The Reader must be forc'd to own, that these Hebraisms were so to be rendred in the Translation, as to have Latin Phrases substituted in their room. But there are other Hebraisms too, no less frequent, that afford us a juster occasion of doubting. The Hebrews often use to subjoyn an Infinitive to any other Mood or Tense of the same Verb, as dying thou shalt die, seeing I saw; and innumerable others that oc­curr in all the Hebrew Writers. If you translate it verbatim into Latin, a Reader that only un­derstands that Language, will ask you what's the meaning of that Phrase, or whether 'tis a [Page 63]peculiar Emphasis of the Hebrew Tongue or not? If you neglect the Hebraism, and omit the Infinitive, those that have taken some pains about that Language, will complain that here's a notable Emphasis lost. Therefore let a Man manage himself as carefully as he can, yet he will lie under a necessity of displeasing one or other. I know indeed that some of the later Interpreters, instead of the Infinitive, which the Latin will not bear, use some Adverb or other, to express the Emphasis which they imagine to lie conceal'd under this Phrase, as Gen. 2.17. Instead of moriendo morieris, they have utique morieris; and Exod. 3.7. where we find videndo vidi, they turn it probè vidi. But though we should grant there is some mighty force in this Hebrew Phrase, if it can at any time be express'd, as in the latter Example, I would desire to know what is the meaning of utique morieris? Sometimes too they use the trusty Adverb omninò, as Exod. 21.20. Omninò vindicator, 22. Omninò mulctator, 28. Omninò lapidator, &c. Which Phrases after all are not perspicuous to Latin Ears. Now for our part, we thought it much better to leave the Infinitive wholly out, either because it cannot be express'd in Latin, or because 'tis not Emphatical, but only an usual Form in the Hebrew Law, like which there are abundance in the Roman Law that are altogether redundant. [Page 64]Consult the above-cited Chapter of Exodus, and our ^(a) Annotations on Genesis 2.17.

Sometimes we meet with words that have none of the same Efficacy in other Languages to match them, such as Tholedoth, Genera­tion; for amongst the Latins, Generatio scarce signifies any thing else but the Action of get­ting, or the manner how Animals are gene­rated; and sometimes perhaps the same as Aetas, or [...]: But with the Jews it does not only signifie this, but denotes Original, Ancestors, and Posterity. If you are minded to gratifie a Latin Reader, and tell him what Generation signifies amongst the Hebrews, you must use a long-winded Periphrasis, which a simple Translation will never indure.

We frequently meet with the word Phakad in the Holy Scriptures, which uses to be tran­slated visitare, to visit, and yet that is not the [Page 65]meaning of it as we have ^(b) observed upon Genesis 21.1. The Greeks turn it [...], &c. Nor does this word signifie different things in respect of the various Conjugations, but even in the Conjuga­tion Kal, it sometimes signifies a Kindness, and sometimes a Punishment: A Kindness in the above-mention'd place of Genesis, and a Punish­ment in Exod. 20.5. Nor does any other Lan­guage, as I know of, afford us a word, resem­bling this in signification, which may be taken both ways: But still it is to be translated, and 'tis incredible what trouble these and such other words give the Interpreter. We have translated it Gen. 21.1. Curam gerere, not that it pleased us, but beccause we could think of nothing bet­ter. If we had turned it, The Lord, as he said, visited Sarah. Jehovah, quemadmodum dixerat, Saram visitavit, a Latin Reader would have un­derstood nothing else by it, but that an Angel visited Sarah in the name of God, as the year before Moses tells us three Angels had done the like, Chap. 18.

Since these, and innumerable Idioms of the like nature, are every where to be found in the Sacred Volumes, an Interpreter must take extra­ordinary Pains to discharge his Duty Faithfully and Modestly, unless he would have his Fidelity call'd in question, and his Boldness censur'd. We own indeed, 'tis not so great a Fatigue to translate now, after so many great Men whose Translations we have, as the first Interpreters to their Cost found it. 'Tis undoubtedly true, that both the Ancient and Modern Translations are mighty helps to us: Far be it from us who have found by Experience, how great a Task they sustained, to detract from the Praises of these deserving Men, or to deny the great Service they have done the World, by their endeavours to illustrate the Scriptures. Nay, we are sensible, that if they had not carried the Torch before us, we had not been able to reach so far, as even those that have perform'd the worst in this kind have done. But if we may be allowed to speak the truth freely, the better part of the Ancients either slavishly follow'd the Track, or else di­gressed too far from it; and translated the Hebra­isms either with too servile a Superstition, or too bold a Freedom; nor was it a much less trouble to chuse the best out of their several Versions, than to see whether we could not find out a bet­ter of our own. Generally speaking. It was much easier to find what to censure, than what to fol­low. To prevent being impos'd upon by the Au­thority of others, every thing was to be carefully [Page 67]weigh'd after the same manner, as if we had been the first that undertook such a Work; otherwise we had relied on the Credit of other People, and neither satisfied the World nor our selves. Now what expence of Time and Pains it requires to perform all this, only those are able to judge, who have attempted something of the like na­ture, for others can never imagine it.

IV. Nevertheless, so many Hardships and Difficulties were to be overcome, to attain to a perfect Translation, such as we had conceived an Idea of in our Mind; but if we could not reach that heighth, we must be content to come as near it as possibly we could. Therefore we pro­posed to our selves constantly to follow a mid­dle way, that is, neither to render those places that were obvious enough in the Original, ob­scure with the Hebraisms, nor out of too nice an Affection of writing Latin, to indulge our selves in too bold a Version.

But this, you'll say, a thousand People have threatned to do, many years before you were born, and yet we do not rest satisfied with their Performances; Do you think then that you shall be able to answer our Expectations? No, I am not so blinded with Self-love as to imagine any such thing; but since the Condition of Hu­mane Affairs is such, that nothing is perfect in all Respects, and nothing pleases all alike, 'tis sufficient if I do not incurr the Displeasure of all, and if my Attempt does not lagg behind the Endeavours of others.

Cicero formerly translated the noblest Ora­tions, of two of the most Eloquent Men that Athens ever bred, Aeschines and Demosthenes, one against another; neither did he literally tran­slate them like an Interpreter, as he tells us him­self, for the Translations are not extant, but like an Orator, giving them all the Spirit, and Life, and beautiful turns of the Latin Tongue. As this was impracticable in a literal Version, he had a greater Respect to the Sence than the Expressi­ons; for he did not think himself obliged to tell over all his Authors words to the Reader, but to give him them in weight. Now since this was not to be done in too strict a Translation of the Holy Books, we endeavoured to reach it in a looser Paraphrase, that so those Persons that are not delighted with the Barbarousness of a Translation, or do not understand Hebraisms, may have somewhat to read and understand. But perhaps we have departed farther from our Ori­ginal than Cicero did from his, because the He­brew Language differs more from the Latin, than the Athenian way of Writing did from the Roman.

'Tis true, in our Version we have followed the Hebrew closer than the Purity of the Latin will allow us; but since it could not be avoided, we hope we shall make our Reader some amends by our Paraphrase. Therefore though 'tis the confess'd Genius of the Latin Tongue, to love. Perspicuity more than the Hebrew does; nay on the contrary, endeavours to avoid all [Page 69]Obscurity as much as it can; we acknowledge our Translation to be somewhat Obscure, but as we are used to commend Pictures not for shew­ing us a handsom Face, but for representing Na­ture to the Life, so a Translation, where the Language of the Original is clear, ought to be clear, and where it is obscure, ought to be ob­scure. Now we mean here by obscure, not those things that are obscure to the ignorant in He­brew, for then most of the Scripture Expressions would be obscure; but those that are not suffi­ciently understood, even by such as are tolerably vers'd in that Language. On the other hand, by the word clear, we do not only mean those things which are obvious to all Understandings, not excluding those of the duller sort, but which give no manner of Difficulty to the Skillful in that Language, or may be so expounded, as to leave no Doubt at all in the Minds of the Learned.

V. Now that we might be able to observe this Method through the whole Work, we laid it down for an unalterable Law in translating the Hebraisms, which so often occur:

• 1. That all the clear Hebraisms, which would bear a Tran­slation, should be translated.
• 2. If any of them could not well be rendred into Latin, yet if our Ears were accustom'd to them, they should be literally translated.
• 3. That all obscure He­braisms should be retained. Which it will not be amiss to illustrate by a few Examples.

Nothing is more common in Scripture, than Speeches and Dialogisms that are usher'd in by [Page 70]the Verb Vaijomer, & dixit, or the Gerund Le­mor, dicendo: Now 'tis evident that the former may be fully and pertinently express'd by the Latin word inquit, the latter by his verbis, and yet the Interpreters have generally forborn to use them; as if this, forsooth, had been too great a Liberty to take. Now this runs through all the Bible, so that you may find an infinite number of Sentences with these words, & dixit, and he said. So in Genesis 3.1. And he said to the Woman, yea hath, &c. 2 And the Woman said unto the Ser­pent, we may eat, &c. 4. And the Serpent said unto the Woman, &c. 9. And he said unto him, where art thou? 10. And he said, I heard thy Voice, &c. 11. And he said, who told thee? &c. 12. And the Man said, the Woman, &c. 13. And the Lord God said unto the Woman, &c. 14. And the Lord God said unto the Serpent, &c. 16. To the Woman he said, &c. 17. And unto Adam he said. But why we should servilely be confin'd to the order of the Hebrew words, as if there was something extraordinary in them, we saw no reason; and the comparing of our Version with the rest will shew, which of us has express'd himself most agreeably to the Genius of the Latin Tongue. So Chap. 8.15. And God spake unto Noah, saying, Et loquutus esi Jehova ad Noach, dicendo, or dicens, is indeed exactly conformable to the Hebrew words, but does not express the meaning, any better than Alloquutus est Noachum Deus, his verbis. 'Tis certain that many of the Interpre­ters, by their obscure Diligence, have made [Page 71]their Translations so insupportable, that they are not to be read without Contempt. But let not the Reader imagine, that this is occasion'd by the over great care they took to render even the least Particles of Scripture as far as 'twas possi­ble; for if this Scruple had possess'd them, they had never translated the obscure places with so much boldness, as if it were not an invidious labour, we could easily shew.

'Tis a common Hebraism to call ones name, vocare nomen alicujus, instead of nomen imponere, To give one the name of. As in Chap. 5.29. (and 'tis often in the Book of Genesis alone) And she called his name Noah, Et vocavit nomen ejus Noach, that is, Ei Noacho nomen indidit, Noa­chum cum nomine appellavit. There's not the least reason in the World to doubt but 'tis so, and yet after the vulgar Interpreter's Example, several since have translated it Vocavit nomen ejus Noah, which is obscure and barbarous, when the He­brew Phrase is plain enough.

We frequently meet in the beginning of a Narration, Et fuit, And it came to pass, in the Hebrew. As Chap. 6.1. Et fuit, cum caepit homo multiplicari, And it came to pass, when Men began to multiply, &c. which is the same in effect with ours, Cum in terris augeri coepissent, as also the vulgar has translated it. But the Tigurine Version, and others have it barbarously, Et factum est, cum caepissent homines multiplicari.

Several Interpreters have not only Supersti­tiously every where translated word for word, [Page 72]but have preserv'd the very Situation of the He­brew words, and the Construction as far as they could conveniently, nay and farther too, but in this matter, we must own that we had a greater regard to the Latin than the Hebrew. We saw that a world of Hebraisms had in spight of us crept into our Translation; nor was it ne­cessary, since 'twas of no advantage to the Rea­der, to place the Latin words after the Hebrew manner, where it was plain, that though the Order was inverted, yet the Sence was not. Arias Montanus who published the Interlineary Translation, as they call it, was obliged to pre­serve the Order, and as far as he was able, even the very number of the words: But those that publish'd their Version apart from the Original, were not obliged in my opinion to be at so great an Expence to write barbarously. I will pro­duce one instance to explain my meaning, The Tigurines, whose Translation is otherwise not to be despised, have thus rendred the 15, 16, 17 Verses of Gen 8. Loquutus est autem Deus ad Noah, dicens, Egredere ex arcâ, tu & uxor tua, filii tui, & uxores filiorum tuorum tecum. Cuncta animantia quae tecum sunt, ex omni carne, tàm in volatili, quàm in jumento, tum etiam omni reptili quod reptat, educ tecum, & repant in terrâ, fru­ctum edant, atque augescant. But we have done it thus. Tum allocutus est Noachum Deus, his verbis, Egredere ex arcâ tu, unáque tecum uxor tua, filii [...]ui, atque corum conjuges. Omnem etiam bestiam, quae tecum est, ex omni carne, inter volucres, inter [Page 73]pecudes, atque inter omnia reptilia quae in terris repunt, unà educito, repténtque in terrâ, & in eâ crescant, ac multiplicentur. There is nothing in the Hebrew words, which ours do not compre­hend; nor has the Superstitious Nicety of the Tigurines, unless I am mistaken, perform'd more. But we do not cite this, or any other places, be­cause they have something remarkable in them, but because we happened to meet with them first. To conclude, All the Translations of the Old Testament we ever saw, are liable to the same Fault, excepting that of Seb. Castellio, which is somewhat too bold.

'Tis by no means our Intention to blame those Persons, who in their Translations of the Bible, have thought fit to despise all the Rules of Rhe­torick, as to their Periods; for since the He­brews have shorter turns of their Sentences, and are not subject to the same Laws as the Greeks and Latins are, there would be a wretched Con­fusion indeed, if their Stile were to be suited to the Precepts of Rhetorick, which yet Castellio does too often. However I see no cause why we that speak Latin, should so Scrupulously ad­here to the Hebrew order.

There are other Hebraisms, as we observ'd before, the Signification of which is no less known, and yet we are scarce able to translate them into Latin, without a long Circumlocu­tion; but since our Ears are already accustom'd to some of them, we use them as the Latins for­merly did several Greek words which their [Page 74]Language wanted; and besides they have been long ago naturalized, and made Free of the Church by the Latin Fathers. Some few Exam­ples of them we'll lay before the Reader, as we did of the former.

Thus Genesis Chap. 5.22, 24. and Chap. 6.9. Moses has used incedere cum Deo, to walk with God, instead of that which in Latin we say, Sanctè ac piè vivere. However the Metaphor could not be changed, without assuming too great a Liberty, for who can endure Castellio's translating it, Ad dei voluntatem vitam agere, ex dei voluntate sese gerere?

Chap. 6.9. Noah is said to be Vir justus ac in­teger in generationibus suis: A Just Man, and perfect in his Generations. And Chap. 7.1. 'tis in eâ generatione; in that Generation, viz. that which was destroy'd in the Deluge. Every Body sees 'tis all the same thing as if Moses had said, that Noah was the only righteous Person among the Men of that Age; Castellio has translated it Saeculum and Aetas, the latter of which is tole­rable, but the former cannot be endured. For what Man that has made but a small progress in Hebrew, reading this Translation, would not be­lieve that the Hebrews had a word which ex­actly answered Saeculum, when indeed they have not.

Of the same nature is Chap. 6.8. Gratiam in­venire, to find Favour: Which Phrase has seve­ral Significations, and the Latin Tongue affords us no one single Expression that comes up to the [Page 75]full extent of it. Sometimes where the Sence would bear it, we have translated it, Si qua mihi est apud te gratia, for Si inveni gratiam in oculis tuis, as Chap. 18.3. but this was not to be done always. Castellio, Chap. 6.8. instead of that which Moses expresses by Noachus apud deum gratiam invenit, inverts the Phrase, and turns it, Noae fuit propitius. Chap. 18.3. Si vis mihi gratissimum facere. Chap. 19.19. Tanto me ob­stringis beneficio: In all which he has not once hit the force of the Hebraism, though he takes so large a Scope.

We find in the same Chapter v. 19. a com­mon Hebraism, by which omne animal is call'd omnis caro, and for which Castellio uses omnia corpora; but besides that, 'tis too remote from the Hebrew word, Caro is so often taken in that Sence, both in the Scripture, and the Ecclesia­stical Writers, that 'tis much better to retain it, than interpret it by another.

Thus in the first Verse of Chap. 11. we read, Cum universa terra labii unius eorundémque ver­borum esset: The Phrases are Hebrew, but we durst not change them in the Latin, both because we could not light upon Expressions proper to match them, as also because Learned Men are not agreed about their meaning, as we have See Disser­tation VI. observ'd about that place. Castellio has it thus, Cum autem uni­versus terrarum orbis eodem sermone atque ora­tione uteretur.

The same Reason, supported by the Frequency of the Phrase, prevail'd with us to retain the Hebraism Anima mea, my Soul, instead of ego. Say, I pray thee, says Abraham to his Wife, Chap. 12.13. thou art my Sister, that it may be well with me for thy sake, and my Soul shall live because of thee. Castellio translates it, Ʋt tuâ causâ atque operâ meae utilitati, salutique consulatur. The same Expression is to be found often in Homer, which all the Interpreters have literally tran­slated.

Many more Hebraisms, we must confess, are to be found in our Translation, which because they were either obscure, or of a doubtful Signification, we translated literally, lest we should obtrude our own private Conjecture upon the Reader, for the true meaning of the Sacred Writers. Some­times too we have retain'd even the words, when we saw the Learned disputed about the Signifi­cation of them with doubtful Success; but a few Examples will sooner shew whether we did well in this, than a long Harangue.

Therefore Chap. 6.14. we turn'd Arcam fa­cies nidis instructam, rather than mansiunculis after St. Jerom or Cellis, because, though several rooms seem to be understood, in which the Crea­tures were lodged separately, yet for all we know Moses may mean a Floor, or something else that is called Kinnim. Castellio borrows the word Loculata out of Varro, who calls a Fish-pond so, where the Fish are kept in several Chests, which suits not ill with this place, though we durst not follow him.

What seems to be the meaning of Servus Ser­vorum, Gen. 9.25. we have shewn in our ^(c) An­notations upon that place. It may be a Hebraism like Sanctum Sanctorum, Canticum Canticorum, to denote the vilest sort of Slave, and it may with­out a Hebraism too be said Servus Servorum. Nay, Castellio has not alter'd these words, which is somewhat strange, considering how much he indulges himself all along in his beloved Peri­phrases.

We have ^(d) shewn, Chap. 12.3. what is the meaning of in aliquo bene dicere, and our Expo­sition seems to be well grounded, because 'tis [Page 78]agreeable to the Genius of the Hebrew Language. But least those that interpret these words after a different manner, should complain that they were robb'd of a Text; as also because other­wise we must have made use of too long a Peri­phrasis, we have translated it word for word. Castellio has here translated as they would have it, In te omnes beabuntur orbis regiones.

Chap. 6.4. we find this passage in Moses, There were Nephilim (we render it Giants) in those days; where the word ^(e) Nephilim seems to import Robbers; but because it does not fully appear whether such sort of People are meant in that place, we thought it advisable to retain the Hebrew word. They that after the Septuagint and vulgar Translation have tran­slated it Giants, have indeed own'd themselves to be of their Opinion, but have brought no Arguments to prove it: And indeed, neither from the Story it self, nor from the Significa­tion of the word, are they able to bring one proof that Giants are meant here. On the other hand, both the Story which relates them to be Viros Fortes, and the word it self favour our In­terpreation, yet for all that we durst not insert it amongst Moses's words.

For the same reason we have not changed the word Shiloh, Chap 49.10. because its Signification [Page 79]is unknown. Our See Disser­tation XII. Annotations upon that place have made it appear, that no one knows what is the true meaning of it. However were we to chuse our Opinion, we should incline to follow the Translation of the Septuagint, because it is less Obnoxious to the Calumny of the Jews, and cannot be pretended to carry the least Partiality in Favour of the Christian System. Therefore in our Paraphrase we have taken the same course with the LXX, but in the Version rather chose to make use of the Hebrew word.

VI. But a much greater Difficulty we found it, to translate the Conjunctions and Preposi­tions, by reason of the different meaning which each of them has in the Holy Scriptures. For whereas the Latin Conjunctions and Preposi­tions have not so large a Signification, the Am­biguity of them is so far restrain'd by the stru­cture of the Sentence, that they can only be taken in one Sence; but among the Hebrews, who take but little notice of their Situation, one small Particle has the Significations of the Latin ones. So that if we should sometimes use a Latin Conjunction or Preposition, which gene­rally answers that in the Hebrew, our Transla­tion would appear very uncouth to a Latin Ear; but if we use another, we fix a determin'd Sence of our own, upon that which seems to be doubt­ful in the Hebrew. Let us do what we can, we shall find it a difficult matter to avoid these In­conveniences; nay I dare say, no Interpreter was ever yet able to do it.

For instance, Vau supplies the place of all the Conjunctions, and if we may believe Chr. Noldius, has seventy three Significations, the chief of which is Copulative, like that of the Latin Con­junction Et. Nevertheless if it were always tran­slated like Et, it would not only be the most dis­agreeable thing in the World to one that under­stands Latin, but nothing would be more obscure and perplex'd, since with the Latins 'tis not all one whether you say Et, or whether you say Atque, Aut, Tamen, Certè, &c. Now if it so happens that the place is doubtful, and the Conjunction Et cannot possibly be used, because it would spoil the Sence in Latin, a Man must of necessity make use of another, and so determine the mean­ing of that place, which before was doubtful.

Now in this, as well as several other Matters, we find 'tis impossible to make a Translation of the Scripture, without a Man's interposing his own Sence against his Will: Though it were to be wish'd that the Sacred Volumes could be so translated, that our own Conjectures might not be read, instead of the Divinely Inspir'd Au­thor's meaning, whether obscure or clear. But this is impracticable for the above-mention'd Reasons; and therefore after we have done all that we can, to explain the Sence of the Scri­pture as plainly as 'tis possible, the World must either acquiesce in our Endeavours, or every one must study Hebrew in his own defence, and take the best Method he can to satisfie himself.

We have taken that care all along in our Tran­slation, as very seldom to interpose our own Judgment, where the place was somewhat doubt­ful; but it was impossible to use this Caution every where. However we have faithfully set down in our Annotations, what Conjunction or Preposition was read in the Hebrew word. ^(f) Consult our Notes upon Genesis 6.8. Chap. 8.12. We have also observed, that sometimes the true Signification of the Particles is wrested, where the Translator did not clearly understand why the Sacred Writers have used them in cer­tain places. See our Comment upon ^(g) Gen. 1.20. some have made no difficulty to use Latin Particles, not such as exactly answer the He­brew, but such as they would have used, if they had been obliged to express the same things in Latin after their own manner; which Conduct may throw both Translators and Readers into very shameful Mistakes. But we, in the Tran­slation of the Hebrew Particles, have never re­ceded from the most commonly received Signifi­cation of them, unless we were absolutely forced to do it, although sometimes it was none of the most proper. For we are well satisfied, that all Nations in the World do not connect their Sen­tences [Page 82]after the same manner, and that we are not to introduce them using the same Thread of Narration, if we design faithfully to Copy their different ways of Speaking. If this had been duly considered by that Learned Author, who has obliged the World with a laborious and use­ful Book, called, The Concordance of the Parti­cles, he had mightily lessened the Significations which he attributes to them, for very often he minds nothing else, but how to substitute an agreeable, or a more emphatical Latin Particle in the place of the Hebrew.

The same ingenious Person has observed, that these Particles are sometimes redundant, and sometimes deficient, which he has evinced by several unquestionable Examples, though some of them 'tis true may be call'd into question. For as there are some places where 'tis apparent that they either abound or ought to be supplied, so there are others where they give us no small difficulty, which 'tis not in the power of every little Pretender to remove. For instance, if in Gen. 19.26. where we have render'd it, And she became a Pillar of Salt, we suppose the two Par­ticles [...] and [...] to be wanting, as they common­ly are, then the Sence of that passage will be, And she became like a Statue in a saltish Soil, which seems to be the genuine Sence of the words, as we have observed in our Dissertation upon that subject. 'Tis undoubted that [...] is to be understood Gen. 24.23. Ch. 38.11. and per­haps 'tis understood in the abovemention'd place [Page 83]rather than express'd, to avoid the harshness of the Sound, which would happen there if the foregoing word terminated in [...]. We have like­wise shewn, upon ^(h) Gen. 16.12. that [...] Simi­litudinis (as the Grammarians use to call it) is frequently wanting. However, least we should forcibly seem to fasten our own meaning upon Moses's words, we have rendred it verbatim as 'tis in the Original. See a farther instance of an Ellipsis of the like nature ⁽ⁱ⁾ Gen. 31.53.

We have brought some ^(k) Examples upon Gen. 20.16. where Vau abounds, and if we did not know that it was redundant, the meaning would be perplex'd and obscure. It is manifestly redundant, Gen. 22.4. Nay sometimes it abounds in the beginning of a Book, as in the first Verse of the Prophet Jonah, And the Word of the Lord, &c. who for all that is no more tacked to Oba­diah, than Obadiah is to Amos. This occasion'd a certain Person to conclude absurdly, that all the Books of the Old Testament were the Col­lections of one and the same Man, connected together after that manner.

VII. To this may be added, their everlasting way of forming their Narrations, by Preterper­fect [Page 84]or Future Tenses joyn'd together by the Conjunction Vau, which gave us no small trou­ble. 'Tis very certain that no Emphasis is de­sign'd by it, and that it may best be express'd by Latin Participles, or other Particles, with which the Latins use to joyn the parts of their Sentences together, as all Interpreters have done, although some of them have used this Liberty more sparingly than others. However 'tis an eternal Drudgery in a strict Translation, fre­quently to change the structure of the Phrase; nor indeed can any thing excuse our so doing but mere Necessity. Therefore in the first Chapter of Genesis we were often forced to omit the Conjunction, and exchange it for the Latin Particles verò, autem, deinde, tum, enim, postea, dein, quoque, etiam, at que, and such-like. At other times we used Participles, as the Reader will dis­cover in abundance of places, if he comparts our Translation with the Hebrew. For instance, the two and thirtieth Chapter is thus joyn'd toge­ther.

• 1. AND Jacob went—AND they met him.
• 2. AND Jacob said—AND he called the name of the place—
• 3. AND Jacob sent—
• 4. AND he com­manded them—
• 6 AND the Messengers returned—
• 7. AND he was afraid— AND was in distress— AND he divided—
• 8. AND he said, &c.

Which would be insupportable in Latin.

There are several Versions of the Bible, espe­cially into the Modern Languages, which have all along preserved this Conjunction, as if it added some peculiar Energy or Beauty to the Narra­tion; [Page 85]but those that are acquainted with the Genius of the Hebrew Tongue, can satisfie them of the contrary. In a plain Narration indeed, this troublesome Conjunction may pretty well be born in some other Tongues; but in an Ar­gument or so, if it were used in French, it would not only wound the Ears in a wonderful man­ner, but so fatally disturb the Sence, that what would be clear in Hebrew, would be in French the most confused Stuff imaginable.

However in this, as well as other things, too great a License is to be avoided, least by omitting a Particle, or altering the structure of a Sentence, we may happen to alter the Sence, and render the Narration indirect and oblique. For by this means an unskillful Reader will imagine, that some things are related en passant, while the Hi­storian makes haste to go to others that are more material. Thus according to our Translation, Moses begins the 32d Chapter in these words, Jacobus iter suum perrexit, occurrerúntque Angeli Dei, quos cum vidit Jacobus, haec sunt ait Dei castra, eique loco Machanajim nomen imposuit. By this manner of relating the Story, 'tis plain that the meeting of the Angels is made a more re­markable Circumstance, than if we had rendred it with Castellio, Jacobus iter suum perrexit, in quo cum ei Divini Angeli occurrissent, ille eis visis ita dixit, hoc divinum agmen est. Itaque locum inde Machanaim appellavit.

It was no small Perplexity to us in our Tran­slation, that not only the Beginning, Progress [Page 86]and Conclusion of the same thing, were express'd by Verbs that were tacked together by the ne­ver-failing Conjunction Vau, but likewise by one and the same Verb. Thus in the above-cited Nar­ration, and Jacob went, the Hebrew word may be as well taken to signifie the Beginning of a Journey, as the Continuation of it. However we translated it in the latter Sence, as the occa­sion there required.

VIII. We have already declared in the eighth Section of the former Dissertation, that we have follow'd the Masoretick Copy in our Transla­tion: But although we call it Copy in the Singu­lar Number, it may be called Copies, since by this name we comprehend both the Readings in the Text, and those in the Margin, which came from two several Books; unless we suppose that the Keri proceeded from the received way of reading in the Synagogue of Tiberias by some Oral Tradition, as 'tis called; and the Ketib to have been the Reading it self, written in a Book of venerable Antiquity. However the matter was, as these two Readings have been deservedly compared by the generality of Translators, so that which seem'd the best we justly preferr'd, and this is the conduct we follow'd. Sometimes indeed the Keri affords a more convenient Read­ing than the Ketib, but the latter very often is better than the former. But as I often thought of this, and several other things of the like nature, I suspected that the Rabbins, to inhance the value of their Trade, observ'd the same Conduct as the [Page 87]Greek Rhetoricians were said to do, Who least the World should imagine they knew but few things, invented abundance of strange Terms that were no­thing to the purpose, that their Art might have the Reputation of being more difficult than really it was. However, we have all along follow'd the Masoretick way of Pointing, except that with the generality of Interpreters we have not minded the Accents, but only followed the Sence and the Structure of the words. We shall not here repeat what several Learned Men have said upon this occasion. Let the Reader only turn over the 23d Chapter of Buxtorf's Thesaurus, lib. 2. where he treats of this Subject, and he will be satisfied that what I have advanced concerning the Rabbins is true, and that these Masters affect an abstruse unedifying Knowledge, and have clogg'd a Study, which otherwise would be easie enough, with endless Difficulties of their own raising. The two first words of Genesis suffi­ciently confute all that Learning.

Of greater moment is the distinction of Verses, as they are called, which however Elias Levita a Jew, and several Christians, have demonstrated to have been made by none of the Prophets. And indeed this distinction is not to be found in the Manuscript Copies of the Old Interpreters, nor can be used in many places, without maiming the Period, or dividing the Verb from what re­lates to it, which is extremely ridiculous. There­fore though to comply with a received Custom, and that the Citations might more easily be [Page 88]found o [...] we have distinguished the Verses by Numbers, yet we have only had a regard to the Sence in the manner of our Pointing; Some­times the Period (if the parts of a Sentence in the Latin Translation of an Hebrew Book may be called by that name) ends with the Verse, and sometimes it is carried beyond it. Nay some­times it begins in the middle of a Verse, and sometimes it terminates with it, as seem'd most agreeable to the nature of the Latin Tongue.

The Reader will likewise find, both in our Translation and Paraphrase, two other sorts of Divisions, which we must give him an account of. We have not always follow'd the Chapters in the distinction of our Sections, although in complaisance to the ancient Custom, we have mark'd them on the top of the Page, and in the Margin, but we have divided the Argument into greater or lesser Sections, according as the Mat­ters of Fact happen to be connected. And this we did upon the following Consideration, that both the whole Argument in one Series, and our Anno­tations upon it, might be read in the same order, because both the Divine Historian, and our Com­ments upon him, would by this means be better understood. 'Tis certain, the Jews have their own Sections, plainly different from our Chapters, which they follow in their publick Readings in their Synagogues.

Besides this, we have divided every Section into several Paragraphs, (to borrow a Term of Art from the Lawyers) though somewhat of the [Page 89]longest, which we supposed would contribute to the Perspicuity of the History, and be of great Advantage to the Reader. For where the parti­cular Reasonings, or several parts of the Narra­tion, are not continued as it were in the same breath with the rest, but divided by certain In­tervals, we better comprehend both the Parts and Series of the Oration, and imprint it on our Memory, and if there be occasion, recollect it in our Minds. This is the reason why the Gram­marians in former times, to distinguish the seve­ral parts of the Chorus's in their Tragedies, and the Lawyers to distinguish the Heads of their Laws, made use of Paragraphs. And therefore, though in the Manuscripts and in the Editions no distinctions of this nature do appear, (for we do not mind the Jewish) yet we thought it à propos to make use of them, as being clearly of opinion, that nothing ought to be despised, which tends to Perspicuity, and the Convenience of the Reader.

Nor will any one, as we imagine, blame these our Divisions, as if they contradicted what we so solemnly professed before, viz. That we would follow the Copies of the Masorites. For though these Divisions are very serviceable to Perspicuity and Order, yet they make not the least Altera­tion in the Reading or Pronouncing of words, in which two respects we said we look'd upon these Copies to be the most correct of all.

We hope the Reader will not be displeased, that after the Example of several Modern Inter­preters, [Page 90]we have not written the Proper Names, as they are now a-days read by the Jews. Our Ears have been so long accustom'd to them, that we can scarce endure those that either speak or pronounce them otherwise; for who with any Patience could hear a Fellow thunder out Che­nahan, Jitschak, Jahacob, Mosche, Jehoschubak, &c. as those names are pronounced by the Jews, ac­cording to the roughness of their Language. There are also several words that were other­wise read by the LXX Interpreters than they are by the Masorites, as Jerusalem, not Jerusa­laim; Nabuchodonosor, not Nebuchadnetsar, and such-like. Which of them pronounced the rightest, we shall not now enquire, for we do not regard the thing it self, but only the Custom of the Christian Churches from the Beginning.

But then we observ'd this Conduct, to set down the more celebrated and usual Names after the Christian manner, and the less known and frequent after the Jewish, because, generally speaking, they do not seem to be written true in the Greek and Latin Books. Where-ever we have neglected to do it, the Reader is to impute it to our being too attentive upon the things them­selves, and consequently not able to mind the words, and not imagine that we did it on purpose.

As for what regards the Letters, we have herein follow'd the Ancients, that is to say, Beth has always the power of the Latin, B, Zain is pro­nounced like a Z, Cheth as a X, which comes the nearest of any to the double Aspiration of the [Page 91]Hebrew Letter, which in our Commentary we have express'd by a double H, where we have observ'd how the Hebrew words are to be writ­ten; Teth like a T, Jod like the J Consonant of the French, Caph like a X, Ain like an H, though 'tis of a different sound, but we could not think of a better. Pe like the φ of the Greeks; Tsaddi like Ts; Koph like K; Schin always after the same manner, that is, as ch is pronounc'd by the French, sch by the Germans, sh by the English; and lastly, Tau like the Greek θ. We could give our Reasons for this way of Pronunciation, if they would not take up too much room in this Dissertation. But those that are not so well vers'd in these things, may consult Drusius's old Hebrew Alphabet. But as we hinted before, in the more remarkable Names we have had a greater regard to Custom, than to the power of the Letters, and at other times thought it sufficient to make use of those Latin Letters that nearest resembled them.

IX. Forasmuch as we have endeavour'd to translate, and write Annotations upon the Sacred Volumes of the Hebrews, after so many Learned Men, we freely acknowledge that we have all along made use of the Labours of other Writers, and derived considerable Assistances from them. In the first place, we profess that we have always consulted the Old and Modern Translations in all difficult places, but so as never to give a blind assent to what they say, but especially the Mo­derns. We weigh'd and examin'd every Word [Page 92]and Expression, if it contain'd any Difficulty, with no less Care and Application than if no one had gone this way before us, and therefore ex­plain'd the Reasons of them which we knew to be certainly so. Yet a vast difference ought to be made between the Ancient and the later Ver­sions, which we have accurately observed; for since, as we took notice in the former Disserta­tion, the ancient Interpreters were able to know the Significations of Words and Phrases from the use of the Languages then in being, their very Authority is by no means to be despised, when it opposes no Reasons deduced from Grammar. On the other hand, The Opinions of the Modern Interpreters, unless they are supported by the Truth, ought to be little regarded, because they had no other way to find out the Meaning of the Scripture, but by long Study as well as we; and therefore are not to be admitted, unless they give substantial Grounds for what they avouch. This is the Reason why we seldom borrow'd any Testimony from the new Translations, be­cause that after all the plausible Reasons they give for their particular Versions; yet whether the Authority of their Translations goes for or against us, 'tis of it self of no weight at all. However we would not be so mis-understood as if we despised them, since we have frequently used them with great Advantage on our side; but we thought our selves obliged to make this open Confession, that the Reader might know once for all, why we alledge their Authority so [Page 93]seldom. Besides, all or most of their Versions could not be compared, without too great a Fatigue to the Reader, and too tiresom a Pro­lixity; nor censured, without incurring the Envy of several ill-disposed Persons, which we would willingly avoid. Wherefore we thought it more advised, to omit all the Modern Versions what­ever, and only to take our Testimonies from the Ancient, and to compare them one with ano­ther, though we are far from pretending to give an accurate Collation of them. This would have proved too tedious a Work, and indeed far different from our Design, who intended to find out what the Sacred Writers meant, and not how often or how much the Interpreters have deviated from their Sence.

We have likewise consulted the Annotations and Commentaries of several Writers, but more especially have we read over a far greater num­ber of Books, that have occasionally treated of Sacred things, and explained several Passages of Scripture. Out of all these, whatever seem'd ne­cessary, and to the purpose, have we inserted into our Commentaries, and indeed we have generally cited the names of the latter. But as for those who have professedly written upon the Sacred Books, we have more seldom made use of their Names, because, as they may be easily consulted, so large Collections out of their Books are in every Bodies hands. Our principal Aim was, to set down those Observations, by which we believed the Scriptures might be illustrated, [Page 94]and not to swell our Volume with a Catalogue of Names, which have no Authority in things of this nature. But as we said before, we have more frequently cited by name those that have not writ a continued Commentary, as well out of Gratitude, because some of them have given us much greater Helps than all the Commenta­tors put together; as also because we might give a short Abridgment of their Opinions; and it would be no superfluous Labour to direct the Reader where he might find them delivered more at large.

We have already, in part, explain'd the Design of our Commentary in the second Section, how­ever we shall add, That we have observ'd that choice in selecting the Interpretations, as only to referr to those that seem'd to be the most proba­ble of all, and lay down the Reasons that sup­port them, omitting a Confutation of the rest, except a very few upon the most difficult places, and where they might be comprehended in a few words. It had been in our Opinion a prodi­gious Work, and (to speak a bold Truth) of very little use, if we had been obliged to cite the Opi­nions of all the Commentators, to have added their several Reasons, to have particularly con­futed what we thought improbable, and to defend what we looked upon to be the best grounded. Such an Undertaking would far ex­ceed in bulk every thing that has yet been pu­blish'd upon the Scripture, and would rather over­whelm the Reader than help him. Indeed those [Page 95]that attempt to explain the Bible, would be very unhappy Persons, if they were forced to set down all the Conjectures of other Men, for no other reason, but merely because they writ be­fore them. Nay, the Readers would be in a more miserable Condition, if they were not allow'd to pass their Judgment upon the mean­ing of the Scripture, unless they heard and weigh'd the Opinions of all. Both of them must in their own defence lay aside all Examination of the Holy Volumes, since the Life of a Patriarch would not be long enough to go through so in­finite a Labour. And therefore we have made use of our own Judgment in our choice of the Inter­pretations which we produce and examine in the doubtful places, and yet we would have no one inferr from hence, that we despised all the rest, which either are already made publick, or lie conceal'd in the Cabinets of the Learned; for although out of an Infirmity common to all Mankind, and even through our own fault, we own we may err, yet it may easily happen, that while a Man is distracted with multiplicity of Thoughts, many things may escape him, and that several excellent Interpretations may be out abroad in the World, which he never so much as heard of.

How unwilling we are to neglect any proba­ble Interpretation, where the Sence is doubtful, the Reader will soon be convinc'd, if he observes how often we refrain our hand, which we have already hinted, and need not here repeat.

X. Since the Hebrew Tongue, such as it has come down to us, is contain'd in the small Vo­lume of the Old Testament, wherein are several Words and Phrases that occurr but once, or sel­dom, and are not sufficiently clear'd by the Sence of the places, we often thought it conve­nient to borrow assistance from the neighbouring Languages, as we saw had been practis'd by Men of the greatest Learning before us with general Approbation. If out of all the Latin Authors, we had only Livy's Works for instance now re­maining, I make no question but that a world of obscure Passages in him, might be happily ex­plain'd by the Italian, Spanish and French Lan­guages; for there are still remaining in those Tongues, many Roots and Derivatives from an infinite number of Latin words, which might be of great use to illustrate that Historian; and there­fore several Persons of the first Rank, not without good reason, have successfully borrow'd helps from the other Oriental Languages, to prove which Assertion Monsieur Bochart alone will furnish us with several Examples, and the Reader may farther satisfie himself by consulting our own Annotations.

And yet this assistance is not unadvisedly, or without warrantable grounds to be used, for it frequently happens, even in Languages which are derived from the same Stock, that words of a like sound have yet a very different Signification. For instance, Abbacinare in Italian, signifies to make blind; Bassiner in French, to wash; Abbellare [Page 97]in Italian, to please; Embellir in French, to adorn; Abbronzare in Italian, to dry; Bronzer in French, to blacken. They that have leisure to turn over any Lexicon, and compare the two Tongues, will meet with an infinite number of the like in­stances. And this very thing, even in the Interpre­tation of Latin Authors, has often deceiv'd those Persons whose Mother-Tongues were derived from the Latin, while the words thus derived from the Latin, bear a quite different Significa­tion. So while the Latins, by the word extermi­nare, mean ejicere terminis, to turn one out of his Country; the Italians by esterminare, and the French by exterminer, understand to destroy by killing, which are very different. Now if any French-man or Italian were to read in Cicero, Orat. pro L. Flacco, that by the Valour of P. Va­lerius Publicola, the Kings were exterminati, i.e. turn'd out, unless he were a Man of Learning above the common sort, he would be apt to imagine, it might be translated Verbatim as 'tis used in their own Language; whereas Cicero does by no means say, that the Kings were killed, but only turn'd out by Valerius. Nay, that most Learned Man, Des. Heraldus, in his Annotations upon Arnobius, lib. 1. p. 2. was of Opinion, that a certain place of that Writer was faulty, because he understood the word as it is used in the French Tongue, Exterminati sumus dum longè, says Arno­bius, examina maerorum tanta mortalium sunt im­portata saeculis. His meaning is, That ever since the Christians leaving the Borders of Judea, [Page 98]were spread all over the Roman Empire, num­berless Calamities, if we may believe the Pa­gans, afflicted the whole World. An infinite number of such Examples may be found, by those that will examine the Matter curi­ously.

And therefore the Hebrew words can only then be explain'd by the neighbouring Lan­guages, where the Sence and Circumstance of places will naturally lead an Interpreter to them, for the Affinity of Sound and Signification are not sufficient. Nay, the desire of extolling the mighty use of the Oriental Languages, which they learn'd with incredible Toil and Industry, seems naturally to have led some Learned men upon ^(l) seeking the Roots of the Hebrew names in those Tongues.

XI. The most infallible way to trace the Sig­nification of an obscure word, is, in my Opinion, taken from the comparing of places, for when any word, where-ever we find it, has one cer­tain limited Signification that suits it best, we cannot forbear but we must think it true; and [Page 99]this is perform'd by the Modern Interpreters, who are furnish'd with Lexicons and Concor­dances, with much greater Success than the An­cients could pretend to, who were destitute of these helps. Nevertheless they have not gone so far, as to leave no Discoveries to be made by the Diligence of Posterity. For it often happens, while they dissent from those of former Times, because they do not comprehend the Reasons they went upon, and while they indulge them­selves too much in their own Conjectures which are wholly supported by obscure or ambiguous places, that they fail of attaining the true Signi­fication of several words. 'Tis not enough to find out a Signification for a word, which per­haps is not amiss, for a Translator is obliged to give the Author's true meaning, and therefore ought to consult the Ʋsus loquendi, which for the greatest part is best found out of the Old Interpreters and Languages. But what we en­deavour'd to perform throughout the whole Work, will best appear by reading it; and how troublesom an Employment this Collati­on of places is, those Persons will soon under­stand, that are pleased to make the Experi­ment.

XII. The Original of words, where it can certainly be known, does often direct us to their true Signification, and therefore the In­terpreters have spared no Pains to find out the Etymologies of obscure words. For Ex­ample, We have shown what the word [Page 100] ^(m) Pharaoh signifies, by finding its Root in the Arabick, Chap. 12.15. who are called (m) Hhartu­mim, Gen. 41.8. we have discover'd by the Sig­nification of the words it is compounded of. We have likewise discover'd what are those (m) Ears which are call'd Tsenoumoth in the same Chapter, which was shown by no one, as we know of, before.

Bochart has borrow'd a great many things out of the same Fountain, which he has happily made use of, in tracing out the Na­tions that are call'd by their ancient Names in the tenth Chapter of Genesis; to which we have added a few of our own, as well to confirm some of his by new Arguments, as to confute others. See what we have written concerning the name of the Tibarenes, v. 2. of the Riphui and Thogarma, v. 3. of Tharsi and [Page 101] ⁽ⁿ⁾ Chittim, v. 4. of the Numidoe and Mauri, v. 6. of the Chasluchoeans and Caphthoroeans, v. 14.

But here also especial care is to be taken that we be not deceiv'd by the Affinity of words; to prevent which, it must be supported by Histo­rical Authority, as Bochart has done, and we have often endeavour'd to do the same. See for Example our Observations upon the name ^(o) Charroe, upon Gen. 11.31. We must likewise take heed, not to deduce all our Reasonings from the bare Etymology, as the Rabbins often do, who have Histories ready at hand that are built upon them. Oftentimes words have so strangely deviated from their Primitive Signification into another, that those who use them do not at all think of their Original. The two Greek words [...] and [...], are famous Instances [Page 102]of the Truth of this, as we could shew, if we were now treating of the Greek Tongue.

XIII. Furnish'd with these helps especially, not to mention any more, we begin our Translation and Commentary upon the Old Testament. 'Tis true, several Learned Men have gone the same way before us, especially in the last Age, and the beginning of this, who deserve great Commen­dation for their Performances. But if we may be allow'd to speak the Truth, though they neither wanted Abilities nor Diligence, yet two things stood in their way, which hinder'd them from giving any lasting Satisfaction to those that came after them.

The first was, The want of due Helps, which we now enjoy; for we may justly say of the Writers of this Age, that they have taken more Pains in illustrating and cultivating the Sacred Philology, than was done in two thousand years before. Hence it comes to pass, that we have such vast numbers of excellent Works to assist us to understand the Holy Volumes. The Truth of this sufficiently appears by the Polyglott Bibles, the Lexicons, and Treatises of all sorts that adorn our Libraries, which before had no such Treasures in them, and the reading of our Work, wherein they are so often commended, will undeniably evince it.

The other was, The general Bent of the last Age, rather towards Theological than Gramma­tical Learning, by reason of the new Controversies that then employ'd the whole Christian World; [Page 103]so that the Interpreters rather busied themselves to confute Errors, than give us a plain and critical Enarration of the words. I will not say, that by thus inclining their Studies, Men of Parts and Learning have been so far led out of the way, that they have sought out Doctrines, which were true indeed, and agreeable to Religion, in impro­per places, though nothing be more certain; however 'tis manifest, that by so doing, they have neglected several helps necessary for the under­standing of Languages, since 'tis impossible for a Man to grasp every thing at the same time. They that have read the most celebrated Commenta­ries of the Divines of the last Age, and examined their Translations, know how true this is, and to prove it to those that never looked upon them, would be labour lost.

They that employ'd their time most this way, chiefly depended upon some late Grammarians of the Jews and Modern Rabbins, but were in a manner destitute of all other Assistances of Cri­tical Learning. I would fain know which of them in the last Age, applied the Histories of the old Eastern People who border'd upon the Hebrews, and what we find in ancient Authors relating to their Manners, Opinions, and their Country, to­wards the Illustration of the Scriptures; two or three perhaps and no more. Nevertheless St. Jerom had long ago advised, though no body would re­gard him, That 'twas one thing to compose Books of our own, as for instance about Covetousness, Faith, Vir­ginity, Widows, and upon each of these Heads to [...]duce [Page 104]Testimonies from all parts of the Bible, and set them off with a little secular Eloquence, and make a magnificent appearance upon such common subjects; and another thing to dive into the Sence of the Prophets and Apostles, to know why they writ so, by what reasons they support their Opinions, what pe­culiar things the Idumeans, the Moabites, the Am­monites, the Tyrians, the Philistines, the Egypti­ans and Assyrians have to themselves in the Old Testament. For 'tis necessary, continues he, that they should have different Causes, and Arguments, and Originals, according to the Diversity of Places, and Times, and Men, to whom they were written. But neither in St. Jerom's time, nor afterwards, did any one, before our Age, regard this Advice as it deserved; so that our Ancestors have left us a very ample Harvest for this sort of Learning; upon this account we may pretend to set out more accurate Translations and Annotations upon the Scriptures than they did, though we are otherwise inferior to them in Wit, Learning and Industry. In their times Theological and Mo­ral Precepts could hardly be inculcated enough, but now since they are known to all, we lie un­der no necessity to dwell upon them any longer Therefore have we employ'd our selves in that way of Interpretation which we have describ'd in this Dissertation, and have endeavour'd to ob­serve the Laws we enjoyn'd our selves very Religiously. How we have succeeded in our Per­formance, let other Persons judge, who have pur­sued these Studies out of a desire to find out the [Page 105]Truth, to whose Censure we most willingly sub­mit our Undertaking, and shall be always ready to receive their Instructions and Emendations, with all imaginable Gratitude.

THE two former Dissertations had a rela­tion to the other Books of the Old Testa­ment, [Page 106]as well as to those of Moses; but now we intend to treat of the Mosaical Writings, exclu­sive of the rest; for we cannot well omit the Discussion of that celebrated Question, which has been so warmly debated in this Age, viz. Whether Moses writ the Pentateuch. Some Au­thors that have made no small noise in the World, have positively asserted that it was not writ by Moses; or at least, that, such as it has come down to our hands, it is not wholly his. How­ever we in our Commentaries, according to the received Opinion of the most ancient Times, have all along attributed it to him. Therefore we must now enquire, which of the two Opi­nions is most agreeable to Truth; and this we shall perform after such a manner, as not to bring the least Reproaches or invidious Reflections, but only Reason and Arguments, against those that are of the contrary side; neither out of an un­measurable Prepossession, shall we deny those things that are evidently plain. Then after we have fully proved the Pentateuch to be the Work of Moses, we shall endeavour to find out his De­sign in writing it. No Thinking Man will doubt, but that both these Disquisitions are of the last Consequence towards the better understanding of these Books; and since they could not so conveniently be handled in our Commentary, we shall dispatch them in this Dissertation with all the brevity we can.

II. There are three sorts of things to be found in the Writings of Moses, which we must here [Page 107]take into our Consideration. We shall have soon done with the two first, but we shall dwell some­what longer upon the last. The first compre­hends those things which were done before Moses was born, at least before he came to years of Ma­turity; of which nature is the History com­priz'd in Genesis, and the beginning of Exodus, and here (if we except a few places which we shall hereafter examine) we find nothing that may induce us to believe, that Moses was not the Author. No body doubts, but that the Creation of the World, and the other Matters of Fact, which are there related down to Moses's Parents, might be written by him. Learned Men only doubt whether Moses really writ them, and if he writ them, whether he was the first that convey'd them down to Posterity in writing, or whether he might not take what he has from ancienter Memoirs, which were afterwards lost.

If Moses was the first that writ of these Mat­ters, and they were never consign'd in Writing before, it necessarily follows, that he must either have them by an immediate Revelation from God, or else that they were communicated to him by Men, who preserved them in their Me­mories; for there is no other way for him to ar­rive to the Knowledge of them. Now he no where tells us, they were communicated to him by God; nor, though such a thing is possible, yet since Moses is silent in the matter, dares any one pretend to affirm it as an undoubted Truth, but only the Rabbins, who were never asham'd [Page 108]of Lying, and whose Assertions consequently are not much to be regarded. Now it scarce seems probable, that so many Names, and the Particulars of so many Years, could be handed down by Tra­dition. 'Tis much more probable, that the ancient Patriarchs left them in Writing, and so transmit­ted them to their Posterity; which Monuments coming into the hands of Moses, he diligently copied and connected them with the History of his own Age; for what Design and Purpose we shall afterwards enquire. Now what sort of Wri­tings they were, and how numerous, only those Persons can inform us, who lived in those Times, if they were restor'd to Life again. We conjecture that some of them were written, carminibus, [...], in Verses of the same Termina­tion, wherein we shall at some better conve­nience, shew the Poetry of the Hebrews to con­sist. ^(a) See our Notes upon Chap. 4.23, 24. and Chap. 7.11. 'Tis certain that almost all Nations in the World preserved the Fragments of their an­cientest Histories in Verse, as several Learned Men [Page 109]have proved: And it appears, that even among the Hebrews, in Moses's time, the Memory of great Actions was celebrated in Verse, which the People learn'd by Heart, as the Songs of Moses himself, that are extant both in Exodus 15. and Deuteronomy 32. demonstrate. Nay, God himself commanded the latter to be learn'd by the Chil­dren of Israel, as we find in Deut. 31.29. Nor ought any one to wonder, that we carry the be­ginnings of Poetry so high, since Musick, by the Invention of some Instruments, flourish'd even before the Deluge, as Moses expresly tells us, Gen. 4.21. Nay, 'tis probable, that Men employ'd them­selves in Vocal Musick, before they thought of the Instrumental. But though some few memora­ble Transactions might be preserv'd in Verse, which the long-liv'd Patriarchs perhaps might have by heart, yet a Chronology, including the Calculation of so many years, seems too unruly an Argument to have been included in them. And Moses makes mention of the Book of the Battels of the Lord, of which we shall treat when we come to Numbers 21.14.

The second sort of things, which we read in the Pentateuch, 'tis evident were written by Moses himself. First, God commanded him to write the Law, and Moses is accordingly said to have writ­ten it. In Exodus 34.27. God, after he had repeated the chief Precepts of the Law, thus speaks to Moses, Write thou these words, for after the Tenour of these words, I have made a Covenant with thee and with Israel. But in Exodus 24.4. after several [Page 110]Laws were made, Moses is said to have written all the Words of the Lord; and frequent men­tion is made of the Book of the Covenant, or Law, as in the seventh Verse of the same Chapter. In Deuteronomy 28.58. If thou wilt not observe, says Moses, to do all the words of this Law, that are written in this Book, which perhaps he then held in his hands; see likewise v. 61. and Chap. 29.20, 27. where the Curses are said to be writ in it. This does Moses de­liver to the Levites, Chap. 31.9. and com­mands it v. 26. to be put in the side of the Ark, that it may be a Witness against Israel. Men­tion is made of the same Book, as if it compre­hended all the Divine Laws, after the Death of Moses, Joshua 1.8. where Joshua is commanded by God, not to suffer that Book to depart out of his Mouth, that is, perpetually to read it, and administer Justice to the People out of the Laws deliver'd in it. See likewise Chap. 8.31.

'Tis true indeed, that the Jews by the word Thorah, Law, are used to understand the whole Pentateuch; nevertheless 'tis certain, that it is of a doubtful Signification, and may signifie more or fewer Laws. So Joshua 8.32. it is said, that Joshua wrote a Copy of the Law of Moses, upon twelve Stones of an Altar, as he was commanded by the Book of the Law. See Deut. 27.2, 3. in all which places Thorah signi­fies only a small part of the Law, as Learned Men have observed, because it was not possible for the whole five Books of Moses to be writ [Page 111]upon twelve Stones joyn'd together to make a four-square Altar. But 'tis evident from the places above-mentioned, that at least all the Pre­cepts of the Law were written by Moses, and indeed so many troublesom Laws could not be remembred, unless their Memories were refresh'd by a written Book, especially when they began to be observed. Some Persons are of Opinion, that only the Book of Deuteronomy is to be un­derstood in Joshua, and the above-cited places of Deuteronomy; and that afterwards that Book alone was found in the time of Josiah King of Judah. But although Deuteronomy is the Repe­tition of the Law, yet many things are there briefly handled; neither are they so clearly de­scribed, that the Israelites, who were none of the acutest People in the World, and always in­clin'd to Idolatry, could have an accurate Know­ledge of the whole Law, only out of that Book; and therefore if Moses design'd to have it all ob­serv'd, as no body questions but he did, he ought to have given the Israelites a larger Exposition of it; and this he actually perform'd; for we have shown from two places of Exodus, that the Laws which we see there, were written by him, and not Deuteronomy alone. The Book in which he writ them, is called, The Book of the Covenant, Exod. 24.7. which after he had solemnly read be­fore the People, without question he did not throw it away, since it was as it were a publick Instrument, wherein were preserved the Laws of the Covenant made with God. Besides Moses writ [Page 112]some other Treatises not extant in Deuteronomy, of which we shall discourse hereafter, and which without doubt he bequeath'd to Posterity, since they have arrived safe to our hands. Therefore the above-mentioned Conjecture, that only Deu­teronomy was left us by Moses, is altogether groundless, and contrary to the Sacred History.

Matters being thus, no one will doubt that the Laws which are contain'd in Exodus, Levi­ticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, are the very same that were written by Moses.' Tis certain, that the Laws, which were written in Moses's time, were still extant in the Reign of Josiah, as it ap­pears from 2 Kings 22. nor can any tolerable Reason be assign'd, why they were not incorpo­rated at least into the Books of the Pentateuch. Therefore whatever Laws we find in the Penta­teuch, we ought to look upon them as written by Moses himself, and consequently the greatest part by much of the Pentateuch came from the same hand. Nay 'tis evident, that several other things were writ by him.

Secondly, Moses is said, Deut. 31.22. to have written the Song which we find in the following Chapter; and since that is set down word for word as he made it, we cannot deny that the rest which belong to the Law, are the very words of Moses, without opposing the plainest Truths imaginable.

Thirdly, He is in express Terms said to have written some part of the History of the Hebrews, for he transmitted in Writing the War against [Page 113]the Amalekites, and God's Sentence pronounced against them, Exod. 17.14. After the like manner he writ the several Mansions of the Israelites in the Wilderness, Numb. 33.2. Moses wrote their go­ings out according to their Journeys, by the Com­mandment of the Lord. And yet that part of their History, which we find in that Chapter of Num­bers, was not of so great a Consequence as to be writ before the rest; from whence it naturally follows, that the four last Books of the Penta­teuch, at least, were written by Moses, for if he writ all the Laws, and the whole History of Israel, he is certainly the Author of these Books, wherein nothing else is contain'd; for who, after Moses had once written, would attempt to write and model them anew? Indeed if we consider the frequent Repetitions which we met with in these Books, and the great disorder in the delivery of the Law, we shall soon be inclin'd to think, that these Books are come to our hands, just as they were at several times first written by Moses, in that long uncom­fortable Pilgrimage in Arabia Deserta: For if they had been compil'd out of Moses's Memoirs, they had certainly been digested into better or­der, and all the Repetitions had been cut off, as is usually done in Works of that nature; but if we except a few Passages, they have descended to Po­sterity just as they were publish'd at first, when a full Collection was made of all that Moses writ, and at several times repeated to the Israelites, who after all these Repetitions, did scarce under­stand their own Law sufficiently. But about the [Page 114]middle of this Age, a certain Author that shall be nameless started up, whose Opinion afterwards found some Disciples, and these have been so hardy, as to deny that Moses was the Writer of the Pentateuch, and pretend to shew several Passages in him, which were manifestly writ since his time. Aben-ezra indeed had formerly deliver'd himself much to the same purpose, but worded it so warily, and obscurely, that he is hardly to be understood. Now we will here consider their Reasons.

III. Their Arguments are partly drawn from the Stile of the whole Book, and partly from particular places. As for the former, they pretend that the difference of Stile, which is easily ob­serv'd in the Pentateuch, plainly shews, that it was not written by one hand; for some places are writ in a short compendious Stile, full of Ellipses, and others in a loose redundant one. But this Objection soon vanishes, if we consider, that the variety we find in these Volumes, is rather to be ascribed to the unrefin'd Condition of the Hebrew Tongue, than any diversity of Writers. Others object, That Moses never speaks of himself in the Pentateuch in the first Person, but that all his Actions and Speeches are related in the third; but these People are easily confuted by the Ex­ample of Xenophon, Coesar and Josephus, and other Historians of the first Class, who whenever they have occasion to speak of themselves, alway do it in the third Person.

But 'tis not so easie to solve some Arguments, that are drawn from several places of the Penta­teuch, although some of them I must own are trivial enough, as will appear by examining them. In the first place they object that passage in Gen. 2.11, 12. The name of the first is Pison, that is it which compasseth the whole Land of Havilah, where there is Gold, and the Gold of that Land is good; there is Bdellium, and the Onyx-stone. Now this they say was written by one that lived in Chaldea because Pison, as they imagine, is a branch of the Euphrates, which after it has washed Chal­dea, falls into the Persian Gulf; and then the Geography of these Countries, according to them, does not seem to be so well known in Moses's time, that so particular an account could be given of them, especially if we consider at what a great distance they lay. But we have shown that the Country of ^(b) Havilah was nearer to Judea, and that (b) Pison was perhaps the Chrysorrhoas that runs by Damascus. But supposing Chaldea is here meant, yet by reason of the Mer­chants that traffick'd from thence into Egypt, that Country might very well be known; for if in Jacob's time Caravans of Merchants tra­veled from Gilead into Egypt. why might they not likewise come from Chaldea too thither?

2. The same is suspected of Chap. 10.8. and the following Verses, where a larger account is given of Nimrod and his Empire, than there is of any other Heads of Families and Countries; and this they imagine might be said more agreeably after the Babylonian Captivity, than before the Israelites had any manner of Commerce with those People. But the mighty Reputation of Babylon, and the other Cities there mention'd, seem to afford sufficient Cause, why Moses should write a little more particularly about their Beginnings, who otherwise of himself, is apt enough to make such Discoveries of [Page 117]Antiquity. As we have frequently ^(c) observ'd upon Genesis.

As for what concerns the name of Nineve, which seems to be of a later date than Moses, as deriving its name from Ninus the Son of Belus, who according to the exactest Com­putation of Chronology, flourish'd about the time of Deborah, perhaps the Original of it was otherwise than is commonly related. For who in so great an Antiquity, and so vast a defect of ancient Monuments, dare positively affirm any thing? Perhaps too some one else might add it to Moses's words, as Learned Men have conjectured of several other Names.

3. 'Tis pretended, that the following passage, And the Canaanite was then in the Land, Chap. 12.6. could only come from a Writer who lived after the Canaanites were turn'd out of their Country. But what Judgment is to be made of these words, we have sufficiently [Page 118]shewn in our ^(d) Commentary upon that place; neither is it necessary for us to repeat it here, perhaps they might be added by a later hand, after the Expulsion of the Canaanites by the Children of Israel; and perhaps 'tis one of those superfluous Observations which frequently occurr in the Sacred Volumes, which might have been omitted, without any Injury done to the History.

4. In Chap. 13.8. we meet with the word Hebron, by which name that Town did not go till after Moses's time, as appears from Joshua 14.15. Chap. 15.13. where it is said to have changed its old name Arba in the days of Caleb and Joshua; and indeed that City seems to derive its name Hebron from the Nephew of Caleb. But Learned Men have rightly observed, that this passage might be added by another hand since the time of Moses, to expound an obscure Name by one that was better known. See likewise Chap. 21.2.

5. The like Conjecture is drawn from the word Dan, which we find Chap. 14.14. and 'tis urged, that the name of it was Laish or Leshem, till it was taken by the Children of Dan. See [Page 119] Joshua 9.47. But we have handled this Matter in our Commentary, where we plainly make it appear, that it is not well ^(e) grounded.

6. In Chap. 20.7. we read the word ^(f) Nabi, a Prophet, which notwithstanding seems not to have been in use till after Moses's Age 1 Sam. 9.9. After all, perhaps the meaning of the Sacred Hi­storian may be this, That not so much the word Nabi was left off in the time of Saul, as that it was not used in that Phrase, Let us go to the Seer.

7. Moses speaking of the Mountain, where Abraham was to have offer'd up his Son as a [Page 120]Sacrifice, has the following words, Chap. 22.14. And Abraham called the name of that place Je­hovah-jireh, as it is said to this day, in the Mount of the Lord it shall be seen. Some are of opinion, that this was the Mountain Moria upon which the Temple was built, and which did not go by that name till the Temple was erected upon it. But this is a meer Conjecture, and although Moriah and Jehovah-Jireh seem to signifie the same thing, yet it does not follow from thence that 'tis but one name. With no greater reason on their side do others observe, that Moses could not be the Author of that Proverbial Saying (for so they call it) Prospicietur in monte Jehovae, since the Person that added it to the Text, seems to speak of it as if it were still used in his time. But why might not Moses say, that this Proverb was in use etiamnum hodie, since perhaps this Form was used, from the days of Abraham down to Moses. This I am certain of, that there is nothing in the whole Matter, which does not fitly agree with Moses's time. There was a convenient distance enough between Abraham and Moses, for the latter to take notice, that the aforesaid Form, of which Abraham was the Author, continued till his own time. Nay, if the Interval had not been quite so great, yet Moses might very warrantably express himself after that manner, since this Form is sometimes used by those that writ but a few years after, of which we [Page 121]find two Examples in St. Matthew, Chap. 27.8. Chap. 28.15. as others have observed before me. To these we may add such-like passages out of St. Jerom, for he, speaking of the Ec­clesiastical Writers of his own Age, expresses himself after the same manner, Saebadius Bi­shop of Agennum in France.— Vivit usque hodie, lives till now, or to this day, decrepitâ sene­ctute, [...], as the Greek Interpreter has rendered it. Didymus of Alexandria— Vivit usque hodie, and has passed the eightieth year of his Age; [...]. Epiphanius Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus— Superest usque hodie, and in his old Age is writing several Books. Eunomius of the Arian Party, usque hodie vivere dicitur. Priscillianus Bishop of Abila, usque hodie, to this very day, is accused by some, of the Gnostick Heresie, though others maintain that he was not guilty of what is laid to his Charge. Priscillianus was slain by Maximus the Tyrant, but seven years be­fore St. Jerom writ this. We have touched upon this somewhat largely, because several places in the Sacred Historians are illustrated by this Observation.

8. Likewise they object the name of Migdal Heder, Gen. 35.21. that is, The Tower of the Flock; by which name is supposed to be meant, a Tower upon one of the Gates of Jerusalem, which was called the Sheep-gate; but this is uncertain; however if we may believe latter Ages, the Tower of the Flock did not belong [Page 122]to Jerusalem. Consult our ^(g) Observations upon this place of Genesis. Nor is there any reason why this place should not retain its an­cient name in following Ages.

9. They suppose that Moses could not possibly write, Chap. 36.31, nor reckon up so many Kings of Edom. Now these were the Kings that reigned in Edom, before there was any King in Israel. After this follow the names of eight Kings, who reign'd successively one after ano­ther, and make as many Generations as there were from Jacob to Obed, Grand-father to Da­vid, and Contemporary to Saul the first King of Judea; since from Jacob to Moses there are only four, taking Moses into the account. Now some answer, That Moses foreknew that the Israelites would set up Kings over them­selves, to which purpose they cite Deuteronomy, Chap. 17.14. But is it credible, that God likewise revealed to him, how many Kings the Edomites were to have, and by what Names they were to be called, before the Jewish Theocracy was turned into a Kingly [Page 123]Government? Now Moses no where tells us, that such a Revelation happened to him, and indeed whoever will read over the nine Verses, wherein the Succession of the Kings of Edom is contained, will soon be satisfied that there is no Prophecy in the case; for the Sacred Historian there speaks as of a thing past and gone, that nothing can be more clearly ex­press'd: For what more evident Testimony can there be given that the thing was already past, than these Phrases, And he died, and there reigned in his stead? Some body, whose name has escaped me, solves it another way; for he humbly supposes that these Kings reign'd at the same time in different places; and for my part I humbly suppose he never read this Chapter, his Head being certainly fill'd with Metaphysical Contemplations. To deal in­geniously with the Reader, the best way to get clear of this Difficulty, will be to own frankly, that these nine Verses from V. 31 to 39, were added by some one who lived after the Kingly Government was set up in Israel.

10. Some have objected, that Canaan is called the Land of the Hebrews, Chap. 40.15. which, in propriety of Speech, could be said only at that time, when the Hebrews had possessed themselves of it; and that therefore the Sacred Historian, who was later than Moses, accommodated Joseph's way of speak­ing to the Stile of his own time. But we [Page 124]have ^(h) answered this Objection in our Com­mentary.

11. In Exodus Chap. 6. after the Sacred Hi­storian has inform'd us of Aaron's and Moses's Pedigree, he thus goes on v. 26. These are THAT Aaron and Moses to whom the Lord said, bring out the Children of Israel from the Land of Egypt according to their Armies. These are THEY that spoke to Pharaoh King of Egypt to bring out the Children of Israel from Egypt. These are THAT Moses and Aaron. Now we do not urge the third Person here, say some, which 'tis plain several Historians have used, but the Demonstra­tive Pronouns that and they, which Moses would scarce make use of while he was alive, and wri­ting of himself. But we must here call to mind, that Moses did not only write to his own Age, wherein his Father and Grand-father were well known, but likewise to the following Ages, to whom he seems in this place to direct his Dis­course, and not to his Contemporaries, who knew [Page 125]all these Particulars well enough. It was of Con­sequence for them to know, that Aaron the Bro­ther of Moses was descended from Levi, and that he was the first Head of the Sacerdotal Families; therefore it ought not to seem strange to any one, that in this place Moses and Aaron are as it were pointed at, and their Genealogy shown to the Israelites of future Ages.

12. The words of Exodus 16.35. are alledged, which they pretend could not be written till after the death of Moses. And the Children of Israel did eat Manna forty years, until they came to a Land inhabited: They did eat Manna until they came unto the Borders of the Land of Ca­naan. For it appears from the fifth Chapter of Joshua, that Manna did not cease till after the death of Moses. To this some answer, That Moses fore-knew, as is evident from Numbers 14.33. that the Manna would cease after the end of forty years, so soon as the Israelites entred the Land of Canaan. But this is here related, and not foretold, and therefore Moses uses the Preterper­fect Tense Comederunt, did eat: For which rea­son I should rather chuse to say, that this Verse, as well as some more, has been added to the Text by way of Parenthesis, occasioned by what im­mediately goes before, where mention is made of an Omer full of Manna to be laid up in the Ark.

13. Some Persons deny the following Verse to belong to Moses, But an Omer is the tenth part of an Ephah; because when a Measure is in use, it is not customary to define it; and therefore [Page 126]they believe that after the Hebrews were scat­ter'd into several Countries, and consequently began to use the Measures of other Nations, this was purposely written, that they might under­stand which Measure was meant in this History. The same is observed about their Money, Numb. 3.47. Chap. 18.16. But it does not appear, that the Jews used any other Measures in Palestine, so as to make it necessary to define the old Mea­sures; nor does an Ephah seem to be better known than an Omer. But Moses, who instituted the Jewish Commonwealth, might designedly give a short Description of the Coins and Mea­sures, to the end that they might not afterwards be changed.

14. The Sacred Historian thus begins, Deut. 1.1. These are the words which Moses spoke to all Israel on this side Jordan in the Wilderness. From whence they gather that the Writer of this Book was then in Canaan. But we have discussed the Ambiguity of the Par­ticle Bheber upon M. le Clerk has promised the World a Paraphrase and Comment upon the other four Book of Moses, but they have not seen the light as yet. that place of Deuteronomy to which we refer the Rea­der.

15. In the same Book Chap. 2.12. there are some words which they pretend could never come from Moses, The Horims dwelt in Sur be­fore time, but the Children of E [...]au succeeded them when they had destroyed them from before them, and dwelt in their stead, as I [...]rael did unto the Land of his Possession. But at that time when [Page 127] Moses writ this, two Tribes and a half had al­ready setled themselves near the head of Jordan, and turn'd out the old Inhabitants, and Moses had an Eye to that.

16. Chap. 3.11. Thus the Sacred Writer speaks of the King of Basan. For only Og King of Basan remain'd of the remnant of Giants, behold his Bed­sted was a Bedsted of Iron: Is it not in Rabbah of the Children of Ammon? Nine Cubits was the length thereof, and four Cubits the breadth of it. Now some can scarce believe, that it was possible for Moses to speak thus of a Man that was lately dead, and overcome by the Israelites, and whose Bed was rather in Basan, of which Territory he was King, than among the Ammonites who were none of his Subjects. But Moses had a mind to give a particular account of a thing, which was well known at that time indeed, but would have been unknown to Posterity, unless he had deli­ver'd it in writing. As for what concerns the Bed, how it came to be carried into another King­dom, who can tell? But since there is no Absur­dity in this Story, nothing can be gather'd from a thing, the reason of which is altogether unknown.

17. In the same Chapter, v. 14. we meet with the following passage, Jair the Son of Manasseh took all the Country of Argob unto the Coasts of Geshuri and Maacathi, and call'd them after his own name Bashan-Havoth-jair unto this day. We shall handle this matter more at large in our Commentary. In the mean time if this were added by a later hand, yet it would not follow [Page 128]from thence, that the greatest part of the Penta­teuch was not written by Moses.

18. We will not deny the last Chapter of Deuteronomy to be writ by some one else, where Moses's going up to Mount Nebo, and his death, are related, and yet all the foregoing Chapters are not therefore to be given away from him. We may easily suppose that this Book was sup­plied by another hand, which had been in a man­ner imperfect, if it had not ended with the death of Moses. But those Jews that are of opinion, that Moses foretold all these things, as being assisted by a Prophetical Spirit, do not deserve to be heard. What can be said more plainly, to make us understand that these things were written long after Moses's death, than what we find in the three last Verses?

IV. Hence we may gather from these eighteen places, which are commonly brought to prove the Pentateuch to be of a later date, that most of them are doubtful, and consequently ought not to be made use of as Arguments to prove these five Books to belong to another Age. Very few of them manifestly seem to be added by another hand, and do not in the least hinder, why we should not ascribe these Volumes to Moses. After the same manner, some ancient Grammarians tell us, there are several Verses here and there inserted into Homer's Poems, yet no one from thence takes occasion to deny that the Iliads and the Odysses were written by Homer. We must not imagine that in former Ages they [Page 129]had such plenty of Books, or so many Copies of the same Book as now we have; and so it might easily happen, that in succeeding Times one of the Prophets might make some Additions to Moses, which afterwards were incorporated with all the Copies.

Indeed if it did not otherwise evidently ap­pear, that the greatest part by far of the Penta­teuch was written by Moses, I confess there would be great weight in the above-mention'd Obje­ctions, to incline us to believe that these Vo­lumes were written much later than is common­ly pretended; but since we have proved it be­yond all manner of doubt, that almost all the Pentateuch belongs to Moses, we have no reason to ascribe those Books to any one but him.

V. It has been long controverted among Learned Men, who it was that made these Addi­tions which we find in the Books of Moses, and they have gone upon various Conjectures. Some would have him to be Joshua, others Esdras, and lastly, others to be the under Scribe among the Hebrews, but this is only guessing, for they bring no Reasons to enforce their Opinions. Because Joshua succeeded Moses, therefore some People fancy it was he that inserted those Passages that seem to carry Discoveries of a later Age. Again, others ascribe this to Esdras, who is, by the Jews, said to have regulated the Sacred Volumes, and by some, to have made them up again out of his Memory after they were certainly lost. But since these different Hypotheses are supported [Page 130]by no competent Witnesses, that is to say, such as flourished in the same Times, or such as might have learn'd the Truth out of the Memoirs of their Contemporaries, they may be as easily re­jected, as they are brought upon the Stage. Nor is a multitude of Authors, who lived several Ages after, and never cite any that are older than themselves, and who do but transcribe one ano­ther, of any weight. Esdras is only called a Scribe, and a ready Scribe in the Law of Moses, in those Books that go under his Name. See chiefly the seventh Chapter of Esdras, and this seems to have given occasion to that Fable, of his restoring the Sacred Books; though [...] rather signifies a Learned Man, as we might easily de­monstrate, than one that is busied in transcribing of Books. Several uncertain things have been positively asserted concerning these under Scribes, as we shall shew at a more proper place upon the following Books, but this is the most uncer­tain of all, viz. That they inserted the above men­tion'd Additions into the Mosaical Volumes.

And therefore after a diligent Examination of the Matter, we ingenuously own that here we do not know what to conclude; perhaps one of those who are already supposed, perhaps some one else, and perhaps several hands have at seve­ral times inserted these things into Moses. There­fore we can have no surer or safer Sanctuary here, than prudently to suspend our Judgments; by which conduct, if we do not discover the Truth, yet at least it is not excluded from the Mind.

VI. If we were able to discover all the Designs that Moses proposed to himself in writing, this would be of much greater Importance towards the better Interpretation of his Volumes; for these Books are not like the Works of Mathema­ticians, where we find nothing but general Pro­positions, that have a relation neither to certain Places, nor Times, nor Men, and do not allude to any thing but the business in hand. Moses writ for the Benefit and Instruction of a particular People called the Jews, though I do not deny that by the means of Divine Providence, his Books were afterwards serviceable to innumera­ble other Nations. Upon this account he said abundance of things merely for the use of that People, which he had omitted, if he had not been influenced by this Consideration. He likewise had an Eye to the Opinions and Customs of the neighbouring Nations, which he assented to, or rejected, according as they agreed with Reason and the Truth.

We know indeed, from the nature of the thing it self, that the general aim of his writing, was to teach the Israelites the Worship of one God, and to deliver them the Laws which he had re­ceived from him; but it is to be wished, that we particularly knew for what Reasons he followed one certain Method in Writing more than ano­ther, and what he chiefly had an eye to in that Abridgment of the ancient History which he has left behind him. From hence perhaps we might be able to comprehend why he omits several [Page 132]Transactions, to give us a Narration of some other Events, which are not, as we imagine, of so great Importance; why he used such and such Words and Expressions, why he mentions some things only en passant, and treats of others in a more copious and frequent manner; with other things of the same nature, which would give considerable light to many obscure places.

Were it possible for any one so to secure his Readers, before they were admitted to the per­usal of Moses, that they should find no rugged places, or at least but few, that were hard to be understood; so universal an Obligation could never be requited with Thanks and Commen­dations enough. For Example, No one reads the short Prologomena which Asconius Pedianus has given us, before some of Cicero's Orations against Verres, but he would with all his heart be at any Expence, that all the rest of his Orations were recommended and illustrated by such Pre­faces. For those Prefaces or Arguments are no small helps towards the understanding of Tully, and would be infinitely more serviceable to the World, if they were but longer.

Now since we are destitute of such Assistances, by reason of the shortness of Moses's History, and the great Scarcity of ancient Oriental Authors, and can by no means supply the Defect of those things which are necessary to such a Design, it remains that we must often be involv'd in the greatest Difficulties. And as I often considered of this Matter, when I had the Mosaical Writings in [Page 133]my hands, so I was resolved to collect and ga­ther out of Moses himself, whatever might be pertinently said upon this occasion. I flatter'd my self that I should not be so rigorously cen­sur'd, if I did not answer the Reader's Expectation, as if I only raised his Appetite, and did not en­deavour to satisfie him; for this reason I made no scruple to set what follows before my Com­mentary, whatever the Learned World may think of it.

VII. That no body may mistake me, or expect to find what I never promised, I do not here in­quire what was Moses's, or rather God's Intention in delivering the Law, which we shall consider when we come to the particular Laws, but what was Moses's chief and principal aim, in writing and publishing the Pentateuch, such as we now have it. All Men, as we observed before, know well enough that Moses chiefly writ to teach the People of the Jews, that only one God was to be worshipped, and after what manner that was to be done; but we must more distinctly shew, what method he took to reach that mark, (if I may be allow'd so to express my self) and what other ends he might possibly have.

1. We must chiefly, and in the first place re­member, that it never was in Moses's thoughts, to write the Annals of all Mankind down to his own time; but only to select those Passages out of the Histories of former Ages, which agreed with his general Design before mention'd, or some other particular by ends. Hence we find [Page 134]that nothing can be shorter than his History is, from the Creation of the World to Abraham, since 'tis dispatch'd in the first eleven Chapters, which make up about one fifth part of the Book of Genesis, and yet the History before Abraham in­cludes above two thousand years, but from Abra­ham to the death of Joseph where the Book of Genesis ends, 'tis not quite three hundred years.

Nay, out of this General History of two thou­sand years and upwards, he only selects a few things, that were either necessary to the Series and Order of the following Transactions, or might serve to instruct the Minds of the Isra­elites in Piety and Vertue. And this is the reason why he omits an infinite number of things, which the Curiosity of the Reader would be apt to de­mand a detail of, and only presents us with a naked Chronology of the first Times. However he occasionally sprinkles some things, which he imagined might more easily induce the Israelites to observe the Law, and therefore not only tells them that the World was created, and that it was made in the compass of six days, but that God rested on the ⁽ⁱ⁾ Seventh, as we find ex­presly in Gen. 2.1, 2, 3. (because this day was to be kept Holy, and 'twas chiefly celebrated in the Law in remembrance of the Creation) that the Jews might understand why they were so so­lemnly commanded to rest on that day. For the [Page 135]same reason, Chap. 1.14. Moses, where he menti­ons the several uses that are made of the Sun and Moon's motion, observes by the by that they shewed Seasons or solemn Festivals. When he might have contracted the History of the first Sin, as he does many more, and only said that our first Parents were not in all respects obe­dient to God, for which reason he inflicted upon them all those Evils that now visit Mankind, he chose perhaps to enlarge more copiously upon it in the third Chapter, because it might be useful for the Israelites, who were commanded to ab­stain from several Animals and Fruits, to know, that the first Sin proceeded from Intemperance; that so this Example might deter them from be­ing seduced with the outward Appearance of any prohibited Flesh or Fruit.

2. Moses's Design was, to write the History of the Jewish Nation from its first Founder Abra­ham, who was commanded by God to go out of Chaldaea into the Land of Canaan, where pro­perly and in Truth the Original of the Hebrews is to be sought. For while Abraham was beyond the Euphrates, he liv'd among the other Gentiles, but in Canaan, living apart from all the rest, he did in some manner represent a particular Na­tion by his Family. This is the reason why Moses, from that time, omits all other Nations, and only speaks of Abraham and his Posterity, although no question is to be made, but that innumerable Events worthy of remembrance happen'd in other Kingdoms. As for instance, It had been [Page 136]worthy the relating, what sort of a Priesthood that of Melchisedeck was, and how he maintain'd the Worship of the High God among a People that were abandoned to Idolatry. Nevertheless because these things related to the History of another Nation Moses, who still keeps to his pur­pose, omits them. From hence we may learn by the bye, that we must not always draw an Argu­ment from his Silence; and that for instance, we cannot, affirm that all other Nations were for­saken by God Almighty, merely because Moses says nothing of God's Favours to them.

3. He seems likewise to have design'd to re­form the Manners of the Israelites, not only by direct and open Precepts, but by a more oblique ^(k) way, of instructing them by Narrations. It was a common Custom with the Israelites, to cast off their Wives at pleasure, which by reason of the Hardness of their Hearts, he would not absolutely forbid, but hints to them, That it was not so from the beginning; and that whoever could receive this saying might. Therefore, says he, a Man shall leave his Father and his Mother, and shall cleave to his Wife, and they twain shall be one Flesh, Chap. 2.24. Compare our Saviour's words, Matt. 19.4, &c. with these.

Polygamy too was in Fashion among them, which he could not openly attack, without [Page 137]alienating the Hearts of all the People from him. However in that compendious History of the Antediluvian Ages, especially where he mentions the Posterity of Cain, he judg'd it à propos, not to omit Chap. 4. that the first Instance of Poly­gamy was in that Generation, and privately Insi­nuates, that Lamech, who first assum'd that Li­berty, was of a fierce Disposition, and despised his other Wives, as appears by his History.

4. Moses endeavours, in this History, to raise an Aversion in the Israelites to the Fables of their Neighbours, and consequently to their Re­ligion, which for the most part was built upon them; and this seems probable for the following Reasons: He not only teaches, that the World was created, which the neighbouring Nations seem to have believed, or rather knew it, from ancient Monuments; but he likewise shews how many Generations there were from the Begin­ning of the World down to his own time, and reckons every particular Person so generated, to oppose the Truth to that mighty number of Generations, which the Egyptians pretended to have been in their own Country. For not to mention what the Learned Sir John Marsham has collected relating to this Head, Herodotus, who lived about the middle of the Fourth Chiliad of the World, according to the Computation of the Hebrews, tells us in his Second Book, Chap. 142. that the Egyptians pretended, after the Gods had ceased to reign in Egypt, that there reach'd to his Age three hundred forty five Generations, which [Page 138]make up Ten thousand four hundred seventy three years. See the Boasting of the Egyptians, Ezek. 29.3. and our Annotations upon Num­bers 13.23. But Moses shews, Gen. 10.6. that after the Flood, Egypt was Peopled by the Po­sterity of Cham, who came thither out of Babylon. The Egyptians too Romanced very much con­cerning the Generation of Men in their Coun­try, and about the Flood, which may be found in Diodorus, L. 1. They boasted that they were the ^(l) Inventors of all things, as the same Authors tell us, most of which Moses confutes by the bye, giving a quite different Account of things, and plainly shews that others were the Inventors of them. For Example, The Egypti­ans ascrib'd Agriculture, and the Invention of Squeezing Wine from the Grape to their Osiris, which belongs to Noah, as we are inform'd by Moses, Chap. 9.20. The Phaenicians too had publish'd several Fictions, if Philo Byblius's San­choniathou has given us a true account of their Theology, a Fragment of which is to be seen in Eusebius's Praeparatio Evangelica, l. 1. cap. 10. which Moses contradicts, as will soon appear by comparing the two Histories.

5. He seems likewise, by not only Writing his Law, but Publishing it, and commanding it to be [Page 139]read every Seventh Year, Deut. 31.10. tacitly to reprehend the Conduct of the Egyptian Priests, who had several secret Rites, and hidden Do­trines, which it was not lawful to discover to the People. ^(m) See our Notes upon Gen. 41.8.

6. Most of the Oriental Nations not only boasted of their Antiquity, as Diodorus Siculus has observ'd in his first Book, but likewise extra­vagantly praised their Founders, and reckon'd them among their Gods, as after Diodorus, Hero­dotus in the place above-mention'd, and Manetho in Eusebius's Praep. Evang. l. 2. c. 1. and several others have remarked. Now Moses shews them to be descended of Cham, Noah's third Son, who was so far from Meriting a place among the Divinities, that he could not be esteem'd a Good Man. He likewise observes all under one, Chap. 9.22. that the Canaanites were descended from that Race which God had curs'd. Nor did he forget, Chap. 19.37, 38. to take notice that the Ammonites and the Moabites came from Ince­stuous Parents. And as the Edomites might per­haps boast that they proceeded from the eldest Son, he exposes his Scandalous Selling of his Birth-right, Chap. 25. Nay, perhaps he had this in his Head, when he observes that the younger Children were often prefer'd to the elder, as we [Page 138] [...] [Page 139] [...] [Page 140]have observ'd upon ⁽ⁿ⁾ Gen. 48.19. therefore it is highly Credible, that Moses had a mind to mor­tifie the Pride of the neighbouring Nations, and furnish the Israelites with some Topicks to up­braid them with.

7. Lastly, While he writes the History of the Hebrews, although 'tis true he enlarges more co­piously upon their Affairs, yet we must not be­lieve (and the Brevity of it is a convincing Argu­ment of what I here maintain,) that he never de­sign'd to write full Annals. It appears from the Sacred History it self, that several things are omitted by him, which however are told in ano­ther place, though they had no relation to it. He says nothing of the Idolatry of the Ancestors of the Israelites, when they were beyond the Eu­phrates, [Page 141]of which Joshua 24.2. makes mention, unless perhaps it is obscurely hinted at in Gen. 31.53. He is utterly silent of the Idolatry of the Israelites in Egypt, which nevertheless Ezekiel the Prophet lays to their Charge, Chap. 20.7, 8. He has likewise omitted a particular sort of Super­stition, into which they fell when they were in the Wilderness, of which Amos 5.25, 26. gives us an account. But for what reasons, we are wholly in the dark.

But since by these Examples, and indeed by the Work it self, 'tis evident that Moses did not write Annals, we must less admire to see him neglect the order of Time, which ought to be observ'd in a larger History. For 'tis well known, that in such sorts of Histories, as Lives are, the true Series of things is never accurately kept, as we find in the most celebrated Biographers of the Greeks and Latins, Plutarch, Diogenes, Laer­tius, Corn. Nepos and Suetonius.

These seem to be the particular Designs of Moses, these his more secret Ends of Writing, be­sides that universal and manifest End, which the Reader finds at first sight, namely, of bringing the Israelites to the Worship of the only true God. They that remember these Hints, as they are read­ing of Moses, will discover several more things than we have here mention'd, as we have like­wise taken notice of many things in our Com­mentary, which we did not think convenient to repeat here.

I. SOME of the Ancient Jews are of Opinion, that the whole passage in Moses is to be un­derstood of a real Serpent, which Creature they imagine to have formerly had the Gift of Speech, so that Eve might very well understand him. Josephus in the first Book of his Antiquities, c. 1. pretends, that at that time [...], all Creatures using the same Language, and consequently being indued with Reason and [Page 143]Understanding, the Serpent, incited by Envy, tempted Eve to Sin, and among other things re­ceived this signal Punishment, viz. That he should be deprived of his Feet, and ever after crawl upon the Ground. Aben ezra, and several Rabbins, inter­pret this place after the same manner. To ex­plain my self impartially, If Moses had been of this Opinion, he could not have spoken more plainly to the purpose, than now he does: For in the first place, he describes the Serpent to have been the most Subtle of all Creatures: Next, That he employ'd his Subtlety in Deceiving our First Parent, and held a Dialogue with her, as if he had been a Master of Reasoning. Lastly, That his creeping upon his Belly was imposed upon him as a Punishment. Josephus himself could not have more fully explained his Sentiments, than Moses has done.

II. But other Persons, who were Jews likewise, not being able to digest so many unpalatable things, as Speech and Reason attributed to a Brute, and the Serpent's losing his Feet, although Moses seem'd to express as much in the plainest man­ner imaginable, yet rather than understand him so, they chose to commit Violence upon his words, and betake themselves to Allegory. Philo indeed, in his Treatise De mundi opificio, and elsewhere, denies that these were Fables and Fictions, wherein the Poets and Sophisters take so great a delight. Nevertheless he owns them to be Figurative Documents, that are to be explain'd Allegorically, in order to find out the bidden meaning of them. [Page 144]And lastly affirms, That it may be rightly con­jectured, that the Serpent is a Symbol of Pleasure, which Argument he handles more copiously afterwards. Maimonides also Part 2. Mor. Nev. c. 29. supposes, that these Passages are to be expounded by way of Allegory, and some of the later Rab­bins declare themselves to be of the same Opi­nion.

III. But others that have a just Indignation to this Libertine way of Interpreting the Scripture, which wholly depends upon the Fancy of the Interpreter, and yet not able with Josephus to follow the literal Sense, have fallen into different Sentiments, none of which labours with fewer In­conveniences than the two above-cited Opinions. Some Divines of no mean Rank in the Learned World, maintain, that it was not a Serpent, pro­perly so called, which appeared, but that the Devil was signified by that name, that therefore the Devil is called the old Serpent by the Hebrews, and is thus described by St. John in the Revela­tions 12.9. The great Dragon the old Serpent, called the Devil and Satan, who seduceth all the Earth. See likewise Rev. 20.2. For this Reason the Devil is called by our Blessed Saviour, a Murderer from the Beginning. And the Author of the Book of Wisdom 2.24. tells us, That Death entered into the World by the Envy of the Devil. See also 2 Cor. 11.3. where the Serpent is said to have deceived the Woman by his Subtilty. But this Hypothesis is easily refuted; for neither can the Devil be called the most subtle Beast of the Field, but in a [Page 145]Figurative Sense; neither will the Punishment inflicted upon the Serpent, suffer us to doubt, that a Serpent's Body at least appear'd here. To re­move these Difficulties some conjecture, that the Devil did not put on a real Serpent, but only formed the Exterior Appearance of one. But the above-mention'd Objections are as directly le­vell'd against this Opinion as the former.

IV. For this reason several Persons have be­lieved, that the Devil used the Serpent's body as an Organ to act his Imposture by, and that God, to shew his utter Aversion and Hatred of Sin, pu­nish'd the very Organ by which this Seduction was effected. But if it were so, what occasion was there to say, that the Serpent was the most subtle Beast of the Field. For the Devil might have abu­sed the most stupid Creature in the World to this purpose with as much Success; for he did not employ the Serpent's Craft, but his own, to deceive Eve.

V. But others observing these and the like Difficulties in all these Opinions, came at last to this Point, as to own, that all we could apparently gather from this Aenigma, was, that the First Pa­rents of Mankind began to Sin, from whence a Series of innumerable Evils were derived to them and their Posterity. 'Tis indeed certain, that now and heretofore Mankind has been in a State of great Corruption, nor can the beginning of this Infection be carried lower than the Original of the World. But then after what manner Sin en­tered into the World, so that we might under­stand [Page 146]plainly, and without the least Reasons of doubting, all the Circumstances of the first Sin, none but those can signifie to us, who were pre­sent at the matter, if by any means they could be revived again.

VI. Lastly, Others finding in this History, fre­quent mention made of Discourses, where none at all seem to have passed, imagine, that the Ser­pent did not speak, but that Eve saw him eating the Forbidden Fruit, and was seduced, by his Ex­ample, to eat of it her self. Especially if we consi­der that this prohibited Fruit, by its beauty, and perhaps by the specious name of Knowledge, might help to induce her, as she was gazing on it. In­deed the Serpent's Punishment, below v. 14. Thou shalt lick the Dust all the days of thy Life, seems to intimate, that the Serpent had deceived Eve by eating of the Fruit, and because he had occasi­oned her Ruine by eating of Fruit from a high Tree, therefore he was condemn'd to lick the Juices of the Earth. The Favourers of this Opi­nion do not deny, but that some Evil Spirit might act his part in this Tragedy, for which reason the Jews not rightly comprehending the meaning of this place, might in after-Ages call him by the name of the Serpent. But as the Sa­cred Historian introduces the Serpent Speaking, who had no Speech at all, according to the Geni­us of his Narration, as is plain from the first Chapter of Genesis, where he frequently repre­sents God Almighty speaking to all the parts of the Creation; so likewise because he was to give [Page 147]him his share in a Dialogue, by whose Example our first Parents were deceived, he therefore at­tributes Subtlety to him, which however can be supposed to belong to a Beast, no more than the Faculty of Speaking does. For this reason he is said to have used both Speech and Craftiness, be­cause, as the Maintainers of this Opinion alledge, he as effectually ruined our first Parents, as if he had seduced them by a crafty artificial Ha­rangue. And therefore both the Subtlety of the Serpent, and his Conversation with Eve, are con­sidered by them, not as Circumstances that can be urged, but as some Oriental Ornaments of the History. This was in part the Opinion of Isaac Abarbinel, who denies that the Serpent could maintain any Discourses with Eve, and asserts, That nothing more is meant by this Colloquy, but the Reasonings of the Woman from what she gathered from the Serpents action, and his eating of that Tree. He pretends, that she inferr'd from the Serpent's Example, that the Forbidden Fruit was Wholesome and Nutritive, which Opinion does not well agree with the words, You shall be like Gods; the meaning of which could never be deduced from this single action of the Ser­pent.

In so perplex'd and obscure a Matter as this is, 'tis the safest way, as I imagine, openly to con­fess our Ignorance, provided we still preserve the Substance of the History, as 'tis explain'd in the fifth Opinion, but so as not to condemn those that differ from our Sentiments. We are now [Page 148]at liberty to examine more at large the most remarkeble Particulars of this Relation.

VII. We find in the Sacred Writer, that the Serpent was the most Subtle of the Beasts of the Field Now some are apt to believe, that Moses in this Passage had a Respect to the Craft of the Devil, who either appeared himself, or actually entered into the Body of the Serpent. But what wonder is it, that the Devil should be more cun­ning than a Beast? And Secondly, How comes he to be reckoned among the Beasts of the Field? Therefore others conjecture, That the Craftiness of Serpents properly so called is here meant, and to this purpose observe, That as they lie hid in the Dust, or under the Herbs, they use to bite the heels of the Animals that pass by: For which reason Aristotle Hist. Animal. l. 1. c. 1. ranks them among the insidious and wily Creatures, and therefore Moses going about to relate the Fall of our first Parents, which was occasioned by the Serpent, after what manner soever it happened, very pertinently observes, that the Serpent is an insidious Animal, and indeed we find the Hebrew word, 1 Sam. 23.22. applied to Men lying in wait, and starting out of Holes. Otherwise, as for what regards Subtlety considered in general, there are several other Animals more cunning than a Ser­pent, among which Aristotle reckons Foxes, [...]. Others are cunning and mischievous as Foxes.

Those that hold this Narration to be wholly Figurative, pretend that Moses prudently makes [Page 149]mention of the insidious nature of the Serpent, to prepare his Reader for what he was going to tell him, of the Fall of our first Parents. Thus the most ancient Philosophers, both Asiaticks and Graecians, who used to deal in Apologues borrow'd from Brutes, if they are to speak concerning Craft, were wont to introduce a Fox, and to men­tion him in the beginning, as the most Cunning of Beasts, or else gave some by-hints of his Subtlety. Thus we find in Phaedrus, that, ‘Dolosa vulpes avidis rapuit dentibus.’ ‘The Crafty Fox with greedy Teeth devour'd.’ The same Creature is described by Avienus, as capable of acute Discourse, and is called by him Arguta, in his Fable of the Fox and the Leopard. But as no one of tolerable Sense, will infer from this, that the Fox is fitter to hold those Politick Discourses than any other Creature, so they say we lie under no Obligation to ascribe that Opi­nion to Moses, which Josephus erroneously attri­butes to him, viz. of assigning both Voice and Reason to Brutes.

VIII. Immediately upon eating the Forbidden Fruit, the Sacred Historian tells us, That our first Parents knew themselves to be naked, that is, They were sensible they had transgressed. Thus in Exodus 32.25. after the Golden Calf was conse­crated, Moses is said to have seen the People naked; and in the New Testament, [...] is sometimes taken for a Sinner, see Rev. 16.15. [Page 150]Those that interpret naked in its proper Sense, involve themselves in insuperable Difficulties. When Adam and Eve were alone, they could no more be ashamed of their Nakedness, or discover it if they knew nothing of it before, than when they were in the State of Innocence. But say others, The Fruit of this Forbidden Tree, pro­voked them to Lust, and some undecent Moti­ons of Body, which suppose to be true, (although 'tis a Conjecture without any manner of Foun­dation,) what will they be able to gather from hence? Can a Man's Appetite towards his Wife be said to be Vicious, which Nature it self has implanted upon all Creatures, or could they be more ashamed, because being naked, they felt this Appetite after their Transgression, more than they did before? When only they two inha­bited the Universe, their Bed under the bare Canopy of the Heavens was equally as Chaste, as if it had been covered with a Roof, and Wall, and Cieling, and Tapestry. 'Tis certain they could never be ashamed of that thing for which they were created, no less than other Animals; neither are we at this day ashamed of it, but before Wit­nesses, for certain Inconveniencies, which would arise from thence, though it is not so convenient to mention them in this place. I know what several of the Ancients, as well as Moderns, have said upon this occasion, but they are such groundless precarious things, that I will not stay to confute them.

IX. We are now arrived to the last part of our Disquisition, viz. The Punishment inflicted upon the Serpent, which we shall examine in as small a compass as may be. Those that affirm the Devil tempted Eve out of the Serpent's Mouth, do not at all wonder that God Almighty here is said to speak to the Serpent, that is, to the Devil. But others that deny the Serpent to have ever talked to Eve, are of opinion, that God's words here directed to the Serpent, were not for its own sake, which as being destitute of reason it could not understand, but for the Comfort of Adam and Eve. However both are agreed in this. That God might punish the Instrument, by which Mankind was seduced, to express his just Hatred of Sin; as we find a like instance in Exodus 21.28. where an Oxe that had goared a Man or a Woman, so that they died, was com­manded to be stoned, and his Flesh not to be eaten. One part of the Malediction is, That he should crawl upon his Belly, concerning which, there are two different Opinions. Some, in which num­ber we find Josephus and several of the Modern Jews, believe, that God deprived the Serpent of his Feet, and commanded him to creep upon the Dust; and indeed if Moses had this in his Thoughts, he could not have express'd himself more plainly concerning it. But others believe it very improbable, that God should make any Alteration in the Nature of a Serpent, merely for the Transgression of Man, and therefore pre­tend, that what was natural to him, turned to [Page 152]his Punishment, as Nakedness in a Man, and the Pains of Child-birth in a Woman. Indeed if Ser­pents had Feet at any time, they must of neces­sity have more than four, by reason of the pro­digious length of their Body. But still 'tis diffi­cult to comprehend, how a thing which was merely natural, and accompanied with no Pain, should be turned into a Punishment. As 'tis no Punishment for four-footed Creatures that they cannot fly, no more is it to those Reptiles that are destitute of Feet, to crawl upon their Bellies. Let the Reader examine which side has the fewest Difficulties, and chuse either this or that Opi­nion as he sees fit.

I. ALL Interpreters are agreed, That the De­luge was so far Universal, as it over­whelm'd all the then inhabited part of the [Page 153]World; and that all the Race of Mankind, ex­cept Noah's Family, were destroy'd by it. But some are of opinion, that the whole Globe of the Earth was cover'd with Water, which others again as positively deny.

II. They that hold the Affirmative, in the first place, ground themselves upon the express words of Moses, who introduces God laying his Com­mands upon Noah, Chap. 6.19. of every living thing of all flesh, to take two of every sort into the Ark, to preserve the several Species of them, lest they should be lost. Which Command Noah accordingly obey'd, and taking Pairs of every Bird, every Beast, and every creeping thing upon the Earth, according to their several Kinds, placed them in the Ark. Now these Expressions denote, that all living Creatures whatever were to be destroy'd, for otherwise Noah might have re­cruited himself much easier out of some other Country where the Deluge did not reach, and consequently where they were not destroy'd, than have kept them in the Ark, which was in­finitely more troublesome. As for the Birds espe­cially, there was no necessity to gather them, be­cause as they could have easily flown to the dry places, so after the Country that was overflow'd was dry again, they would have soon returned. Nay, it had been much more commodious for Noah to have gone to that part of the World which was not cover'd with Waters, than to be shut up so long in the Ark.

Secondly, As the Species of all Animals are said to be preserved by Noah's Care, so Moses could not in more express words have told us, that all the rest over the face of the World were destroy'd, than in the following Lines, Chap. 7.21. All the flesh died that moved upon the Earth, both of Fowl and of Cattle, and of Beast, and of every creeping thing, &c. All in whose nostrils was the Breath of Life, of all that was on the dry Land died. And every living Substance was destroyed, which was upon the face of the ground, both Man and Cattle, and the creeping things, and the Fowl of the Heaven. If a Man was never so much minded to tell his Reader, that all sorts of Crea­tures in all places were destroy'd, 'tis impossible to do it more plainly. How can the Birds of any one Country be supposed to be lost, if they had the next Country to fly to, which was free from the Flood. Could not so much as one wild Beast save himself thither by flight?

Thirdly, We are told in the eighth Chapter, that Noah staid within the Ark till such time as the Earth was dried, when it had been much more easie for him to have gone to some of those Countries which had not been visited by the Deluge; especially, since the Soil of such a place would have been much better for him upon all accounts, than that of a Country cor­rupted by the Salt Water. Nay, he might, as we observ'd before, have fled thither before the Flood, with his Family and all his Effects, and so have avoided the Fatigue and Trouble of building [Page 155]an Ark, which employ'd him without question a whole year.

Fourthly, The heighth of the Water shews, that the whole Terrestrial Globe was covered; for since the highest Mountains under Heaven were covered fifteen Cubits, that is, two and twenty Foot high with Water, 'tis certain that no part of the Earth could escape the Flood; and so we find, that when the Waters began to decrease, the first place the Ark lighted upon, was on the highest ridge of the Gordiaean Mountains.

'To these Reasons, which are borrowed from Moses's Narration, we will not add the general Consent of ancient and modern Interpreters, be­cause all of them purely depend upon it. Now those that are of Opinion that it was no other­wise Universal, than as it overflow'd so much of the World as was inhabited by Mankind, and destroy'd all Men but those that escaped in the Ark, think they have defended their Hypothesis with invincible Arguments, and in the next place have produced Answers to all the above­mentioned Reasons, which, to say the Truth, do not equal the Force of Arguments. After the same manner, those that maintain that all the World was covered with the Flood, prove their Opinion out of Scripture, much better than they resolve the Objections of their Adversaries.

III. That only the inhabited part of the World suffer'd by the Flood, they think is manifest from hence, That since God Almighty only proposed to destroy Mankind, there was no necessity for [Page 156]the Flood to reach farther than Men had planted themselves. It is likewise past Dispute, that he design'd to punish Men alone, because Men alone are capable of Sin, in whose Destruction, if any Beasts are involved, they perished for no other reason, but because they happened to be in the same place where Men lived. Now before the Flood Mankind could not extend it self far, and perhaps had not exceeded those Countries which lie about the Tigris and Euphrates. 'Tis a foolish thing, says Isaac Vossius, in his Disserta­tion de Aetat. Mund. p. 283. to imagine, that Man­kind was so much multiplied before the Flood, as to inhabit all the corners of the Earth. How slow Humane Nature was in producing Men at that time, we may easily gather from this, That Noah was but the ninth from Adam. Whoever computes the Matter fairly will see, that from those eight Persons who escaped the Flood, till the time of the Dispersion of the Nations, more Men might be born, than from Adam alone in the space of two thousand years. Nevertheless 'tis certain, that before the Confusion of Babel, Mankind possessed but a small part of Asia. Therefore those Persons are very much mistaken, who suppose, that in Noah's time the whole World was inhabited, when perhaps only Syria and Mesopotamia were planted. Now no reason obliges us to extend the Inundation beyond the Bounds of the inhabited World: Nay, on the other hand 'tis absurd to say, That the Effects of the Punishment which was inflicted upon Man­kind, [Page 157]should be exerted where no Men were to be found.

Secondly, If we consider how prodigious the heighth of the Waters must be, to cover all the highest Mountains in the World, there is not Water enough either in the Sea, or Clouds, to rise so high: If there are no Mountains whose tops are above three Miles high, for which con­sult Isaac Vosstus in Pomp. Melam. l. 5. c. 2. and Va­renius's Geogr. Gen. l. 1. c. 10. yet the Water must have risen so high. But 'tis evident, that neither the Sea-water, nor that in Fountains and Rivers, nor Showers, were sufficient to effect it. The Water which is contain'd within the Earth, could never be carried so high, unless the Earth sunk in, and the Mountains were levell'd; which contradicts the Mosaical History, and though the Water of the Clouds were joyn'd to it, yet 'tis impossible it should ascend so high, since we see 'tis made up of Vapors exhaled from the Waters below; for the collected Water of the Clouds, must have made a much greater Mass, than the Globe of the Earth, if it could so far overflow it, as to exceed the highest Mountains twenty Foot at least, which may be proved, by consi­dering the greatness of the watry Circles which must encompass the Earth; and the farther they are removed from the Center of it, must needs be so much the greater. Some Persons, to clear themselves from these Difficulties, in the first place pretend, that the Air was condens'd in its lowest parts, and in the Caverns of the Earth, [Page 158]or at least something else served instead of Wa­ter: And lastly, That even the Air condensed into Water, fell down with the Rain. But all these are mere Conjectures, of which Moses mentions not the least Syllable; besides they must needs confess, that they add Miracle to Miracle, merely to overflow those Countries where there is no reason why a Deluge should be sent. If we should suppose the whole cir­cumambient Air, saith the above-mentioned Vossius, in Epist. ad And. Col. p. 385. to be turned into Water, yet we shall never make the Mass of Waters rise one and thirty Foot and a half higher than the Superficies of the Earth. My reason is, Because Water will never be made to rise higher, either by Pumps, or any other at­tractive Power: For the Air that presses with­out, and forces the Water into the Tub or Pump, makes an exact aequilibrium with the Water which is included in the Tub. Therefore ac­cording to the weight of the Water inclosed in the Tub, is the weight of that Cylinder of Air which presses the Water without; so that if the whole body of Air were condensed, and turned into Water, yet the Superficies of the Waters would not be above thirty two Foot high. To this we may add, That to turn this Air into Water, it must be so much condensed, that a certain quantity of it must equal the like quan­tity of Water in weight. But to effect this, the Air must be at least eight hundred times thicker than it is; for it appears by undoubted Experi­ments, [Page 159]that the exact weight of this lower Air which we breath, and which without question is the heaviest, is eight hundred times heavier at least than that of Water. See Edm. Halley's second Dissertation in the Transactions of the Royal Society. T. XVI. p. 104.

Others that cannot digest this Condensation of the Air, are of opinion that the Rain and Sea­water was rarefied. However if we should admit so great a Rarefaction of Water, they are Vossius's own words, yet to make the quantity of it no more than fifteen times greater than usual, which is the least we can suppose, it ought properly to be called a Mist and not Water, wherein as nei­ther Men nor the other Terrestrial Creatures could have been destroyed, so the Fishes could not have lived in it. Besides, had Noah's Ark been made of the lightest Cork imaginable, yet so light and thin a body could never have sup­ported it.

If any one should still insist, that the Waters were created out of nothing, and annihilated again after all Living Creatures were destroyed, it may be said in the first place, That there is nothing to countenance this Conjecture to be found in Moses, who on the other hand expresly tells us, That the Waters of the Abyss and the Heavens were sent upon the Earth: And in the next place it ought to be consider'd, Whether 'tis suitable for the Divine Wisdom to create a mighty Mass of Waters, to overflow those places where there were nothing but Beasts, and after­wards [Page 160]to annihilate them. Lastly, It appears from the eighth Chapter, That the Waters were diminish'd by the Wind, and not by any extra­ordinary Effect of the Divine Omnipotence.

From hence a third Argument is deduced, whereby they endeavour to prove, that the De­luge was only particular. God, says, Moses, Ch. 8.1. sent a Wind, and the Waters abated. The only thing the Wind could do was, That a few more Vapours should be exhaled, or that the Water should more swiftly be carried into some cer­tain place, into which of its own accord it would not run soon enough; but it could never ex­haust the Ocean. Who can therefore believe, that the whole Earth, cover'd with Waters to so pro­digious a heighth, could be dried up by the Wind? 'Tis certain this could no more be effected by the Wind, than in the Beginning of all things, the Sea could be compell'd into its Alveus by it; especially if we consider, that the Sun perpetually draws up Vapours from the Earth, even without the Wind; which Vapours being in too great Plenty in the Air, fall down back again upon the Earth in Showers. Besides, if the Wind could draw up so vast a quantity of Water in Vapours, it would follow, That there would be always much more Water in the Clouds than in the Ocean, since if they were all pour'd down, they could cover the whole Earth, not the highest Mountains excepted. But we have already shown that this cannot be done.

Fourthly, If the Sea-waters were spread all over the Face of the Earth, the Trees and smaller Plants could scarce have been preserv'd from Destruction; and if all Trees in all Coun­tries had been spoil'd by the Saltness of the Wa­ter, how came they to be propagated again, since God is no where said to have created them a-new. Now no one will be so Obstinate as to deny, that in the compass of a year, or somewhat less, both Plants and Seeds will be corrupted in Salt-water: And those that are skill'd in Natu­ral Philosophy will scarce affirm, that they would grow again, out of putrified Mud fermented by the Sun, as was formerly believed. 'Tis true, the force of this Argument is somewhat abated, if the Patrons of the Universal Deluge answer as they use to do, that the Saltness of the Sea was very much taken off by so great a quantity of fresh Water mingled with it. However 'tis hard to imagine, how several Plants could continue so long a space even under fresh Water, with­out being kill'd.

Fifthly, If all the Animals of all Countries in the World came to Noah in general, as 'tis plain they must needs come, suppose both Hemispheres were covered with Water, It may be enquired into, how so many Animals, which are peculiar to America, could come from that Continent to Mesopotamia? If America is any where joyn'd to our part of the World, it must be far North­wards under a cold Climate, which Beasts, that are proper to the Torrid Zone, cannot endure. [Page 162]Nay, if we suppose it to be joyn'd to our Cli­mate under a more favourable Latitude, how could the American Beasts, but the Serpents more especially, possibly get over so many Rivers, and Lakes, and Mountains, and find their way through so many Woods in so long a Journey? By what means, says Isaac Vossius, p. 398. could that Ani­mal, for instance, which from the slowness of its Motion, is called the Lazy, arrive to Noah's Ark, and travel so many Miles, which after its own natural Pace, it could not perform in the space of Twenty thousand years.

Let the Patrons of an Universal Deluge like­wise inform us, after what manner ( Id. p. 186.) these Animals, leaving Noah's Ark and the ancient World, found their way into America, and Lands that are disjoyned by a vast Ocean. Another Absurdity too would follow, which is this, that such innumerable sorts of Creatures, which were unknown to our World both formerly and now, should pass through such mighty Tracts of Ground, and not leave any remainders of their several Kinds in their former Habitations.

Sixthly, The very building of the Ark pre­sents us with no less Difficulties, if it were true, what the generality of Mankind believes, viz. That it was a common Receptacle of all Beasts, and that we cannot name one Animal, whose Posterity did not come out of this Mansion. If we only compute those Creatures which are fre­quently found in the old World, yet the room which the Scriptures allow for this Ark, could [Page 163]not contain so many different Species, and the Food that was necessary to maintain them so long. But if we take in the Beasts of the New World, and the Southern Hemisphere, there will not be room enough for the Animals themselves, much less for the vast Provisions to keep them alive there. Besides, a Man cannot easily compre­hend, how these Animals, after what manner so­ever they were distributed into their Cells, and their several Apartments kept clean, could live so long in this close Confinement. The Question too may be put, whether they generated in the Ark, which, if any one denies, 'tis very strange, that these Brutes, which if you except a few of them, are hot for Copulation once a year at least, should abstain from it; and if 'tis affirm'd then, as their Off-spring increased, there must be of course a greater Consumption of their Pro­visions. Several Persons here have recourse to Miracles, which as they might happen, so we need not suppose them without urgent necessity. But what necessity is there, that Countries de­stitute of Men, and the Animals of those Coun­tries, should be overflown?

Seventhly. To lessen this Difficulty, perhaps it may be objected, That no more Creatures were created in every Species than in that of Man. But the above-mention'd Learned Man thus confutes them. God, says he, from the Creation, fill'd the whole World, according to the respe­ctive Faculty of every Country and Sea, with all sorts of Beasts, Fishes and Trees. But Man [Page 164]alone is said to be created by himself. Now it would be monstrously absurd to imagine, That only two Animals of every Species, and that only in one place, were formed by God Al­mighty. For if we are of that Opinion, what will become of those Plants and Animals which only breed in peculiar Continents, and which, for the above-mention'd reason, could not be transferr'd, and propagated from our World to theirs?

IV. These are the Arguments which have been urged to prove, That only the inhabited part of the Earth, and its Animals, suffer'd in the Deluge. But because the Maintainers of the con­trary Opinion object. That when God speaks, all Humane Reasoning ought to cease: True it is, say the Patrons of a Particular Flood, and so it ought, if the Divine Words would only admit of an Interpretation. And thus the most Reve­rend Bishop of Worcester, Dr. Stillingfleet, in the third Book and fourth Chapter of his Origines Sacrae, where he treats of this Subject with that Learning and Judgment which is so peculiar to him, owns, that it cannot be proved by any ne­cessary Arguments drawn from the Scriptures, that the whole Superficies of the Earth was over­flow'd. We are at leisure now to examine the Answers they bring to the above-cited Reasons.

First, Though All Creatures are said to be admitted into the Ark, yet they observe that the word All is of doubtful Signification, and is very seldom taken absolutely, but in most places is re­strained to the Subject then in hand. Even in [Page 165]the Writings of Moses himself, where he tell us, That a Famine prevail'd in All the Earth; our Divines own, that 'tis to be understood only of a particular part of the World. Thus Vossius, nay, other Writers, when they speak of a consi­derable number of Animals, express themselves after the same manner. Livy, speaking of the Circensian Spectacles as they were exhibited in his Age, has the following words, Lib. 44. c. 9. It was the Fashion then, even before our Modern Va­nity was introduced, of filling the Circus with the Beasts of ALL NATIONS, to divert the People with several sorts of Spectacles. Here a few Nations, that were either Neighbours, or Subjects of the Roman People, are called Omnes Gentes. In like manner several Birds and Beasts in the Prophet Ezekiel, Ch. 31.6. where the King of Egypt is described under the Representation of a Tree, are called All. In the Leaves of it All the Birds of the Air built their Nests, under its Boughs All the Beasts of the Field did Copulate, and un­der its Shade did dwell All Nations. See Daniel 4.18. so likewise Hosea 4.3. where the great Devastation of Judaea is described: Therefore, says the Prophet, the Earth shall Mourn, and All dwelling therein, among the Beasts of the Field, and the Birds of the Air, they shall fall Sick, yea, the Fishes of the Sea shall be destroy'd. There­fore All Animals, Clean and Unclean, that were let into the Ark, are to be understood only of those which that Country produc'd, where the first Seat of Mankind was, viz. That Fruitful [Page 166]Territory about the Tigris and Euphrates: And perhaps the All here does not comprehend those of All Kinds, but only All those which are useful to Man. Of which Nature are the Cattel they feed upon, as Oxen, Sheep, &c. Horses, Asses, Ca­mels, which were there imploy'd in carrying of Burdens, but therefore call'd Ʋnclean, because they were not used for Food. Of Birds there might be Cocks, Geese, Ducks, Pigeons, Ravens, &c. Nor is it strange that Noah was commanded to preserve these Animals, which could not be had out of the neighbouring Countries, nor tamed without a long and tedious Trouble.

As for what relates to Noah, the Reasons why he was not ordered to fly to the adjoyning Country where the Deluge did not reach, were, because other People should not follow him thi­ther. Besides, it was convenient, that the Ark wherein he was to be preserved from the Deluge, should be built before those very Persons to whom he foretold it, that so they might be con­vinc'd he spoke to them in earnest. God Al­mighty, as Vossius conjectures, thought that his Justice was not to be exerted but in a conve­nient place. Now what more convenient place can be imagin'd than this, where the Guilty were to be punish'd in Noah's sight, and he that was Innocent, should be saved in the midst of Sinners?

• Secondly, Where it is said, That all living Crea­tures were destroy'd, the place must be under­stood only of those Animals that were within the Limits of the overflow'd Countries: Which [Page 167]is not only the answer of Vossius, but of Dr. Stillingfleet. Nay, from what has already been said, concerning the word All, we may gather, That 'tis not inconsistent with the Mosaical Narration, to suppose, that not all, but many Animals, and especially such as were in a more particular manner serviceable to Mankind, were destroy'd.
• Thirdly, Noah tarried in the Ark till the Wa­ters were dried up, because it would be more convenient for him to set footing in a Country which he was formerly acquainted with, and which was free from Wild Beasts, than in an unknown place, full of Savage Creatures. No doubt on't, but the Soil was sufficiently damag'd by the Stagnation of the Water; but Mesopota­mia, and the adjoyning Countries, being watered by vast noble Rivers, received less Detriment from the Salt Water, than others that were de­stitute of fresh Streams; so that 'tis reasonable to believe, they recover'd their former Fertility in a short space.
• Fourthly, The highest Mountains that were covered to so vast a heighth by the Flood, were those which were scituate in these Countries, be­yond which Mankind was not at that time pro­pagated. Nor does that Addition, Ʋnder Hea­vens, oblige us to believe the contrary, since it is sometimes used of a few neighbouring Coun­tries, as Deut. 2.25. On that day will I begin to send the Fear and Terror of thee, through the People under all the Heavens, Sub omni Coelo.

Having thus consider'd what might be said in behalf of this Opinion against the former, it now remains to be enquir'd how far, according to this Hypothesis, the Deluge might extend. But since we do not know what Countries were then inhabited, What Man dares presume to define the Bounds of the Flood? Perhaps that Tract of Ground which lies between the four Seas, the Persian, the Caspian, the Euxine, and the Syrian; in which compass we find the Tigris, the Euphra­tes, and several other vast Rivers, were by the Eruption of all Waters, and by the Clouds, ga­thered from all parts of the World by the Di­vine Power, and there condens'd into Moisture, buried and overflow'd. 'Tis true, this could not be effected without a Miracle; but then there is no way to solve the Difficulties of so great a Ca­taclysm without a Miracle. However the less and fewer of this Kind we suppose, provided the rest may be conveniently explain'd, that Expo­sition uses to be accounted the most agreeable to Truth by all Interpreters, because God is never so prodigal of Miracles, as to have recourse to them where Natural Causes are sufficient; much less does he violate and overturn all the esta­blish'd Laws of Nature without good reason. In this very History we find, that God was pleased to give Noah notice when it was time for him to go into the Ark, because he could scarce know it of himself, but he does not tell him the time when he was to go out of it, but left the Matter wholly to his own Discretion, [Page 169]because he might very well know it without the Divine Assistance. He might, if it had so pleased h [...], have preserved all the Animals in the Ark alive without any Aliment, which had made the Ark considerably lighter, and had saved Noah a great deal of trouble; and yet we see he did not do it, because these Creatures might be supplied with Food by Humane Diligence. Where the Industry of Man ceases, there the Divine Help begins; and Vice versâ.

Thus the Favourers of a Particular Deluge support their Opinion, but it has been objected against them, That if this Supposition were true, the Superficies of the Water could not have been perfectly Spherical, and consequently that the Ark in this great Declivity, must ne­cessarily incline to the lower places. But as Vossius has very well answered, that which hap­pens in lesser Inundations, the same might fall out in this great, and more than Natural Deluge. For the same Power which drove the Seas and Clouds to that Tract of Earth which was to be destroy'd, did likewise sustain the Ark, and the Declivity of the Water, as long as there was occasion for it.

I. BEFORE this wonderful Confusion hap­pened at Babel, the Sacred Historian ex­presly tells us, Gen. 11.1. That the whole Earth was of one Lip, and of the same words; or as we have translated it, of one Language, and of one Speech; because 'tis evident that the word Lip, both here and in several other places, signifies Speech; and the reason of it is, Because the Lips are no less serviceable to us in speaking, than the Tongue it self, see Isaiah 19.18. No one doubts, but that one Universal Language was spoken by all Mankind at this time; but whether Moses has here a regard to that [...], is not so plain. Perhaps these words may signifie, that Men lived [Page 171]in a State of Peace and Concord, because 'tis equally necessary towards the Building of any City, that Men should agree in their Sentiments and Inclinations, as well as in their Language: Nor does the Idiom of the Hebrew Language reject this Interpretation. Thus for instance to denote the unanimous Agreement of the Ca­naanites to beat back the Israelites by main force, They gathered themselves together (says the Sacred History Joshua 9.2.) to fight with Joshua, and with Israel with one mouth. Thus like­wise the False Prophets agreeing together in their Predictions, declared good unto the King with one mouth, 1 Kings 22.13. Hence it is, that to speak with the Lip of another, is the same thing as to agree, as appears by the above-cited place of Isaiah, In that day shall five Cities in the Land of Egypt speak the lip of Canaan, and Swear to the Lord of Hosts; that is to say, They shall be of the same Opinion with the Hebrews that inhabit the Land of Canaan. And indeed the words Ʋnum Labium, & una Verba, seem rather to signifie Agreement of Mind than of Language, although 'tis certain there was but one Language then in the World. For by cadem or una verba we are not here to understand the same Sounds, and the same Syllables, but voces consentientes Unity of Mind. Solomon Jarchi ex­pounds it the same design.

II. Learned Men have rightly enough ob­served, that in Scripture to make ones self a Name, is all one as to get ones self a Fame or Reputa­tion, [Page 172]in which sence this Expression is to be found, 2 Sam. 8.13. Isaiah 63.12. Jer 32.20. & Dan. 9.15. and so this Tower might be said to be built in nomen, i. e. to spread the Fame of the Builders all over the World, which Phrase is to be met with 1 Chron. 22.5. where mention is made of the Building of the Temple of Jerusalem. But this cannot possibly be the meaning of this place, for what an odd sort of a Conclusion would this be; Let us acquire our selves a Reputa­tion, lest we be dispersed all over the Earth? Besides with whom would all Mankind which was concerned in the Building of this City, have gotten Glory and Fame? With their Po­sterity, as some will be apt to say, but then what fine Sence would this make, Let us make our selves Famous with Posterity, lest we be scattered into several Countries? If we carefully examine these words, and revolve the whole History in our Mind, we shall find the meaning of the place to be to this or the like purpose. Let us build us a City that may be the Metropolis of all the World, in which let there be one Government, the Seat of which Empire shall be perpetually in that City, lest Mankind be scattered all over the World, according to the Fancy of every rambling Family. If this Interpretation be ad­mitted, it will follow, that to make us a Name, at least in this place, signifies in a manner the same as to leave our name somewhere, i. e. to make a place Famous with our Habitation, so that it derives its name from the Inhabitant, see [Page 173]1 Kings 9.3. & 14.21. Perhaps a Name here denotes a Monument which is called by the Name of the Person that erected it. Thus Absa­lom in his Life time had reared up for himself a Pillar, which is in the King's Dale, for he said, I have no Son to keep my Name in remem­brance, and he called the Pillar after his own Name, and it is called unto this day Absalom's place, 2 Sam. 18.18. So Cain not long after the Creation of the World built a City, which he called after the Name of his Son, Gen. 4.17. In like manner Men were now resolved to build a City, which perhaps they would have called [...], or by some such sort of a Name. But if instead of the Hebrew word [...] Schem, a Name, we changed one Letter and read it [...] em, that is to say, a Metropolis, the same Sence would arise; nor could it be pretended that this Expression is incongruous, Let us build us a City and Tower, and make us a Metropolis, lest we be dispersed through all the Earth. And therefore the Intention of Mankind perhaps, might be to build a Mother-City or Metropolis, in the Vale of Shinaar, to which the Cities a­round it should be subject. Thus upon the building of this Metropolis, there would have been but one Empire in the World, which per­haps was design'd at first with no ill Intention, but because this Project drew several great In­conveniences along with it, as we shall here­after observe, God was pleased to blast and dis­appoint it.

III. By the Children of Men, Bochart. Phal. l. 1. c. 10. with several others, would under­stand the Unfaithful only, because the Daughters of Men, Gen. 6.2. signifies the Female Descen­dants of Cain, distinguished from those of Seth, and thinks it by no means probable, that Noah, Shem, Arphaxad, Salah and Heber were con­cern'd in the building of so vain and daring a Structure. But in the first place 'tis evident enough, that all Mankind, consisting of the Faithful as well as the Unfaithful, are generally meant by the Children of Men. Secondly, It is manifest that this Phrase is here to be taken in that Sence, from the first Verse of this Chapter, where they are called the whole Earth, as well as from the Silence of Moses. Thirdly, The Posterity of three Women, and that within the compass of an Age, were not sufficient to have laid the Foundation of an indifferent City, much less can we suppose that any of them refused to give their assistance towards so vast an Under­taking, which required so many hands. Fourthly, Noah, and the rest from whom the Hebrews are descended, are without reason exempted out of this number, since this Attempt had nothing of Impiety in it, although we own it was undis­creet, and not agreeable to the Will of God, as shall be demonstrated below; neither if there had been any harm in it, does it therefore fol­low, that Men obnoxious to Sin, although in other respects they were not bad, abstain from it. Besides who can imagine, that while Noah [Page 175]and his Sons were alive, at so small a distance too from the Flood, Mankind was divided into Faithful and Ʋnfaithful. We may indeed ratio­nally enough suppose, that some of them were not so Pious as others, but however they do not therefore deserve to be stigmatized by the odi­ous Character of Ʋnbelievers.

IV. Let us go down. The Interpreters are divided about the meaning of this passage, as well as that of Let us make Man in the first Chapter of Genesis. Some both Jews and Chri­stians are of opinion, that God is here intro­duced speaking [...] after the manner of Kings, who as they act not only by their own Judgment, but that of their Privy-Counsellors, use the plural number when they speak to their People. Nay sometimes they speak after this fashion, when they consult their Nobles. Thus 1 Kings 12.9. What Counsel give you that we may answer this People? says Rehoboam to his young Advisers. 2 Chron. 10.9. Esdras 4.18. Thus God himself also is described like a King consulting his Noble-men, 1 Kings 22.20. And the Lord said, Who shall perswade Ahab that he may go up, and fall at Ramoth-Gilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.

Others pretend there is no necessity to have recourse to this Custom of Kings, since sometimes we find in the Hebrew, as well as in the Greek and Latin Languages, particular Men speaking of themselves in the plural Number. Thus Bildad [Page 176]speaks to Job, when only they two were toge­ther, Quando tandem finem imponetis sermonibus? Intelligite & postea loquemur. Cur reputamur ut Jumentum, & sorduimus in oculis vestris? Job 18.2, 3. see likewise Cant. 1.4. 2 Sam. 16.20. and Dan. 2.36.

Some of the later Rabbins, as well as the an­cient Jews maintain, that God speaks to his An­gels here as to his Guards. The Chaldaean Wise Men indeed never describe God doing any thing but without a great attendance of Angels, as Jamblichus often informs us, and particularly § 5. c. 21. that all those Powers that are sub­ject to them, go before the Presence of the Gods, and whenever they make a Procession to the Earth, bear them company. And the Jewish Masters, who, as some Learned Men imagine, borrow'd their Doctrine concerning Angels out of Chaldaea, were of the same Opinion. Origen in his Homily upon Numbers 11. is of this Opi­nion, and St. Austin de Civ. Dei, lib. 16. cap. 5.

Lastly, Some Christians believe that the Hy­postasis of the Son and the Holy Ghost are here spoken to by the Hypostasis of the Father. 'Tis indeed certain that several Christians, even im­mediately after the times of the Apostles, ima­gined that in that famous passage of Genesis, Let us make Man, God the Father spoke to the Son. Thus Barnabas in the fourth Chapter of his Epi­stle, according to the Paris Edition, but in the fifth of that of Oxford, Our Lord, says he, vouchsafed to suffer for our Salvation, though he is Lord of [Page 177]the Universe, to whom his Father said before the Creation of the World, Let us make Man. Hug. Menard upon this place of Barnabas, has proved that some of the later Fathers after him, as Justin, Irenaeus, Theophilus, and several more, were of the same opinion. But after all, seve­ral Men of the greatest Reputation in the Learn­ed World, think that neither of these two Passa­ges are to be urged too positively against the Jews, as if they amounted to the force of a De­monstration.

V. The Hebrew Root balal, which we have Englished to confound, properly signifies to min­gle things of a different nature; but what it means in this place, is not agreed among the Annotators. Some are of opinion that God ut­terly extirpated the Memory of the Primitive Language out of the Minds of Men, and sent a new one to each Clan or Family: Others main­tain that this happen'd neither to Heber nor any of his Progeny, who still kept up the use of the Primitive Language, viz. the Hebrew: And lastly, others pretend that only the Memories of Men were disturbed, so that they fell upon new Dialects of the first Tongue, but invented no new ones wholly different from the first; and these support their Hypothesis by the Significa­tion of the word Balal, which signifies to mingle and not to create. However, most of them are agreed that it happen'd in an instant, by a Di­vine Miracle. For my part, I see no reason why we should believe this Confusion was wrought [Page 178]in a moment: Though this History indeed is related in the compass of a few lines, and the e­vent that followed upon God's Determination, is immediately subjoined, yet no rational Man will from thence conclude that it was all trans­acted on the sudden. Don't we find that Mo­ses delivers the Original of Mankind in a short Compendium, and that the Occurrences of seve­ral Ages are related in a few lines. And there­fore 'tis more credible that a Spirit of Discord was sent among Men, upon which they aban­don'd this foolish Undertaking, and dispersing into the neighbouring Countries, and removing their Habitations from one place to another, as they happen'd to be straitned for want of room, till in process of time living at a great distance from one another, and maintaining little or no Correspondence, their Languages came to be changed. Now because these Passages are rela­ted by the sacred Historian in a compendious Narration, the Interpreters erroneously believed that they were done in as short a time, as the Verses in which they are set down, may be read.

As we have already shown, that those Persons may be said to speak one Tongue who live ami­cably and like Friends together; so the Jews say of those that are at variance, that their Tongues are not only confused, but divided. Thus David in the 55th Psalm v. 10. when his Enemies concerted together how to destroy him, Lord, says he, divide their Tongues; that [Page 179]is, make Discord and Dissention arise among them that they may no longer unanimously a­gree to act against me, and contrive my De­struction.

VI. As we have already observed, these Per­sons who attempted to build a Metropolis for all Mankind, may rather be charged with Im­prudence or Folly, than any Impiety. Let us now see whether we may be able to conjecture for what reason God disliked and frustrated their Undertaking.

• 1. Two celebrated Rabbis, A­ben Ezra and Levi ben Gersom, who deny that the Builders of Babel were guilty of any Sin, because they design'd nothing more by this Project than to perpetuate the Society of Man­kind, and hinder them from dispersing, are of Opinion, that therefore God was pleased to fru­strate their Attempt, least if they all lived with­in the limits of one Country, all Mankind might at once be destroy'd by an Earthquake, Conflagration, Hail, Deluge, or any Accidents of the like nature.
• 2. Since Empires are at first possess'd by those that are not the best of Men, but such as either by Fraud or Strength aspire to a Soveraignty above their Fellows, all Mankind wou'd have been subject to the Arbi­trary Will of one Tyrant, as Nimrod is not long after said to have been, which might have pro­ved the occasion of innumerable Calamities. For when there are several Republicks, or dif­ferent Kingdoms, if the Inhabitants of one place happen to be oppress'd by Tyrannic Power, [Page 180]those that are able to endure the Yoke no lon­ger, may fly into other Countries; which if there was only one Governour of the Universe they could never do, because they cou'd not go to desolate uninhabited places without ap­parent danger: Therefore all Men would be obnoxious to the Cruelty of one wicked Tyrant, if there was no more than one Monarchy in the World.
• 3. If the profligate Lives and Immo­ralities of the supream Governors are copied by the common People, as we find it true by a thousand Examples, then the Vices of ill Prin­ces had in a short time been the Vices of all Mankind. On the other side, when several Kingdoms are on foot at the same time, if the Infection of Vice prevails in one place, Vertue and Good Manners flourish in another. If the truth of this Assertion wanted to be confirmed from Citations drawn out of History, we cou'd easily convince the Reader, that both under the Persian Empire which possessed a great part of Asia, and under the Macedonian which succee­ded it; and lastly, under the Roman Monarchy when it was in its greatest extent, there was more Wickedness of all sorts committed, and the Manners of Men were generally more de­bauched and irregular, than when these con­quer'd Countries set up several Republicks and Kingdoms of their own.
• 4. Josephus, Ant. lib. 1. cap. 4. who thinks that God would have them dispersed into several Colonies for the greater Increase and Propagation of Mankind, [Page 181]immediately adds this Reason, which is not to be despised, least they should quarrel among them­selves, (while every one would pretend to make himself Master of the nearest and most fertile Lands;) but that cultivating a greater space, they might enjoy a proportionable Increase of the Fruits of the Earth.

Therefore to close this Dis­sertation, for these Reasons, or some others of the like nature, it was by no means expedient that Mankind should live together in one So­ciety and Government.

1. IT hath been a Question long debated a­mong Learned Men, Whether the Jews borrowed this Ceremony from the Aegyptians, since it appears by the undoubted Testimonies of the Ancients that other Nations, and particu­ly the latter, used Circumcision; or on the o­ther hand, Whether the Aegyptians had it from [Page 182]the Jews? Herodotus, l. 2. maintains the first Opinion: The Colchians, the Aegyptians, and the Aethiopians, says this Historian, are the only People that used Circumcision from the beginning. Now the Colchians and Aethiopians were Colo­nies of the Aegyptians, and therefore borrow'd, without doubt, this Custom from their Foun­ders. He immediately subjoins; The Phaenici­ans, and the Syrians, that live in Palaestine, own that they learnt it of the Aegyptians. And to say the truth, the People of Aegypt, as they were always extreamly tenacious of their own Customs, so they express'd that Contempt for those of foreign Nations, that they imagin'd themselves to be polluted, even with keeping any Correspondence with Strangers. They fol­low the Customs of their Fathers, and learn no o­ther, are the words of Herodotus, l. 2. cap. 78. who repeats the same cap. 91. Notwithstand­ing this Testimony is so plain against them, yet several Persons maintain that Circumcision be­gan among the Jews, and particularly from A­braham, whom God commanded to observe it, as is evident from the 17th Chapter of Genesis, as a peculiar sign to distinguish his Posterity from other Nations. The Learned Spencer, de Legibus Mos. lib. 1. cap. 4. cites the Reasons urged on both sides at large, and compares them whom the Reader may consult for his farther Satisfaction. 'Tis indeed not improbable to suppose, that though this Custom had been long before observ'd by the Aegyptians, either for the [Page 183]sake of Cleanliness, which they principally af­fected, or for some other reason we are unac­quainted with; yet God for another End might enjoin Abraham to observe it. And thus nei­ther the Jews derived it from the Aegyptians, nor the Aegyptians from the Jews, although the Aegyptian Custom gave the occasion to the Di­vine Precept. It seems incredible to many, that so inconvenient and troublesom a Ceremony, and when performed upon Persons that were arrived to years of Maturity, so indecent; and lastly, which does not in the least contribute to Piety, and Good Manners, should be at first instituted by God Almighty. They therefore suspect that Abraham, who had seen it done in Aegypt, and perhaps was inform'd by some Ae­gyptian Servants, whom he had carried with him from Aegypt into Canaan, of the Reasons they alledged for a Rite which seems otherwise so absurd, to have mightily approv'd of it: which, when God Almighty perceiv'd, who by a wonderful Condescension accommodates him­self to humane Imbecillity, commanded Abra­ham to observe that Custom, which he liked in other Nations. And yet it is not to be conclu­ded from hence, that the Circumcision of the Jews and the Aegyptians is the same, because, not to mention that it was not done at the same time, and perhaps the Rites too were different, the cause in both was not the same. Origen, in his Learned Book against Celsus, has a remarka­ble Passage upon this occasion. Lib. 5. p. 263. [Page 184]of the Cambridge Edition. The reason of the Jewish Circumcision was not the same with that of the Aegyptians or Colchians, and therefore we must not suppose the Circumcision was the same. As for instance, a Priest that offers Sacrifice, does not offer it to the same Divinity, though he seems to perform those sacred Rites after the same manner; and as he that prays does not say the same Prayer with another, although he suppli­cates for the same things; so likewise though one be circumcised, we must not infer that there is no real difference between his Circumcision, and that of other People. For the Intention, the Law, and Will of him that circumcises, makes it a different matter.

II. The ancient Jews were used to assign four Reasons why this Covenant was rather institu­ted in the Prepuce, than any other part of the Body. The first is, [...]; the Prevention of a troublesom Disease, and hard to be cured, which they call a Carbuncle, because it is apt to be inflamed. These are the express words of Philo, in his Treatise concerning Circumcision, who was of Opinion, That those that were uncircumcised, were more obnoxious to this Distemper than the Circumci­sed. Cornelius Celsus, l. 6. c. 18. §. 5. teaches us a way how to cure this Disease; but I very much question whether it visits the Uncircum­cised, more than the Circumcised, provided they live chastly.

The other is, [...]; the Purity of the whole Body, which becomes those of the sacerdo­tal Function: For which reason the Aegyptian Priests shaved their Bodies, because something stuck to the Hair and Body, which was to be cleansed. But too great an Affectation of Clean­liness is troublesom and superstitious, as a mo­derate Care, especially in a hot Climate, is both wholesom and commendable.

The third is, [...]; the resemblance of the circumci­sed part with the Heart: So that the Circumci­sion of this part was as it were a Symbol of the Circumcision of the Heart; that is to say, of a Mind purged from all unlawful Affections; which is the reason that the Jews are frequently upbraided with an uncircumcised Heart. See Leviticus 26.41. But Philo, and some others, believed, that the renouncing of all dishonest Pleasures was chiefly signified by it: Because a­mong the great variety of Pleasures, that of car­nal Copulation is said to exceed the rest; our Lawgivers thought fit to circumcise the Instru­ment of Coition, obscurely intimating hereby, a Circumcision of all superfluous and immoderate Pleasure, and not of one alone; but this being the greatest, and that to which Mankind expresses the fiercest Inclination, comprehends all the rest. And this indeed is agreeable to the Custom of the Eastern Nations, who instructed their Disciples, not only by words, but things in order to [Page 186]make the greater Impression upon their Minds.

The fourth, and the most necessary of all, as Philo tells us, was [...]; a Preparative to beget a numerous Issue; for, if we may believe him, those Nations which use Circumcision, are infinitely more populous than o­thers. But, with Submission be it spoken, this Reason seems to be none of the truest, as is evi­dent by the Example of the Modern Jews and Mahumetans. But perhaps Philo was of this Opinion, because he saw his Country-men the Aegyptians begot abundance of Children, which is not however to be ascribed to their Circumci­sion, but to the Disposition of their Climate and Soil; or as some would have it, to the Water of Nile. Rabbi Levi Barcinonensis, who has plain­ly and briefly expounded the Mosaical Precepts, after he has told us of I know not what Perfecti­on of Body and Soul, which, as he pretends, is either signified, or conferr'd by the Jewish Cir­cumcision, adds this as his last and strongest Reason, that God for ever blessed hereby distin­guishes his Select People from others, by set­ting a Mark on their Bodies. And pursuant to this 'tis worthy of Observation, that in the East, and in Greece, and Italy, Men were anointed na­ked, or walked in the Sun, or used Athletical Exercises, or washed themselves in Company with others; whereby 'twas an impossible mat­ter to conceal Circumcision: for which reason those Persons that had no mind to pass for Jews, [Page 187]got a Trick of drawing forward the Prepuce, as you may find in Grotius upon the 1st Epistle of the Corinthians, Ch. 7. v. 18. The same Artifice was used by those under the Emperor Domitian, who thought fit to live within the City, and yet wou'd not pay the Tributes that were imposed upon those of the Jewish Nation; for they so well dissembled the matter, that when they were searched they cou'd not be discovered. I remember, says Suetonius, in his Life of Domiti­an, ch. 12. I was present when an old Fellow, ninety years of Age, was examin'd by the Procu­rator and a large Assembly, whether he was cir­cumcised or no.

III. As for the time of its Celebration, it was precisely observ'd on the eighth Day after the Birth of the Child; which is to be understood of their Children or Servants that were born at home, for they could not circumcise the rest, before they had them. Nothing but Sickness, as the Rabbies inform us, cou'd excuse the de­ferring of it beyond this time; and indeed, since this Ceremony was perform'd upon an Infant with much more Ease and Decency, than it cou'd be upon those of a riper Age, it seems a­greeable to believe, that a positive time was ap­pointed, least by degrees it should be deferr'd too far, and at last wholly laid aside. But besides the express Words of the Law, the Jews might be the more inclin'd to observe the Execution of it upon the eighth Day, because, as we find in Origen, contra Cels. l. 5. the Colchians, the Ae­gyptians [Page 188]and Israelites, used it later; by which Circumstance they supposed their Circumcision to be distinguished from all others. The volun­tary Neglect of it, according to some Christian Interpreters, was punished by Death, according to others by Excommunication; however, this is certain, that an uncircumcised Hebrew, if he were publickly known to be such, forfeited all the Rights and Privileges of a Member of that Republick; and if he was not actually banished, was reckon'd to be no better than a Heathen. 'Tis probable, that the Author of these Verses, which are to be found among the Fragments of Petronius, meant this, which without doubt he had heard from some Jews of his Age.

The Pagans erroneously believ'd, that a Hog was worshipt by the Jews, because they ab­stain'd from eating of that Creature; the other Calumny of their adoring an Ass's Head, is in­deed grosser; but after this manner either Pe­tronius, or some one else, describes the Jewish Religion. However, he tells us, that the Ado­ration of these Deities was not sufficient for the [Page 189] Jews; but that unless he was likewise circum­cised, he was not esteem'd a Jew, but reckon'd as a Greek; who being descended from Abra­ham, presum'd to worship the God of the Jews, uncircumcised.

IV. What has been said of Circumcision, may be affirm'd of several other Rites and Ceremo­nies in use with the Hebrews, viz. that whate­ver laudable or innocent Institutions their Neighbours the Heathens had, the Patriarchs might confirm with their Example. Now, as when we go to handle any thing of value which we mightily esteem, or when we are to appear upon any solemn occasion, we wash our Hands, least any Filth or Dirt should stick to them, and put on our cleanest Apparel: So those, that were going upon the Exercise of Religious Du­ties, thought it a heinous Sin to approach the Altar with unwashed Hands, and dirty Linen; not that Nastiness was of it self hated by God Almighty, but because it seem'd to intimate a Neglect of the Business then in doing, and might give those Persons, who judge of things by ex­terior Appearances, a Contempt and Disrelish for sacred things. And as the Patriarchs were not unacquainted with this Reason, can any one think it strange that it was approved by them? If any one pretends to maintain, that the Patri­archs were the Inventors of this, and the like Rites; in the first place 'tis certain he is desti­tute of the Authority of the Scripture, which no where affirms so much: and secondly, it will [Page 190]be a difficult matter to prove, that the most flou­rishing Nations in the World borrowed these Rites from the Hebrews, who were a despicable and unknown People, and neither for Magnifi­cence or Antiquity to be compar'd with the Ae­gyptians and Babylonians. Thus for instance, we read, Gen. c. 28.18. that Jacob erected a Stone, and poured Oyl upon the top of it. 'Tis evident from several Authors that the Phoenicians, and particularly the Syrians, used to consecrate rude, unwrought Stones, and anointed them with Oyl, and several believe that they imitated Jacob in this particular, and that from them this Custom was propagated to other Nations. But certainly 'tis much more probable, that Jacob follow'd a Custom used long before his time, and that one Man imitated those populous Nations, where he lived, than that these Nations should tread after the Footsteps of a Person who was in a manner unknown to them, and differ'd from them in his Sentiments of Religion. Before God Al­mighty had revealed to Moses after what man­ner he would be worshipped, and what sacred Rites he would have observ'd, pious Men were left to their own liberty, to follow what Rites they pleased, provided the Religion of the Mind, which is the only true Religion, was not viola­ted by them: for as Words depend from use, which alone stamps a peculiar Force and Mean­ing upon them, so the Signification of all ex­ternal indifferent Ceremonies is just such, as the Person that uses them, does make them.

I. THough Moses makes frequent mention of the Divine Appearances, yet he no where gives us so full a Description of them as to let us know by what particular Tokens, the Ancients, to whom God vouchsafed to reveal himself, were able to discover him. Therefore we have nothing more left us to do, but out of the several Histories we find scatter'd up and down the sacred Writers, to gather as many Circumstances of this matter as we can. Briefly, then, both God and Angels are said to have ap­peared by night and by day, in Dreams, and in waking to Abraham and several more beside him.

II. By night he said those things to Abraham which we read of Chapter the fifteenth, where God is said to have spoken to him in a Vision; which seems to be the same, as in the Visions of the night, Ch. 46. v. 2. In the same, viz. the 15th Chapter, Abraham, being fast asleep, hears the Voice of God calling out to him. Jacob likewise sees, and hears God in his sleep, ch. 27.12, 13. and elsewhere. Nay, God warns Abi­melech, ch. 20.20. and Laban, ch. 31.24. when they were asleep. Now it appears from the above-mentioned places, that they heard a cer­tain Voice in their Sleep; but it is not so per­spicuous, from whence the Sound of the Words seemed to proceed; neither does Moses inform us what sort of Ideas, or Images, affected their Minds, when they understood that God spoke to them. Perhaps no Impression was made upon them, but only a Voice heard, as it is evident by the History of Samuel, 1 Sam. 3. who heard a Voice which awaked him. Others in their Sleep thought they heard a Voice, and made answer again, as Abimelech, ch. 20. and Abra­ham, ch. 15. Jacob also saw a certain Resem­blance of God sitting upon a Ladder, which seem'd to speak, ch. 27.19. But Moses does not subjoin what it was; however, it appears to have been the same which was seen by those that were awake, of which we shall discourse anon.

If any one shall here enquire, how they di­stinguished Divine Dreams from those that were [Page 193]purely natural? 'Tis easier to acquaint him with what others have conjectur'd, than to give any positive Determination of the matter. But the Mischief is, that what they tell us upon this oc­casion, is not drawn from their own Experience, nor from the Relation of those who have actu­ally tried these things, but from certain Philo­sophical Conjectures, as we may see in Jamblichus de Myster. Sect. 3. cap. 2. and Seqq. and J. Smith, who in his Dissertation of Prophecy, ch. 3. and 4. has gathered all the Opinions of the Ancients a­bout this difficult Point. If we were obliged, out of the several Conjectures, to choose that which pleases us most, we should believe that those speak most judiciously to the business in hand, who affirm, that Divine Dreams are no otherwise to be distinguished from the rest, than that,

• 1. They have none of those confused and idle Phantasms that delude us in other Dreams, but distinctly represented to our Minds whatever Things or Being God was pleased to send, with­out any mixture of foreign Images or Words; so that every thing was very plainly seen, or heard.
• 2. That they are more lively than o­ther Dreams, and make a more forcible Impres­sion upon the Mind, so that they were deeply sixt in the Memory, which however did not al­ways happen, as appears by Nebuchadnezzar's Dream, Dan. 2. where he is said to have forgot­ten it, although he knew that Daniel, when he remembred him of it, spoke the Truth to him.
• 3. That they should hear God, or his Angels, [Page 194]so speak to them, that they should be fully con­vinc'd that their Dreams proceeded from them. Now if all these Circumstances concurred in a Dream, there would be no room left to doubt, but that they were divinely inspired, especially when it was a received Opinion, that God Al­mighty reveal'd himself oftentimes to Men in Dreams, admonishing of several things when they were asleep, and that these were the true Characteristicks of Divine Dreams.

Neither is it to be supposed, that God, who sees and hears all things, should suffer those that love him to be imposed upon by unclean Spirits, or even per­plexed by the santastical Operations of Nature it self, so as to be deceived in an Affair of this consequence.

III. To come now to those Divine Appear­ances that affected them by day, and when they were awake. 2. A Voice was heard without any Resemblance, or Image, which was enough to have awaked them, though they were asleep. Thus Samuel being call'd by name, awaked, and distinctly heard the other words which God spoke to him, 1 Sam. 3. Thus likewise Elias heard a strong and vehement Wind, overturn­ing Mountains, and bruising the Rocks before the Lord: after this he perceiv'd a Commotion, and after that he saw a Fire, then he heard the whistling of a small Wind; which being done, a Voice came to him, saying, What dost thou do here, Elias? 1 Kings 19.11. and Seqq. without any Form, or Representation at all.

• 2. Some­times [Page 195]that Voice was sent down from Heaven, as that which Abraham heard, when he was go­ing to sacrifice his Son Isaac.
• 3. A Voice at o­ther times did proceed neither from Heaven, or the Clouds only, but from the midst of a Fire, or Storm, as Exod. 19. and 20. and no Form was discover'd of him that spoke: After this manner God speaks to Job out of a Whirlwind.
• 4. A Resemolance showing it self to Men that were awake, sometimes discours'd with them, and did several things in their sight; so that one Man thought he spoke all the while with ano­ther Man; whereas it appears by what follows, and the whole Narration, that God, or an An­gel, lay hid under a humane Shape, as Gen. 18. and elsewhere. See likewise Judg. 13.5. and Seqq. Oftentimes too God appear'd like a Man in Prophetical Visions by night, as Isa. 6.1. Ezek. 1.26. I am of Opinion, that as often as we meet with this Expression, and God was seen, as in Gen. ch. 12.7. that a humane Shape was seen.

Thus we have shown how many several ways God is said to have revealed himself to those that were asleep, and awake; but so, that we did not make any Distinction between the Di­vine Appearances, and those of Angels: it re­mains for us now to enquire, by what means they cou'd secure themselves from humane Im­postures; and next how they knew God from a Good Angel, and a Good Angel from a Bad One, whenever any of the above-mention'd Revelati­ons happen'd to them?

IV. That there was no humane Fraud or Im­posture used, if a Voice was heard, did appear from hence.

• 1. Because sometimes this Voice was much greater than a Man's; such was that, which from the top of Mount Sinai, a very high Mountain, was on every side heard by the whole People of Israel. St. John, Rev. 1.10. com­pares the Voice of Christ appearing, to the Sound of a Trumpet; nay, to the Noise of the Sea, or a mighty River, in the 15th Verse of the same Chapter.
• 2. Because it came from those places where no Man was, or from whence it cou'd not be sent by Men, as when Samuel heard a Voice proceeding from the place where the Ark was, and Abraham and the Israelites from the Clouds, and the midst of Fire.

They sometimes discover'd an Angel discoursing with them un­der a humane Shape, by the Majesty of his Looks, and the unusual Splendor of his Eyes. The Wife of Manoah in Jud. 13.6 The Man of God, says she of the Angel whom she saw, comes towards me, and his Look is like the Look of an Angel of God, very terrible. By this means Nebuchadnezzar seems to have known the An­gel among the Children, whom he commanded to be thrown into the fiery Furnace: The Re­semblance of the fourth, says he, is like that of one of the Sons of God. Sometimes miraculous Actions, that were above the Power of humane Performance, were added, as not to mention any more, we may gather from the History of Gideon, Jud. 6.17. I don't now speak of the [Page 197]Event of things foretold, for the Question at present is, How at the very moment when an Appearance happen'd, they were able to distin­guish it from a humane Trick, before the Truth of those things they predicted, was ratified by the Event?

V. The other Question is much more diffi­cult, viz. By what means they knew, whether the Highest, and the God of all Gods, appear'd, or (if I may be allow'd the Expression) one of the inferior Gods, or good Angels, dispatched for that Message by him? The ancient Jews don't seem to have sufficiently considered this matter, since 'tis impossible to find out in any Narration of these Appearances, whether God himself or an Angel speaks; and God and his Angels are said to have appear'd promiscuously in one and the same [...]. See Gen. ch. 16.12. ch. 22. v. 1.11, 12. Exod. 3.2. and Seqq. So, though, Exod. 20. the Lord God is said to have spoken, yet the old Hebrews were of Opi­nion, that the Law was delivered by Angels, as appears from Galatians 3.19. Heb. 2.2. Act. 7. v. 38.53. and the reason of it seems to be this, because good Angels never tell or command Men any thing in their own name, but behave themselves as the Ambassadors and Ministers of the High God. Hence St. Austin, Quaest. in Genes. 37. and elsewhere has observed, that it is not so much the Angel that speaks, as God in the Angel. Perhaps. says he of Abraham, he understood it was God that spoke to him, by some plain and manifest Proofs of the Divine Majesty. [Page 198]Which being so, it signified nothing to know whether God or an Angel spoke to them. The Chaldeans indeed, whose Doctrine Jamblichus delivers in his Book of Mysteries, Sect. 2. ch. 3. & Seqq. pretended to know, what was the cer­tain Token of the Presence of God, or an Angel, or an Arch-angel, or a Daemon, or a Prince, or a Soul? This was Porphyry's Question, in which Jamblichus largely endeavours to satisfy him; but I shall not here cite those Passages in him, not that every thing he there says is groundless and chimerical, but because the Brevity of our Work will not allow us to be more prolix upon this Subject.

The pious Men among the ancient Hebrews don't seem to have been very apprehensive of the Frauds of Evil Angels in this Affair, be­cause they did not question but that the Good Angels, who were appointed by God Almighty to protect the Vertuous, wou'd frustrate any such Design. And indeed it was not agreeable to the Divine Goodness, to expose those that fear'd him, to invincible Temptations, which he had certainly done, if there were no exte­riour Signs to distinguish Evil Spirits from the Good, or if those Characteristicks, which were looked upon by all Mankind to be infallible In­dications of a Divine, or Angelical Apparition, might be usurped by a wicked Power. Never­theless I will not deny, but that among a vici­ous reprobate People, whom God Almighty may be supposed to have deliver'd over to the Devil, it might so fall out, that unclean Spirits [Page 199]sometimes deceived them with the like Appear­ances, as we have mention'd. But this was not the case of the Righteous.

I. AMong those other Punishments which the sacred Historians tell us the Divine [Page 200]Justice has inflicted upon wicked Men, few of them are more wonderful than the sudden De­struction of Sodom, and the adjoyning Cities. However, the Interpreters of the Scripture, when they come to this surprizing Relation, scarce seem to have employ'd the care they u­sually bestow upon other places. For which reason we judged it convenient to publish this Dissertation, where we have treated this Mat­ter more amply than the narrow limits of our Commentary wou'd allow. All the Translators which it has been my fortuen hitherto to see, as if they imagined there was no difficulty in the case, or else had nothing to remark upon so important a Scene, barely tell us, that this Country was burnt, and subverted by fire from Heaven; and having done so, think they have discharged all that is required from a Transla­tor. The truth is, what we have heard, and imbibed from our Infancy, becomes at last so familiar to us, that we receive it almost without Examination. But as I have read this History with no little Application, so methinks I have discover'd several Particulars in it worthy of Observation; by which not only this Narrati­on may be wonderfully illustrated, but many other Passages of the H. Bible conveniently ex­pounded. What we have therefore observed upon this Occasion, we have thrown into the following Dissertation; which if we have not handled with that Accuracy as the Dignity of the Subject seems to deserve, yet since we have [Page 201]done it to the best of our Abilities, we hope the Learned Reader will favourably receive it.

II. Before we examine the Destruction it self, it will be necessary for us to give a short De­scription of the Situation of Sodom, Gomorrah, Adma and Zeboim; because by this means we shall the better understand how we come to see nothing but a stinking Lake, where this most delightful Country formerly stood. Moses thus describes the Situation of these Cities, Gen. 13.10. where he relates after what manner Lot and A­braham parted: But Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the Lord, or the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar.

In the first place from hence we gather, that these Cities were situated on both sides of the Ri­ver Jordan; for the plain of Jordan is here called, [...], as the Septuagint has rightly translated, rather following the Sense than the genuine Signification of the Hebrew word Chicchar, which properly signifies a plain Country, as we find Gen. 19. v. 17. where it is opposed to a mountainous Region. For this reason in following times this Country was cal­led the [...], or Great Field; as likewise [...], or the Valley. To make this more evi­dently appear, we will here set down the words of Josephus, who thus describes it in the fifth [Page 202]Book de Bello Jud. Chap. 27. Near to it, Meaning Jericho. we find a barren Mountain, but of a vast length, for Northwards it reaches as far as the Country of the Scythopo­litae, and towards the South it extends as far as the Land of Sodom, and the bounds of the Dead Sea. Opposite to it, beyond Jordan, lies a Moun­tain which begins from Julias, and the Northern Country, and Southwards spreads as far as Somor­ra which adjoins to Petra, a City of Arabia. And here too is a Mountain, called the Iron Moun­tain, which reaches as far as the Country of Mo­ab. The Valley between these Mountains is the same we are now talking of, and Josephus gives us the following Description of it. The Country which lies in the middle between these Mountains, is called the ΜΕΓΑΠΕΔΙΟΝ, or Great Field, and reaches from the Village of Ginnabrin to the Lacus Asphaltites. 'Tis a Thou­sand two hundred furlongs in length, and sixscore in breadth. The River Jordan runs through the middle of it. The same place, from the nature of its Situation, is call'd [...], or the Valley; although St. Jerome, in his Loci Haebraici, er­roneously pretends, that it is a Hebrew word. Aulon, says he, is not a Greek word, as some Persons imagine, but Hebrew: 'Tis the name of a large and spacious Valley of a prodigious length, which is surrounded on every side by a continued ridge of Mountains; which begin from Mount Li­banus and beyond it, and reach to the Desart of [Page 203]Paran. There are several noble Cities in this Aulon, or Valley, as Scythopolis, Tiberias, and the Lake near it; nay Jericho, the Dead Sea, and all the Countries about it through which the River Jordan runs, which arises from the Foun­tain Paneas, and so falls into the Dead Sea. The upper parts of this capacious Vale were exceed­ing fertile, full of Pastures, and planted with all sorts of Trees; so that as Josephus, l. 3. de Bell. Jud. cap. 4. informs us, it would invite even those who are the least inclined to such a Life, to cultivate it. But the middle parts, except where the River Jordan water'd them, were burnt up in the Summer, as we are told by Jo­sephus in the above-mentioned place. In the Summer, says he, all this Plain is burnt up, and by reason of the extream Vehemence of the Heat, the Air becomes very unhealthful, for 'tis all parch'd, but where Jordan runs; on the Banks of which River there are the most beautiful Groves of Palm-trees. But here we have to do with neither of these parts, but only with the lowest, which reaches from Jericho to the Mountains of Idumea, where now the Lacus Asphaltites is, of which more hereafter. In the mean time, we must observe by the bye, that the Waters of Jor­don, by reason of the perpetual ridge of Hills that shut it up on every side from East and West, had no Outlet at all, but ran to the South­ward.

In the second place, we must not lightly pass over what Moses says, that the Southern part of [Page 204]this Valley, as you go to Zoar, was watered like the Paradise of the Lord, or the Land of Aegypt. All which words require a particular Illustration by themselves; but first of all we will show by the Testimony of other Writers, that this tract of Ground was exceedingly well watered, which is a thing of great importance in the present Disquisition. To begin then with the Country about Jericho: Strabo in his six­teenth Book, pag. 525. of Isaac Casaubon's Edi­tion at Geneva, affirms, that it is plentifully sto­red with Water. Jericho is a Plain, on every side surrounded with Hills, and in some parts bending like a Theatre. It abounds with Palm­trees mixt, and several other Trees, but it parti­cularly abounds with the former. 'Tis an hun­dred Furlongs in length, and is all well watered, and full of Inhabitants. Now how this Coun­try comes to be so plentifully water'd, Josephus informs us in the above-mentioned place, in the following words: Near Jericho is a plentiful Spring, and most convenient for watering. We shall not here set down what he relates of an Al­teration made in this Water by Elisha, nor what he tells us of the great Wholesomness of this Well, as being borrowed from an uncertain Tradition; but thus he goes on: It waters a far greater space than any other Fountain, viz. seventy Furlongs long, and twenty in breadth. Southwards of the Province of Jericho he de­scribes the Brook, or Vale, of Kedron, which car­ries Water from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea; [Page 205]but because Kedron is frequently mentioned as a dry Valley, and there is some reason to doubt whether it was a Valley, or a Brook, we shall leave the matter undetermin'd, and proceed to the Eastern Bank of the Lacus Asphaltites.

In this place was a famous Fountain, called Callirrhoe, to which Herod went from Jericho when he was sick, as Josephus tells us, lib. 17. of his Jewish Antiquities, ch. 8. Crossing Jordan he went to the hot Waters near Callirrhoe, which, besides their Virtue in all Diseases, may be safely drunk. This Water runs into the Dead Sea. Pliny places this Fountain on the South­side of the Lake; for after he has said, lib. 5. cap. 16. that Eastwards it looks upon Arabia Nomadum, and Machaerus on the South, he adds; On the same side is a hot Spring of a Medicinal Virtue, call'd Callirrhoe, denoting the Excellen­cy of its Waters by its Name.

From the East too the River Arnon falls into the Lacus Asphaltites, which arising in the Bor­ders of Arabia, as we find in Josephus, l. 4. c. 4. of his Jewish Antiquities; and running through the whole extent of the Desart, falls into the Dead Sea, and divides the Country of the Moa­bites from that of the Amorites.

More to the Southward was the Brook Zered, mentioned by Moses, Numb. 21.12. Deut. 2.13, 14. and this likewise seems to fall into the Lacus Asphaltites. From whence we may gather, that all the lower part of Jordan, where the Dead Sea now is, was not only watered with the Streams of [Page 206]that River, but likewise with several Fountains and Brooks which ran into it. Now since all this Water had no Inlet into the Sea, it must of ne­cessity follow, that it was all swallowed up in the Sands, every way encompassing it, which might so much the more easily be done, because the Inhabitants of hot Countries use to divide their Rivers into several smaller Branches for the benefit of their Fields; and this is the reason that these Rivers, being thus exhausted in several pla­ces, are not able to carry their Waters to the Sea. We brought the like instance of Chrysorrhoas, in Gen. 2.11. I know indeed the Counterfeit A­risteas very gravely tells us, that Jordan carries its Waters into another River near the Country of the Ptolomies, which River has a Passage in­to the Sea. But every body knows this to be a meer Fiction, and are satisfied that the Lacus Asphaltites has no Outlet.

But to return to Moses, he not only informs us, that the lower-most part of the Plain of Jordan was well water'd; but he compares it to two well water'd places, and that part of it, which by reason it receiv'd so great Plenty of Water, was exceeding fruitful, he thus describes, as the Garden of the Lord, as the Land of Aegypt, in the way that leads to Zoar. This is the true Order of Moses's words; which if they were to be read as we find them in our Bibles, it would be an Hyperbaton, therefore they are to be placed as we have done them. For from this mountainous Country, which we have already described out [Page 207]of Josephus, where Abraham pitched his Tents, when Lot parted from him, as he went to the opposite Hills beyond Jordan by Zoar, he first saw the Vale of Jericho, watered with a most plentiful Fountain, then Jordan and Callirrhoe. Therefore this Plain by which Men went to Zoar, very well deserved to be called well-wa­tered. An Example of the like Perturbation of the words we find in Genesis 25.18. But if any one will not admit of a Trajection here, the Sy­rian Interpreter published in the London Poly­glots, furnishes us with another convenient Reading, where for Zoar we meet Zoan, that is Tanis, mentioned by Moses, Numb. 13.23. and Psal. 78.12. And indeed to describe any well­watered place, one cou'd not produce a fitter instance than the Lower Aegypt, and particular­ly where the Road was from Canaan to Tanis. For it was not only abundantly refreshed with the Nile, cut into several Branches, but it was full of Lakes and Morasses. To confirm which Assertion, because 'tis sufficiently known to all that are not utterly unacquainted with the Cho­rograpy of Aegypt, I will only alledge the Te­stimony of Strabo, lib. 17. p. 552. Above the Mendesian and Tanitic Mouth of the Nile, is a vast Lake, &c. then the Tanitic Mouth, and the Tanitic Province, in which is Tanis, a samous City. Between the Tanitick and Pelusiack Mouth (through which those that come from Canaan to these places must travel) there are Pools, and great and continued Morasses, full of Villages.

But 'tis wholly indifferent to us whether Lection, viz. that of the common Bibles, or that of the Syriac Interpreter, the Reader will be pleased to follow, provided he remembers that the Plain of Jordan is compared to the Lower Aegypt, upon the account of its well-watered Pastures. As for the Paradise of the Lord, to which it is likewise compared, we cannot say any thing of it here, which we have not taken notice of in our See the 12th Dissertation. Anno­tations.

In the third place we must take notice, that there were Pits of Bitumen in this Tract of ground, as Moses informs us, Gen. 14.10. where after he has related the Overthrow of the Men of Sodom, the Valley of Siddim, says he, was full of Slime-pits, and the Kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and were there destroyed. From this remarkable Passage we gather, that even before there was any such thing as the Lacus Asphaltites, that Plenty of Bitumen boil'd up out of the ground, and there was used to be got. Which being diluted by the confluence of so ma­ny Waters, it becomes Liquid, as we are told by Pliny, lib. 35. c. 15. though it seems to have been thick before, for the reason alledged in our Commentary. Least the Reader should be at a loss, we have transcribed Pliny's words, and some others of the like nature, concerning Bitu­men out of other Authors. ‘ Bitumen, says he, which in some places is a Mud, in others an Earth, is a perfect Limus, or Mud, as it comes [Page 209]out of the Lake in Judaea; but in Syria near a Sea-port Town, called Sidon, it is an Earth: Both of them may be made thick and con­sistent. There is likewise a sort of Liquid Bi­tumen. as that which comes from Zant and Babylon, &c. All which the Greeks call Pis­sasphalson, from the likeness of Pitch and Bitu­men.’ Consult Dioscorides, lib. 1. c. 99, & 100. Strabo in abundance of places tells us, that Bi­tumen was got both out of the Earth, and out of Fountains. These are his words, lib. 16. p. 511. Great quantities of Bitumen grow in Babylo­nia, of which Eratosthenes speaks after the fol­lowing manner. The Liquid Bitumen, which they call Naphtha, is to be found in Susiane the dry, which will grow hard in Babylonia, a Well of which stuff there is near Naphtha. Consult likewise what he says of a Fountain of Bitumen in the Province of the Apolloniata, lib. 7. p. 219. and the several Authors cited by Is. Causaubon upon that place.

But as Moses mentions Pits of Bitumen in the Plain of Jordan, so likewise does Herodotus, l. 6. c. 119. tell us of a Pit which affords three sorts of things, for they draw Bitumen, Salt, and Oyl out of it, after the following manner: 'Tis drawn out by a Bucket, with half a Bottle fast­ned to it, which serves instead of a Picher; this being let down into the Pit, whatever it brings up is immediately poured into a Cistern, and being poured out of that into another, it pro­duces three several things; it affords Bitumen [Page 210]and Salt presently, &c. But this was Liquid Bitumen; some of the Ancients have even ta­ken notice of the Caverns from whence the Ba­bylonians had it dry. Curtius, lib. 5. c. 1. There is a Cavern in that place, from which a Foun­tain throws up a prodigious quantity of Bitu­men, so that 'tis manifestly plain that the Ba­bylonian Walls of mighty Workmanship, were cemented with the Bitumen of this Fountain.

This therefore was the Nature of this Soil, this the Situation of the Cities in the Plain of Jordan. Upon which it happened, as we shall hereafter see, that as the Ground sunk down, a great Lake of Bitumen sprung up in its room.

III. As the Babylonian Soil was wonderfully fertile, by reason it was irrigated by the Eu­phrates, and the nature of the Country; so the lower most part of this large Plain was for the same reason of equal Fecundity with it. And as the Babylonians who flowed in all manner of Plenty, were addicted to all sorts of Lust; so the Sodomites and their Neighbours, by the same Infirmity of humane Nature, (which uses to a­buse God Almighty's Gifts) abandoned them­selves to all the degrees of Wickedness, as Moses particularly informs us, Gen. 18, & 19. After Men were satiated with good things, says Philo in his Book concerning Abraham, this Satiety, after the manner of the World, soon begot Wan­tonness. If we may take Cicero's word for it, Men derive their Manners, not so much from the Seed of their Parents, as from those things [Page 211]which are afforded by the nature of the Soil, and our manner of Living. The Carthaginians were not born deceitful and Liars, but made so by the Nature of the place; for by reason of the abun­dance of their Harbours, and their frequent Dea­lings with Merchants and Strangers, the desire of Gain put them upon the Art of tricking and cheating. The Genoeses inhabiting a Hilly Coun­try, were hard and clownish; the very Nature of their Soil taught them this, which produces nothing but with much Cultivating and Labour. The Campanians were always proud, by reason of the great Fertility of their Land, the Plenty of Fruits, the Wholesomeness and Beauty of their City. From this Abundance and Superfluity of every thing, arose that Pride which disposed these People to demand of the ancient Romans, that one of the Consuls should be chosen out of Capua; and afterwards that Luxury which help­ed to ruine Hannibal, whom all the Difficulties and Fatigues of War could not conquer. Cicero argues after this rate, in his Oration de lege Ar­grario, delivered before the People against Rul­lus, and likewise in another, which he spoke in the Senate-house: He is utterly against the send­ing a Colony to that place, which by reason of the Fruitfulness of the Soil, and the Plenty of all things, is said to have begotten Pride and Cruel­ty. All which things exactly proved true in the Inhabitants of the Plain of Jordan, whose Soil, that we may observe this by the by, was not unlike that of the Campanians, which to this [Page 212]day abounds in Bitumen and Sulphur.

Now these People, as they were corrupted by Prosperity, so it seems Adversity made not the least Impression upon their Minds, or reform'd their Manners. Although they were conquer'd by the Etymaeans and their Confederates, which Afflictions might have awaken'd a less flagitious People to a Sense of their Duty; yet it wrought not any good Effects upon these Debauchees, who, as soon as they were delivered out of Cap­tivity, carried their old Customs and Vices home along with them. See the 14th Chapter of Ge­nesis. Now the Sinfulness of these People did not only consist in this, that they were given to Uncleanness and Lasciviousness, as appears from Gen. ch. 19. but in all manner of Wickedness. Certainly the Debauchery of that place could admit of no new Accessions, but was already arri­ved to its heighth, where they cou'd think of a­busing Strangers after so abominable a manner. Therefore Josephus deservedly begins this Histo­ry with the following words. ‘The Sodomites waxing proud for their Riches and Wealth, grew contumelious towards Men, and impi­ous towards God; so that they were whol­ly unmindful of the Favours they received from him. They hated Strangers, and burnt in mutual Lust with one another.’ Hence we see that in the Prophets the proverbial Appel­lation of wicked Men is that of Sodom and Gomor­rah. Thus Isaiah calls the People of Jerusalem, ch. 1.10. Hear the Word of the Lord, ye Prin­ces [Page 213]of Sodom, listen to the Law of your God, ye People of Gomorrah. See likewise Ezekiel 16.46. & Seqq.

IV. And therefore the Divine Justice offend­ed at these horrid Enormities, resolved utterly to destroy some Cities situated in the farthest part of the Plain of Jordan, which Moses relates to have been done in the following manner; ‘ The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah Brimstone and Fire from the Lord out of Hea­ven, and he overthrew those Cities, and all the Plain, and all the Inhabitants of the Cities, and that which grew upon the ground, Gen. 19.24, 25.’ We have already shown, that this whole Tract of Land was full of Bitumen, which as it will easily take fire, was soon kind­led by the Lightning; and the Flame was not only to be seen upon the Superficies of the Earth, which frequently happens in such places, without the Destruction of the Inhabitants, but so pierced into the Subterranean Veins of Brim­stone and Bitumen, that that matter being de­stroyed, the whole Earth sunk down, and of­forded a Receptacle to the Waters flowing thi­ther. All which Particulars we will now endea­vour to handle more copiously, and to illustrate by other Examples.

First, Though Moses only mentions two Ci­ties which God destroy'd by Lightning, name­ly Sodom and Gomorrah, yet there were two more destroy'd at the same time, Adma and Ze­boim, which lay near the two above-mentioned [Page 214]Cities, as appears from Chapter 14.2. Nay, Moses himself affirms as much, Deut. 29.23. where taking occasion to describe the Punish­ments with which God would visit the wicked Israelites, he tells them, that Strangers as they travelled that way should gaze upon their Lands, burnt up with Brimstone and Salt, in which there should be no sowing, nor should any thing grow, nor any Herb appear, as in the De­struction of Sodom, Gomorrah, Adma, and Ze­boim, which the Lord overthrew in his Anger and Wrath. See likewise Hosea 11.8. Now the reason why these two last Cities were omitted, seems to be, because perhaps the Kings of these places were tributary to those of Sodom and Go­morrah. Strabo indeed in his sixteenth Book does not mention that only four Cities were subverted by this Subterranean Fire, but thir­teen; but perhaps he might be deceived in this matter, as well as he was in believing that the Lacus Serbonis was the same with the Asphal­tites.. Perhaps to, nine other smaller Towns, which depended upon these four, were destroyed at the same time. 'Tis certain, that Ezekiel does not only make mention of Sodom but its Daughters, Chap. 16. that is, the Cities that were situate in the same Province; As I live, saith the Lord God to Jerusalem, thy Sister So­dom, and the Daughters thereof, (that is to say, the Cities which it had built around it, or else sent Colonies into) have not done as thou and thy Daughters have done. It may not improbably be [Page 215]supposed, that Strabo, a Man of great Diligence, and infinite Reading, might have an account of the number of these Cities from some Writer of the Phoenician History.

Secondly, God is said to have rained down Fire and Brimstone from the Lord, which is a Periphrasis for Lightning, as in Psalm 9. ver. 6. He will rain Whirlwinds upon the Wicked, Fire and Brimstone; and Ezekiel 38.22. I will pu­nish him with Pestilence and Blood: a mighty Shower, Stones of Hail, FIRE and BRIM­STONE, will I rain down upon him. Now Thun­der is therefore called Fire and Brimstone, which is as much as to say, Brimstone set on fire, and lighted. So in the third of Genesis, v. 16. we find Pain and Conception, that is Pain which follows Conception. He that is desirous to see more Examples of this nature, let him consult H. Gro­tius upon John 3.5. But the reason why Thun­der is thus described, no one certainly can be ig­norant of, that has either smelt those places that have been struck by Thunder, or has read what Learned Men have writ upon this occasion. I will only give my self the trouble to set down two or three Testimonies. Thunder and Light­ning likewise, says Pliny, lib. 35. c. 15. have the Smell of Brimstone, and the very Light or Flame of them is sulphureous. And Seneca, in the second Book of his Natural Questions, ch. 21. tells us, that all things that are struck by Lightning, have a sulphureous Smell. And indeed, our Natural Philosophers have plainly demonstra­ted, [Page 216]that the Thunderbolt is nothing else but a sulphureous Exhalation. For this Persius, in his second Satire, calls it Sulphus Sacrum;

On the other hand, because the Thunderbolt is of a Sulphureous nature, the Greeks seem to have called Brimstone in their Language, [...]; that is, Divine, by a proper name [...], because it comes from God.

Now God is not barely said to have rained down Brimstone and Fire, but Brimstone and Fire from the Lord; where the Addition of from the Lord, which at first sight may appear to be su­perfluous, does more particularly describe the Thunder-bolt, which by the Hebrews and other Nations is frequently called the Fire of God, and Fire from God. Thus in the second Book of Kings, c. 1. v. 12. THE FIRE OF GOD came down from Heaven, and devoured him. See likewise Job 1. v. 16. Isaiah uses the same Expression, c. 66. v. 16. He shall be punished with the FIRE OF THE LORD. After this manner the Latin Poets speaks, herein intimating the Graecians; as Ovid. Met. l. 15.

Statius, in the first Book of his Thebais;

Because Men have no power over these kinds of Meteors, and 'tis impossible for them by any contrivance to ascend up to the Clouds, there­fore God is supposed to dwell there, and to cast his Darts from thence: although he is equally present in all places, and does not send his Thunderbolts for any peculiar reason.

Thirdly, Though Moses does not inform us after what manner the Thunderbolts subverted these unhappy Cities, and the adjoining Terri­tory, yet since he makes mention of them, we cannot comprehend how it happen'd any other­wise, than that the Thunderbolts falling in great plenty upon some Pits of Bitumen, the Veins of that combustible Matter took fire immediately, and as the Fire penetrated into the lowermost bowels of this bituminous Soil, these wicked Ci­ties were subverted by a Tremor, and sinking down of the ground. We will not here enlarge how easily Naphtha, which is a sort of Liquid Bitumen, is set on fire. The Reader may at his leisure consult what Strabo, l. 16. Plutarch in the Life of Alexander, and Pliny, l. 2. c. 105. have said upon this Subject. Perhaps in some part of this delicious Plain which was over­thrown, there was only the thick Bitumen, but [Page 218]even the very Vapour of that Matter, which exhales from Grounds impregnated with it, is easily set on fire. In Lycia the Hephoestian Mountains if you do but touch them with a lighted Torch, immediately take fire, so that the very Stones in the Rivers, and the Sands in the Water burn. If you take a Stick out of these Waters, and draw Furrows upon the ground with it, ac­cording to the common report, a track of Fire fol­lows it. These are Pliny's words, l. 2. c. 106. There is a small Hill in the Province belonging to Grenoble, from whence a Smoke of a Bitu­minous Smell is perpetually seen to proceed: Now this Smoke by a lighted Flambeau, or Chaff, is soon set on fire, which we our selves knew to be true by Ocular Experience.

In that lamentable Earthquake, which in the Month of January 1693. shook all Sicily after so prodigious and miserable a manner, some Authors of very good credit have assured us, that Thunderbolts fell in several places of the Island. And this Observation is not unknown to the Ancients; for Seneca, Quoest. Nat. l. 2. c. 30. says, Aetna has sometimes burnt exceed­ingly, and thrown up a wonderful quantity of burning Sand, the day obscur'd by the Smoke and Ashes, so that the People were terrified at so unexpected a Scence of Darkness. At these times, as the common Tradition goes, there is a great deal of Thunder and Lightning.

And therefore the [...]itumen which is so plen­tifully found in the Soil of Sodom, might be set [Page 219]on fire by a Thunderbolt; and since it flows, or is dug not from the Superficies of the Earth, but from Veins of a mighty depth, when once it had taken fire the Flame must of necessity run along all those Veins, and at last shake and subvert the ground. The same thing frequent­ly happens to the Fields about Aetna and Vesu­vius, for the very same reason. Innumerable Authors have written of the Soil of Sicily, but Justin shall serve for all, who in the beginning of the fourth Book thus describes it. The Earth is naturally thin and friable, and by reason of the several Caverns and Pipes, so penetrable, that the greatest part of it is exposed to the violence of the Winds. Nay, the Genius of the Soil is proper for generating and nourishing of Fire, be­cause it is said to be crusted within with Sulphur and Bitumen, which is the reason, that when the Wind struggles with the Fire under ground, it frequently belches out sometimes Flames, some­times Vapours, and sometimes Smoke, and that in several places. Cornelius Severus prosecutes this Argument at large in his Poem, intituled, Aetna. The same Observations have been made of the Grounds that lye about the Vesuvius in the Kingdom of Naples, and several Towns have frequently been there overthrown by Earth­quakes. Pliny the Younger in the 16th Epistle, l. 6. where he relates the Death of his Learned Uncle, who was suffocated as he approached too near the fire of that Mountain. The Houses, says he, with frequent and prodigious Tremblings [Page 220]nodded, and as if they had been removed from their Foundation, seemed to move this way and that way. And Seneca in the sixth Book of his Na­tural Questions, ch. 1. has the following Passage. We are told that Pompeii, a famous City of Cam­pania, was subverted by an Earthquake. —This Concussion happen'd on the Which is our fifth. Nones of February, under the Consulate of Re­gulus and Virginius, and occasioned in­credible losses in Campania; which though it was never free from these Motions, yet it sel­dom suffer'd by them.

That which Seneca tells us happen'd to the City of Pompeii, do we say was the very same Calamity which visited these Cities in the Plain of Jordan. Nor was this the first time that this Valley was shaken, as the Territory about Pom­peii was not subverted the very first time it shook, as the Jewish Authors affirm, from whom St. Jerom has borrowed what follows in his He­brew Traditions. It is frequently asked, says he, why Lot, after he had first prefer'd Segor to his flight up the Mountain, that he desired it might escape because he design'd to live there, should so soon alter his Mind, and depart from Segor to the Mountain? We answer, that the Conjecture of the Hebrews concerning Segor is agreeable to the Truth, viz. that it was frequently overthrown by Earthquakes, and was first called Bale, and after­wards Salissa; and therefore Lot was afraid, and said to himself, If while the other. Cities were standing, this was often subverted, how can it now [Page 221]expect to escape in the common ruine? But to lay aside these uncertain Traditions, we will rather observe in the words of the Roman Philosopher, that God punished the Sodomites and their Neigh­bours, by a Calamity of a large extent, which has not only destroy'd single Houses, or Fami­lies, or Cities, but whole Nations, which some­times buries all in Ruines, and sometimes in a deep Gulf, leaving no Remainders behind it. By which it may appear, that that which is not now, was formerly, but triumphs over the most mag­nificent Cities, and is not so merciful as to leave any footsteps of their ancient Glory.

Strabo in his first, and Pliny in his second Book, will furnish us with several Examples of this nature; some few of which, nearly resem­bling the Destruction of these Cities situate in the Plain of Jordan, we have here selected. The former Author tells us out of Posidonius, p. 40. that in Phoenicia a certain City, situate above Sidon, was absorpt by an Earthquake. Out of Demetrius Scepsius, that several Earthquakes have happen'd in Asia Minor, by which whole Towns were devoured, and the Mountain Sipylus overthrown under the Reign of Tantalas, and Marishes turned into standing Lakes. And this happen'd at the Destruction of the Vale of So­dom, where the Lacus Asphaltites was occasion'd by the Water which there overflowed. Nor indeed cou'd it otherwise happen, the Soil easi­ly giving way in marshy places. As the same Author tells us, p. 37. Great as well as small [Page 222]things may be swallowed up, since Chasms in the Earth, and the burying of Towns and Habi­tations, as it happen'd at Bara, Bezona, and seve­ral other places, are said to be caused by Earth­quakes. Pliny in his second Book, ch. 88. testi­fies, that the Mountain Epopos, a Fire on the sudden breaking out of it, was levell'd to the Ground, and a Town buried in the Deep. For the Arch, that supported the Ground, breaking in, and the Matter underneath being wholly consumed, the Soil above must of necessity sink, and be swallowed up in these Caverns, if they are of a larger extent. For this reason 'twas sup­pos'd in Seneca's time that the Mountain Aetna consumed, and sunk by degrees, because the Sai­lors cou'd have discern'd it farther off in former times. See his 79th Epistle.

V. After this Territory adjoining to Jordan had thus sunk in, it must unavoidably fall out, (as we said before) that the Waters running to this place in so great an abundance must make a Lake of that place, which was marshy before; as Moses informs us, Gen. 14.3. when he relates that the Forces of the Inhabitants near Jordan met in the Valley of Siddim, which is now, says he, the Salt Sea; by which name, as we shall hereafter observe, the Lacus Asphaltites was cal­led. And that this was not the only place, where a Lake was occasioned by an Earthquake, we find from the above-mentioned Passage in Stra­bo. Nay, Pliny testifies that in one of the Py­thecusae not only a Town was swallowed up in [Page 223]the Deep, (as we have already observed) but that by another Concussion of the Earth a Pool broke out. In the beginning of 1693. all Sicily was miserably shaken; and not only several Towns overturned, but the City Augusta, which was built by the Emperor Frederic in the Year 1229. was wholly swallowed up by the Sea.

If to these Waters perpetually running into it, we add the Bitumen which at once broke out of the Earth, and mingled with the Water, we shall have a full Description of the Lacus Asphaltites. We have evidently shown, that all that Country abounded with Bitumen before; and perhaps what Strabo affirms to have happen'd at Eubaea, fell out here, which did not cease to feel Sha­kings in one part or another, that the Earth o­pen'd in the Field of Lelantus, and vomited forth a Flood of fiery Mud.

After this manner the Lacus Asphaltites seems to be made, and nothing can be objected against it, unless it be that Abraham did not perceive the Earthquake, which we say happen'd in this place. For Moses tells us, Gen. 19.27. that he knew no­thing of the matter, till he got up in the Morn­ing, and went to the Mountains; from whence he saw the Smoke arise from the Earth, as from a Furnace. But besides that, Moses no where de­nies that Abraham was sensible of this Earth­quake; it might very well be, that the Trem­bling was very inconsiderable, or none at all in the Neighbourhood. Often small Tracts of Ground are disturbed, as Seneca has observed, Quaest. Nat. [Page 224]l. 6. c. 25. even this Earthquake which has filled the City with so many dreadful Stones, did not exceed the limits of Campania. Why should I mention that when Chalcis trembled, Thebes stood unmolested; that when Aegium was every moment expecting to be buried in ruines, the City Patrae, which stands so near it, felt nothing of that Motion? That prodigious Concussion which overwhelm'd two Cities, Buris and Helice, stopt on this side of Aegi­um? 'Tis therefore a plain case, that the Mo­tion only goes so far, and no farther, as the Ca­verns and vacant spaces in the Earth, give it leave. According to the Depth or Breadth of the Caverns which fell in, the Motion must be heard farther or nearer. Now these Caverns seem neither to have been very far from the Superfi­cies of the Earth, nor broader than the Valley which sunk in, since four Cities, with the Terri­tories belonging to them, were so soon swallow­ed up, and yet the Calamity spread no farther.

The Memory of this strange Event was not only preserv'd among the Hebrews, who after­ward inhabited the neighbouring Country, but was propogated among the Heathens. Strabo indeed, l. 16. erroneously confounds this Lake with Sirbonis, but in the other part of his rela­tion deserves to be heard. It is a vast Lake, the Compass of which some Persons estimate to be a thousand Furlongs, the Length of it above two hundred, ( Josephus de Bell. Jud. l. 4. c. 26. tells us it is 580 Furlongs in Length, and 150 in Breadth;) the Water of it is extreamly deep [Page 225]and heavy, upon which account divers are of no use there; for whoever goes into it as high as his Navil, is immediately lifted up. It is full of Bitumen, which at uncertain Seasons boils up from the bottom, with Bubbels like hot Water, and then the Superficies of the Lake swells, and resembles the rising of a Hill. It emits vast quan­tities of smoaky Ashes that deceive the Eye-sight; it immediately rusts Silver and Brass, and in short, every thing that looks bright and polished, except Gold alone. When their Ʋtensils grow rusty the Inhabitants know that an Eruption of Bi­tumen will soon happen, for which reason they go in flat-bottom'd Boats made of Reeds to gather it. Bi­tumen is a sort of Earth, which being melted by the Heat spreads mightily, but with a little cold Water is soon condensed again into a solid Body, and therefore needs Incision. — Several other Signs convince us that in the Soil of this Coun­try there is actual Fire, for they shew us rough Rocks burnt up near Mosais, and Caverns wrought out in several places, the Earth full of Ashes; drops of Pitch distilling from the Rocks, the Rivers hot, and casting forth an unsavory Smell, and their Houses frequently thrown down; so that what the Natives of the place re­late, may very well be credited, viz. that thir­teen Cities were formerly inhabited in this Tract of Ground, the Metropolis of which, So­dom has still the compass of sixty Furlongs visi­bly remaining, that by Earthquakes, together with violent Eruptions of Fire, and hot bitumi­nous [Page 226]sulphurious Water, a great Lake was made, that the Stones took fire, that some of the Cities were swallowed up, and others aban­doned by the Inhabitants that cou'd make their escapes. Erastothenes, on the other hand, was of opinion, that the Country was overwhelm'd by store of subterranean Pools. We will now introduce Tacitus to confirm what has been de­livered by Strabo, who tells us in the fifth Book of his History, ch. 6. A Lake of a mighty com­pass, resembling a Sea, but of a more odious tast; and for the noisomness of the Smells that proceed from it, often fatal to the Inhabitants: It is nei­ther agitated by the Wind, nor does it harbour any Fish, or Fowl accustomed to the Water. At certain seasons of the Year it throws up Bitumen, the use of gathering which, Experience has taught, as it has done other Arts.— Not far from thence are Fields, which they report to have been extreamly fruitful in former times, and inha­bited by large and populous Cities, but afterwards were set on fire by Thunder bolts, the Footsteps of which Calamity are still remaining; but that the Earth, which seems to be parch'd and burnt up, has wholly lost its fertility. For every thing, whether it grows Spontaniously, or is planted by Man, whether Herb or Flower, or arrived to full maturity, if compress'd, moulders away immedi­ately into Ashes. Therefore as I readily grant, that some famous Cities were here destroy'd by Lightning in times past, so I suppose, that the Earth is infected by Steams from the Lake, [Page 227]and the circum-ambient Air corrupted, which putrifies the Fruits of the Earth. This Lake likewise, has been described by Diodorus Siculus, l. 19. by Pliny, l. 5. c. 16. and by Solinus, c. 36. whom the Reader, if he thinks fit, may consult when he pleases. We will not here ex­amine the particulars they relate, altho' we make no question, but that abundance of false Reports have been utter'd upon this Subject. We will only enquire into the Reasons of the several Names it goes by, with all convenient brevity.

Every one knows wherefore it received the name of Asphaltites, since it so plentifully a­bounds in Asphaltus, or Bitumen; and the rea­son, why it is frequently called the Salt Sea in Scripture, is, because the Hebrews call all Lakes, Seas; and because two other Lakes, viz. that of Semechon and Genesareth receive the River Jordan, in his passage above, both which are fresh Water, therefore this third, to be distin­guished from them, was called the Salt Sea. Otherwise the Mediterranean Sea is likewise salt; altho' 'tis certain, there is some difference in the saltness. In succeeding times, it was called the Dead Sea, not because the Water of it is immoveable, as Justin pretends, l. 36.3. but because, as Josephus informs us, it is [...], that is, it has no Fish in it. The above-men­tioned Writers, that give a Description of this Lake, confirm the opinion of Josephus, to whom we will add two Eye-witnesses: First, Pausa­nias, [Page 228]who in his fifth Book expresly tells us, he saw the River Jordan, which runs thro' the Lake of Tiberias, fall into another Lake, called the Dead Sea, by whom it is consumed; and afterwards adds, This Lake is void of Fish, who turn back to their accustomed Waters, as from a manifest Danger. The Second is, St. Jerome, who upon the 47th. Chapter of Ezekiel: If Jordan, says he, swelled by the Rains, carries any fishes into it, they immediately die, and float upon the surface of the fat Water.

VI. So much concerning the Lake. Now let us proceed to say something of its Banks, and the circumjacent Country; besides what we have already related of it by the by. Jo­sephus, speaking of the Territory about Sodom, thus expresses himself: Near this Lake, says he, is Sodomitis, formerly a delicious and fertile Land, and famous for the Riches of its Cities, but now wholly burnt up. After this he goes on in the following words; so that you'd rather think, that Tacitus, or any Pagan Author spoke, rather than Josephus. The Reports run, That for the wickedness of the Inhabitants it was destroy'd by Thunderbolts. Indeed the remainders of the Divine Fire, and the Resem­blance of five Cities, are still to be seen; the sight of which, gives credit to the Stories that are told of the Country about Sodom. After the same manner, Philo, towards the end of his second Book, concerning the Life of Moses. The Monuments of that unspeakable Destru­ction, [Page 229]are to this day shown in Syria; Ruines, Ashes, Brimstone, Smoak, and a slender small Flame still breaking forth, certain indications of Fire.

St. Jude, in the 7th. verse of his Epistle, seems to have his Eye upon this, where he says, that Sodom and Gomorrah, and the neighbouring Cities, are proposed as a Spectacle, bearing the punishment of everlasting Fire. This Fire, which for so many Ages was fed by the Bitu­minous Matter, and perhaps still continues, is called [...]. Thus Pliny, l. 2. c. 106. says, That the Mountain Chimaera in Phaselis, burns Night and Day with an IMMORTAL Flame; after Ctesias, who had used the word [...], of the same signification in Greek. Diogenes Laertius, l. 8. § 75. Thus speaks to Empedo­cles, who is reported to have thrown himself headlong into Aetna.

Learned Men are mistaken, who imagine, that this fire which burnt down the Cities of this famous Valley, was therefore called [...], because 'tis a Figure of Eternity; or because it was not extinguished till it had destroy'd every thing; for it flamed long after that, and both Interpretations are unnatural. Nor is that in­comparable Man Dr. Hammond, happier in his [Page 230]Conjecture than the rest, who is of opinion, that the eternal Pains of Hell are here signified; as likewise in Matth. 18.8. and several other places of Scripture. In the first place he tells us, that Sodom and Gomorrah, are here put for the Inhabitants of those Cities. Secondly, he observes, that a present Punishment is meant here; since the Apostle says, [...], they are proposed as a Spectacle, altho he had used the Praeterperfect Tense before; from whence he concludes, that we are to understand this of the Damned in Hell, for as much as the other Fire was past and gone. However, the Monuments of that Punishment, as we have already taken notice, still continued; nor cou'd the Sodomites be said [...], to be proposed as a Spectacle, qui [...] non poterant, i. e. who cou'd not be shewn. Therefore our Interpretation is the most simple and agreeable to the Words; which being al­lowed, we may still say, that the Punishment of Cities destroy'd, are still left to be seen by us. Brocardus indeed, in his Description of the Holy Land, Part the first, ch. 7. § 25. The Dead Sea, says he, is always smoaking, and duskish like the mouth of Hell, as I have be­held it with my own eyes, by reason of the noisome Vapours that proceed from it. The Author of the Poem concerning Sodom, seems to have thought of the same thing, for he con­cludes al [...] with these Verses.

The adjoyning Country which escaped the waters of the Lacus Asphaltites, was, as Moses calls it, Deut. 19.23. Brimstone, Salt and Combustion; that is to say, burnt up with a sulphureous Fire, and changed into a Salt, and consequently a barren Soil. The Holy Wri­ters, when they wou'd terrifie Sinners with the most horrible Punishments, are used to com­pare them with those of the Sodomites; see Isaiah 13.19. and c. 34.10. Jeremiah 20.16. and c. 50.40. Lamentations 4.6. Ezekiel 16.49. Hosea 11.8. Amos 4.11. St. Luke 17.29. St. Peter Ep. 2. c. 2.6. They seem likewise to allude to this, or rather use Expressions bor­rowed from hence, when they describe the Torments of the other World, under the re­presentation of eternal Fire, of Smoak ascend­ing for ever, of a Lake burning with Fire and Brimstone; as Revelations, c. 14. v. 10, 11. c. 21.8. Likewise the Heathen Poets, because perhaps they looked upon these vulcano's or fiery Mountains, to be as it were the Chimnies of Hell, feigned, that there were Rivers of burning Brimstone in the Regions below.

VII. But to omit a farther disquisition of this matter, because it requires a larger Volume; we shall rather chuse to observe, That several circumstances of a Fable in Ovid's Metamorpho­ses, l. 8. seem to derive their Original from this History; as,

• 1. Jupiter and Mercury, like the two Angels in this Story, put on human Shape, and travel among men.
• 2. They meet with very barbarous, inhospitable Men, just as among the Sodomites, they shewed no manner of respect to Strangers.

3. Tamen una recepit. But one House at last received them; and so Lot gave a Lodging to the Angels, who must otherwise have passed the Night in the Streets. 4. At last Jupiter and Mercury confess themselves to be Gods, and threaten to punish the Neighbourhood. So do the two Angels,

5. These Deities save Baucis and Philemon, as the Angels doe Lot and his Family.

6. Baucis and Philemon escape by leaving their House, and following the Gods to a Mountain, after the same manner as Lot and his Daugh­ters.

7. The Neighbours of Baucis and Philemon are punished, their Town turned into a Pool of standing Water, as the Valley of Siddim became a Lake.

8. The Scene of this surprising Event, Ovid lays ad phrygios colles, in the Hills of Phrygia, but does not mark out the place more distinct­ly: Perhaps he had somewhere read, that it hap­ned [...], by which name, part of Phrygia is called. Nay, the very name [...], is derived [...], from Roasting or Burning. Therefore the Country about Sodom, may as well be meant by both Apellations, as that Region in Asia Minor, as sufficiently ap­pears by what has been already said; but Ovid, [Page 234]according to the custom of Poets, puts down a better known name, instead of one that was less known. We might easily make a Parallel between that part of Phrygia, and the Country about Sodom, and shew wherein they agree, as any one will soon find out, who will attentive­ly consider what Strabo, l. 13. has written, [...], but we have not time to discuss this matter more prolixly.

Altho' I am not of the opinion of some Learned Men, who suppose, that all the Fables of the Grecians are derived from Histories in the Bible, changed and corrupted: yet the con­currence of so many Circumstances, inclined me to believe, that the History of Lot, is in some manner shadowed in the Fable of Baucis and Philemon. We have shown in our Anno­tations upon Gen. c. 18. v. 1. That something like this, might have happen'd in the Fable of Orion; and indeed 'tis reasonable to imagine, that the Phaenicians, relating to the Greeks, things done in the Land of Canaan, partly min­gled them with some Additions of their own; and partly might be misunderstood by the Greeks who had Vanity enough to adorn whatever they heard, with new fictions of their own In­vention; which is the reason, that the footsteps of Truth can scarce be traced in their Fables; altho' they arose from true Histories. Con­sult our Observations upon ch. 9.20.

From this Conflagration of Sodom, the Author of the small Poem, De Sodomâ, pretends the Fable of Phaethon arose.

But as there is no manner of likeness be­tween this History and that Fable, save only, that single Circumstance of Burning, one can­not affirm any thing on this occasion. Others, with more probability, find some resembling footsteps of this History in the Fable of Typhae­us, and therefore we will in a few words, lay down their Opinion, with the Arguments they bring to support it,

• 1. The name of [...], may be deduced from the Chaldee, Radix, Touph, which signifies to overflow; and therefore will be the same as Tipho, i. e. one overflown; which name well enough fits the men that were drowned in the Lacus Asphaltites.
• 2. This same Typhaeus, whether a Man, or a Monster, was an Enemy, both of Gods and Men, as the Sodomites and their Neighbours were. See Ho­mer's Hymn upon Apollo, and Hesiod's Theogo­nia.
• 3. The beds of Typhaeus, are said by Ho­mer, Il. 2. to be [...], that is, in Ara­maea or Syria: for which, consult the Interpre­ters upon Stheph. Byzant, upon the word [...].
• 4. Lycophron in his Cassandra, p. 137. Ed. Steph. places the seat of his Wife in a Lake, which seems to have a respect to the Lacus Asphaltites.
• [Page 236]5. He was slain by Jupiter with a Thunder­bolt, which Homer, in the place above cited, and Hesiod, in his Theogonia, describe after such a manner, that they may seem to relate to the Conflagration of Sodom: consult the latter, from v. 840. to v. 867.
• 6. In the very place where Typhaeus is said to be overcome, and kil­led by Jupiter, Fire and Smoak is reported to break forth, which (as we have already observed) agrees with the the Country about Sodom. 'Tis true, both the Greek and Latin Poets have ad­ded several things to this Fable, and not know­ing where to place the [...], mentioned by Homer, strangely disagree from one another, as to that particular especially, but agree in those Circumstances we have here taken notice of.

VIII. Since it is most probable, that these Cities of the Plain of Jordan, were overthrown in the same manner, as we have related it: However, some inquisitive Reader may be still inclined to ask, whether we suppose the Ground was burnt and subverted by Miracle, or only by the common methods of Nature. Seneca was of opinion, that the Gods never concerned themselves in any thing of this kind; and that the disorders of Heaven nor Earth, were occa­sioned by the anger of the Deities. Those things, says he, are produced by their own Causes; neither do they rage, because they are commanded so to do, but when they are di­sturbed, it proceeds from some failing or irre­gularity, as it happens with human Bodies; [Page 237]and then, when they chiefly seem to give an injury, they receive one. But to us, who are ignorant of the true Cause, every-thing ap­pears frightful, and our apprehensions are in­creased by the rarity of them. But to lay a­side Rhetorical Figures, which only amuse and deceive ignorant People; the thing itself, if we consider it divested of all Circumstances, does not seem to exceed the ordinary power of Na­ture, as we have sufficiently demonstrated from several Instances of Earthquakes. In a Soil, impregnated with Bitumen, which is above, may be shaken and swallowed up with a sudden hiatus. Thunder-bolts too may fall, and set the veins of Sulphur and Bitumen on fire, which afterwards breaking out, and mingled with the Water, may in a low Valley, easily cause a Lake full of Asphaltus. But if these things were done before the natural Causes were in a disposition to produce this Effect, and had not happened at that instant, unless it had been for some extraordinary Intervention of God, or his Angels; it ought to be no less reputed a Miracle, than if every particular in the Transaction, plainly surpassed the usual order of Nature. And that the business happened after this man­ner, the two Angels dispatched by God Al­mighty, upon this important occasion, and their Discourses are Arguments sufficiently con­vincing. Nay, one of the Angels seems to have intimated this, who, before the thing happened, foretold it to Abraham, as we have [Page 238]observed in our Paraphrase of the 18. ch. of Genesis, and the 19. ver.

I. HAving described the burning of Sodom, and the neighbouring Towns, more accurately, than the common Interpreters are used to do; I think it not amiss, to examine [Page 239]the celebrated Metamorphosis of Lot's Wife; For, as we have demonstrated in the foregoing Dissertation, that those Cities situated near Jor­dan, were by an unusual divine Power, over­whelmed and buried in Ruins; so, on the other hand, we hope we shall be able to convince e­very unprejudiced Reader in this; that some persons, out of too fond a regard to Miracles, by misunderstanding the words of the Holy Scriptures, have improv'd an event, which we own to be somewhat uncommon, into a migh­ty Prodigy. The Jews, who were always a people so sottishly abandon'd to the belief of Miracles, that not being content with the Truth, they trumpt up a Thousand other Legends ab­surd, of which the Bible makes not the least mention, seem to have misled the Christians into this Error; and they, by following their blind Guides with too implicit a Resignation, imagin'd after the Jews, that Lot's Wife was turn'd into a Pillar of Salt; tho' so wonderful a Change, cannot certainly be deduced from the words of Moses. Josephus relating this Hi­story, in the first Book of his Jewish Antiqui­ties, ch. 12. [...], says he, [...]. But Lot 's Wife in her flight, casting her eyes perpetu­ally back upon the City, and being too much con­cern'd about it, tho' God had expresly forbid her [Page 240]to do so; was turn'd into a Pillar of Salt: I have beheld it my self, and it continues to this Day. Josephus's Country-men are of the same Opini­on, and particularly the Author of the Jerusa­lem Paraphrase, where we read, that Lot's Wife, because she was a Native of Sodom, turn'd her head to see what became of her Father's House, and was made a Pillar of Salt, till the time of the Resurrection. The same account of the matter, is to be found in Jonathan.

II. Let us for a while, lay aside their Autho­rity, of which we shall treat hereafter; and examine Moses's words, which gave occasion to this Opinion. Lot's Wife, says he, who follow­ed him, looked back, Vatthebi ntsib melahh, and became a Pillar of Salt. Now here we find two words of a doubtful Signification, which being ill understood, were accidentally the causes of this Error. [...] and [...].

The first of them in this place, may proper­ly signifie two things,

• 1. A heap, such for in­stance, as were erected to preserve the Memo­ry of any remarkable Accident, such as Laban and Jacob rais'd in the Mountain Galaad, as we find in Gen. ch. 31. Such a heap is call'd Matt­sebah, a word of near affinity to this, which signifies any thing that is rais'd up. For This reason, D. Kimchi seems to interpret it [...] thal, and upon this consideration, perhaps, or from the relation of those persons, who said, they had seen it, Sulpitiùs Severus, supposes Lot's Wife to be turned into a heap of Stones. They [Page 241]were forbidden (these are his words) to look behind them, but the Woman not regarding this prohibition, as 'tis the infirmity of human Na­ture to long more earnestly after forbidden things, turned back her Eyes, and is reported to have been immediately changed into a Heap.
• 2. It may signifie a Statue or Pillar: The LXX Interpreters have Translated it, [...], a Pil­lar of Salt, St. Jerome a Statue, and Onkelos the same. From which Ambiguity of the Words it has happen'd, that some wou'd have Lot's Wife turn'd into a Pillar, without the re­semblance of a feminine Shape, but others un­derstand it to have been the Statue of a Wo­man, wherein all her Liniaments were plainly to be seen, as we shall observe hereafter.

But besides these proper Significations, the word [...] may in a figurative Sense, be applied to signifie something immoveable and hard like a Pillar, or Statue; whence the word [...], Nitsbelha in Chaldee, signifie Hardness, Dan. 2.41. Nay the word [...], signifies a Garrison or Station of Soldiers, because Centinels conti­nue always in the same Post, see 1 Sam. 13.3. Therefore this may be the meaning of Moses, that Lot's Wife grew stiff, and remain'd there motionless, like a Pillar or Statue; as we shall more fully prove anon. Thus in common Conversation we are use to compare stupid Men, that are gazing at any thing long in the same posture of Body, to Statues. Philo in his Book de Profugis, where he interprets this Hi­story [Page 242]in an Allegorical manner, not Unelo­gantly, uses the word [...], in a Me­taphorical Sense: He says, that those who leave the things before them, and turn their necks, [...], behind them, [...], become▪ Pillars, like an in­animate and mute Stone. He has the same Ex­pression in his Book de Somniis, and says of a Man that neglects his Soul, and only minds his Body, [...], he will stand like an inanimate Pillar which is consumed of it self.

The other word [...] Melahh, besides its common signification of Salt properly so called, has two other meanings in Scripture. Sometimes it signifies a salt and barren Soil, like that about the Lacus Asphaltites, as we find in Moses, Deut. 29.23. All his Land shall be Brimstone, Salt and Combustion, it shall not be sown, nor yield Fruit, nor shall any Herb grow therein, as in the Destruction of Sodom, &c. In other places this sort of Soil is called Melhha, as Psalm 107.34. and the LXX Inter­preters render it by [...]; in which Sense, if it is here understood, the Prepositi­on [...] (which is frequently left out, as Gen. 24.23. Psal. 2.12.) is wanting, and then it will run thus, And she was a Statue, or in other He­brew words, they stood or remained a Statue in a saltish Soil. Sometimes it signifies a long space of time, as in Numb. 17.19. This shall be a Covenant of Salt, or an everlasting Covenant [Page 243]to thee. We meet the same Expression, 2 Chron. 13.5. Now Salt seems to be a symbol of Eter­nity, because things that are season'd with it, continue incorrupt for many Years; which perhaps is the reason why this word is used to signifie duration of time. And if this significa­tion may be admitted, Lot's Wife may be un­derstood to have continued always in the Coun­try of Sodom, or there to have been benumo'd, and never to have return'd back.

Thus we see there is nothing in Moses's words which obliges us to suppose, that any unusual Metamorphosis happen'd in this case, in order to find out any meaning in them; and yet we ought not to have recourse to this sorry shift, unless after a diligent inquiry into the Significa­tion of his Words, we were convinced they cou'd bear no other meaning: For since those Prodigies, which are above the power of Na­ture, very rarely happen, in comparison of those that may be effected by it; we ought seldom to admit of any Miracle in the Interpretation of Scripture, unless there be an urgent occasi­on for it.

III. When God is pleased to work any Mird­cle, that is, something which cannot be done according to the Rules of Nature, as they were at first establish'd; there is some important Rea­son, why the All-wise Governour of the Uni­verse neglects the Laws of Nature, and makes use of his infinite Prerogative; because it is by no means consistent with his Wisdom, frequent­ly [Page 244]to break that Order for trivial Causes, which he at the Creation instituted with the highest Reason. Now if we carefully examine this wonderful Metamorphosis of Lot's Wife, we shall find nothing in this whole affair that seems to deserve so great a Miracle. 'Twas enough that this undiscreet Woman was punished by Death for her Dilatoriness; nor did the Angels threa­ten to inflict any thing beyond this, save thy life, said he, and don't look behind thee, nor tar­ry in the Plain, but fly to the Mountain, least thou should'st perish. Nor was there the least neces­sity for a Miracle to destroy her, as we shall presently demonstrate.

Besides, Who can digest this absurd turning of her into Salt? where any thing of this na­ture is related in Scripture, there are evident convincing Reasons, why such and such Mira­cles, and no other, should be wrought. A Man of the meanest capacity knows why Mo­ses's Rod was changed into a Serpent, and Wa­ter into Wine, at the Marriage in Cana. But here, if we were to resign our Faith up blindly to the Interpreters, a strange and sudden Change is wrought for no reason at all; for I wou'd willingly be inform'd, why Lot's Wife was ra­ther turn'd into Salt, than into a Stone.

Some People pretend this was done, because the Earth itself being converted into Salt, as Moses informs us, Deut. 29. emitted a saline Vapour, which penerating the flesh of the Wo­man, she was immediately, turn'd into Salt. [Page 245]But those that have diligently examin'd the na­ture of Salt tell us, that this terrestrial Salt is fixt, as the Chymists express it; that is, does not spend itself in Vapours. Nevertheless, shou'd we grant what they so confidently affirm, yet a human Body, tho' it were never so much impregnated with those Vapours, wou'd not on the sudden be changed into Salt. Besides, tho' the Earth where Lot's Wife perished, is said to be Salt, yet it abounds in a far greater quan­tity of Bitumen and Brimstone; so that if she were to be changed into some Matter of near affinity with that Earth, she might much more conveniently have been turn'd into a Fountain of Bitumen or Brimstone.

Others, in which number we find Clem. Alex­andrinus, give us a mystical Reason why she was turn'd into Salt. Lot's Wife, says he, who of her own accord alone relapsed to the vices of the World, he left senseless, and made her as it were a Stone of Salt, and commanded her to go no farther: No insipid, or unprofitable I­mage, but to season and whet up those who have a Spritual Discernment, Strom. lib. 2. p. 387. We meet with the same strain of Reasoning in St. Austin, de Civ. Dei. lib. 16. c. 3. But any one may see how far fetched and Oratorical this sort of Argumentation is, it may serve well enough for the Pulpit, or a popular Harangue, but can never satisfie a Philosophical Ear, which is not to be imposed upon by such miserable Rheto­rick.

Aben Ezra is of opinion, that Lot's Wife was burnt by Fire, which had some Salt mixt with it, so that she was as it were seasoned by that Salt; and he endeavours to prove that Salt fell down from Heaven with the Fire, which was likewise the sentiment of H. Grotius, from Deut. 29. v. 22. But Moses speaks not a syllable of any Salt falling down from Heaven, neither can it be deduced from his words, as any consider­ing Reader will soon discover, or might know from what has been already said. But how this burnt Soil came to be saltish, we shall shew in our Annotations upon that place of Deuterono­my. We may likewise add to what has been mention'd above, against those Gentlemen who maintain, that this Statue of Salt has lasted for so many thousand Years; that altho' it were made of Salt, which equall'd that which is sossil in hardness, yet being expos'd so long to the open Air, cou'd not have lasted so long. The hard­est Marble cou'd scarce have suffer'd the force of the Air, of heat, and cold, and rain, and wind, without being considerably injured. They that pretend it was preserv'd by a Miracle, are so accustom'd to defend uncertain Miracles, by more uncertain ones, and are so seldom con­vinced by the most cogent Reasons in the World, that 'tis not worth the while to confute them.

Therefore since so many monstrous Absur­dities stare us in the Face, if with the generality of Mankind, we admit of a Metamorphosis here, and Moses's words will very well allow of ano­ther [Page 247]meaning, 'tis more preferable in my Opi­nion, to have recourse to that, especialy if 'tis more agreeable to Reason. Nay, tho' the Words of the sacred Historian were wrested a little, which we have not done, as is sufficiently evi­dent already, and will be made more plain hereafter. It were better to father a hard In­terpretation upon them, than to introduce him speaking Absurdities. 'Tis certainly much more credible, that Moses used an improper Phrase, than that he deliver'd plain downright Incongruities, and therefore a forced Interpre­tation wou'd be infinitely more tolerable, than to feign a prodigious Event, meerly for the sake of expounding two poor doubtful words at best.

IV. But we are opposed, they say, by the Authority of the ancient Jews and Christians; some Citations out of whom we will produce, besides those we have already brought, least a­ny one should suppose, that we purposely sup­prest or omitted them. The Author of the Book of Wisdom, ch. 10.7. a perpetual Testi­mony of Wickedness, a smoaking Earth, and Plants bringing forth Fruit at unseasonable times; compare this with the 7th. verse of St. Jude, mentioned in the former Dissertation, a Pillar of Salt, standing for a Monument of an unbelieving Mind. Philo likewise frequently takes notice of this Metamorphosis, as we gather from the two above-cited places out of him, to which we will add this third out of the Allego­ries [Page 248]of the Law, lib. 2. p. 77. Several Souls, tho' they are willing to repent, yet God does not permit them, but they are carried back as by a strong Tide, like Lot's Wife, who for her love of Sodom was turned into a Stone. The ancientest Christian who has mentioned this Charge, seems to be Clemens in his Epistle to the Corinthians; his Wife, says he, went out a­long with him, but being of a different Opini­on, and not persisting in concord, was therefore placed for a Sign, and continues a Statue of Salt to this very day. Irenaeus, l. 4. c. 51. has the same and something more, as we shall see be­low: 'Tis to no purpose to alledge the Testimo­nies of those of a later standing.

Now all that can be gathered from these Te­stimonies, is only this, that the Jews and anci­ent Christians believed this Metamorphosis of Lot's Wife, which we don't deny; but it does not therefore follow that we are obliged to be­lieve them, because indeed they borrow'd this Opinion from no where else but the words of Moses misunderstood, and not from the sight of this Statue, as we shall prove hereafter. Now as they might easily be mistaken in interpret­ing the Words of Moses, as they were in many other things besides, so we are by no means engaged to take their Words in this affair. For all the Authors that 'tis possible to cite upon this occasion, lived in those times, wherein no cer­tain▪ Monuments were extant, from whence they might better discover the truth of this Af­fair, [Page 249]than we at this great distance can do, be­sides the History of Moses: Nor were the se­venty Interpreters, or those that follow them, so profoundly versed in the Hebrew Language, that 'twas not possible for 'em to mistake Mo­ses's meaning, as we have shown the contrary in several places of our Commentary: and as for the Moderns, their Authority is of much less weight, since 'tis a plain case, that they were furnished with no better helps to find out the Sense of the Scriptures than we are: And last­ly, the numbers of those that are of a contrary Opinion to us, ought not to be brought as an Argument, because after the Septuagint had e­stablish'd this Mistake in their Version, all the rest blindly follow'd them, without even exa­mining the matter. What one Man has said, they are the words of a great Man, All believe and no one questions it; and therefore if we con­sider the business aright, only his Authority ought to be weighted in the Ballance who first advanced this Opinion, and if that proves up­on Examination to be none of the best, as we hope we have sufficiently evinced, then there is no reason why we should rely upon it.

V. But perhaps some may be of Opinion, that we lose time in seeking to lessen the Au­thority of the Ancients, since we have not on­ly their great Learning to encounter, but the Testimonies of several Eye-witnesses, as Josephus for instance, and some Moderns; by whose Authority rather then the Exposition of Moses's [Page 250]words, this Opinion has found credit enough to last so many Ages. But we are in hopes to solve this Argument with as little Difficulty as we did the former, and if the Reader will be pleas'd carefully to consider what we say, we don't doubt but he will acknowledge as much.

The Testimonies of Josephus, and all the rest, may be confuted by one single Argument, which we shall first make use of, tho' we intend to examine the matter more diligently after­wards. All that pretend they have seen the Statue, that we may for once grant that they saw something, might be deceived by the Inha­bitants of the place, who perhaps show'd them a Stone, or something like one, and then very positively affirm'd it was Lot's Wife; for how cou'd they know whether they were told the Truth or no? Therefore they had behaved themselves more discreetly in my opinion, if they had written that they saw a Pillar, a Sta­tue, or something like it, which the Inhabitants called a Statue of Salt, but that they cou'd not tell whether it was really so or no.

And indeed, such a Caution or Conduct was the more necessary in this Country, because the People of it were more guilty than any other Nations, of imposing old names upon new things, meerly to deceive the lovers of Anti­quity. From Reading the Bible, and not from any Tradition of their Ancestors, they were u­sed to guess where every thing of Importance was done, and so show'd to Strangers who came [Page 251]to visit these places, the Footsteps of ancient things, which they themselves had devised. And this is the Reason, that whenever they hap­pen'd to misunderstand the Scripture, they blun­der in the situation, and seign things that were never in rerum naturâ, as they do still to this very day. Those that have turn'd over the Writings of St. Jerome, and some Itineraries of the Holy Land, are no doubt on't, sensible how true this Allegation is. But to make the matter plain, beyond any possibility of denying it, we will produce a few Examples out of the vast number that offers itself. St. Jerome in his Epitavium A Noble Ma­tron of Rome, that went to vi­sit Palestine. Paulae, describing her Travels through Judaea, In the Shore of Sarepta, says he, she en­tred into the little Tower of Elias. Now can any Man of tolerable Sense believe, that the Cottage where the poor Widow of Sa­repta entertained Elias formerly, should be standing so many Ages after? nor is there any more reason to believe, that at Caesarea, The House of Cornelius the Centurion, the little Aediculae. Cells of Philip, and the Bed­chambers of the four Virgin Pro­phetesses; and at Emmaus, the House of Cleo­phas, were still remaining; and yet all these things were shown to Paula with a world of Assurance. The same Lady not only saw the Sepulchre of Christ, but likewise kissed the Stone of the Resurrection, which the Angel remo­ved from the door of the Monument, and with [Page 252]her faithful Mouth licked the place where our Lord's Body lay. Afterwards she was shown a Pillar, supporting the portico of a Church, stain'd with the Blood of our Saviour, to which he was said to be bound, and whipt; and the place where the Holy Ghost descended upon the Souls of a Hundred and twenty Believers. Then she went forward to Bethlehem, and on the right side of the way, stood near the Sepulchre of Rachel; having entred into Bethlehem, she visited our Saviour's Specus. Cave, and saw the Holy Inn of the Virgin. In another part of Ju­dea, she entred into the Cells of Sarah, seeing the place where Isaac was born (who you must know pass'd all their Lives under Tents) with the re­mainders of Abraham 's Oak. Then she went into the Sepulchre of Lazarus, and beheld the Inn where Mary and Martha dwelt. I will in­stance in no more, since these are sufficient to show that credit is to be given to those Peo­ple, that show every thing with that wonder­ful exactness; perhaps some Persons, with whom Credulity and Faith pass for one and the same thing, will maintain, that all these things were truly shown to Paula, but we have all along profess'd, that we don't write to Gentlemen of so voracious a Belief, who will with as much obstinacy combat Truth and Reason, as they swallow foolish Stories with ease.

If we were to gather such sort of Stories out of the Modern Itineraries, it would require no great trouble to collect them, since they fre­quently [Page 253]fill both sides of the Page in most of them. Let the Reader only consult Bellonius and Thevenot, whose Observations we have of­ten made use of, when they describe the Holy Places, and if he is not as heartily weary of them, as ever he was of the most insufferable talkative Coxcomb in the World, I will give him leave to apply my Writings to what use he pleases. I have already declared, that I don't write [...], to unthinking Creatures, who will admit and reject whatever they think fit, without any Reason on their side. Howe­ver, I cannot forbear to Transcribe one exceed­ing foolish Passage out of Bellonius, to show how prettily these Holy Jugglers banter poor credu­lous Stangers out of the Bible: He tells us, l. 2. c. 8. that among other things that are to be seen without Jerusalem, they show in the City Wall, a triangular Stone, which they say is the very same which the Scripture mentions, Psal. 118. v. 22. viz. the Builders refused; I humbly suppose there is no occasion to show how monstrously absurd this is.

Now to return to the Statue of Salt, we should not think our selves guilty of ill Manners, should we suspect that Josephus did not see so much as the least resemblance of a Statue, altho' we by no means despise that Writer, especially when he comes to the latter part of the Jewish History, yet we wou'd never engage in so unsteoenable a Province, as to quit from the Imputation of being sometimes a Fable-monger. In the first [Page 254]Book of his Antiquities, ch. 2. he tells us, that Adam having foretold, that there wou'd be a Destruction of all things, one by Fire, and t'o­ther by Water, the Antediluvians built two Pil­lars, one of Brick, and the other of Stone, and Engraved all their useful Inventions upon each of them, that if the Brick Pillar happen'd to be carried away by the Inundation, the Stone Pil­lar remaining, might preserve these Monuments for the use of Posterity. He tells us after all, that this Stone Pillar was still extant, [...], in the Land of Sirias; where this Land of Sirias lies ('tis to be supposed, not far from the Isle of Pines) we will not here enquire, but few, I am apt to think, will be able to pre­vail with themselves to believe that this Ante­diluvian Pillar was standing in Josephus's time. But if this does not argue the Fabulousness of a Writer, and his Friends alledge for him, that he was imposed upon by the Relations of other Men, let us hear him describe the Fluvius Sab­baticus, or Sabbath River, lib. 7. c. 13. de Bel­lo Judaico. He tells us, that Titus, as he Tra­vell'd through Syria, saw a River worthy ones taking notice of, which runs between Arcae and Raphonaeae, two Cities belonging to the Kingdom of Agrippa: When it runs, it has a very plen­tiful and quick Stream, but for the space of six days, as if the Fountains fail'd it above, 'tis al­together dry; on the seventh day it has a brisk Current again, and this order 'tis observed to keep. If Josephus saw the Statue of Salt no [Page 255]better than he did Titus's Sabbath-River, we need not use many words to disprove and invalidate his Testimony: See Ludolphus largely discus­sing this matter, with great variety of Learn­ing, in his Commentary upon the Aeth. Hist. l. 1. c. 8. Num. 68.

But 'tis pretended, that among the rest that visited these Places, and affirm the Pillar to be still standing, and are cited for that purpose, we find Benjamin Tudelensis, and the Lord knows who, one Bernardus Solignacus. As for the for­mer, he no where tells us that he beheld this Statue, for these are his words, From the Sea of Sodom to the Statue of Salt, which was Lot 's Wife, 'tis two Leagues. The flocks of Cattle lick of it, but still it growes again as before. 'Twas never my fortune to meet the last, but what fol­lows will sufficiently show that he either told a Story of his own inventing, or was deceiv'd by others. Doubdanus, a Canon of St. Denys, who Printed an Account of the Holy Land at Paris, 1666. informs us, what the honester Men in those Countries think of the matter, p. 338. Some will pretend, says he, that there is a great Stone of Salt to be seen, which they take for Lot's Wife, &c. but the modern People cannot be per­swaded that it cou'd last so long.

If we will but hear some of them who actu­ally Survey'd these places, and were able to see nothing of the matter, but tell us what Stories they heard from other People, it will soon ap­pear what credit is to be given to these Relati­ons. [Page 256]Thus therefore Brocardus in his Descripti­on of the Holy Land, Part I. ch. 7. § 34. Se­gar is situated under the Mountain Engaddi, be­tween which and the Dead Sea, is the Pillar of Salt, into which Lot's Wife was turned. I gave my self the fatigue of a very troublesome Journey to behold this Statue, but was not so happy as to satisfie my Curiosity; for the Inha­bitants assur'd me the place was inaccessable, or that it could not be visited without apparent danger of Death, by reason of the prodigious Beasts and Serpents that abounded there, but e­specially for the Biduini that dwell upon the place, a Savage and Inhumane sort of People. We can easily suppose that he endeavoured in vain to see the Statue of Salt, but if there was any such thing in rerum naturâ, it ought to have been looked after on the other side of the Lacus Asphaltites, or beyond the Eastern Banks of it, where Segor or Zoar stood: 'Twill not be amiss to prove the Truth of this Assertion in a few Words.

• 1. There is no room for us to doubt, but that those Mountains to which Lot was commanded to fly, were the Mountains of Mo­ab, because he is afterwards said to have erected the Kingdom of the Moabites there. Now e­very body knows, that those Mountains stood Eastwards of the Dead Sea, and therefore Zoar where Lot rested in his way thither, was on the other side of the Lake on the Eastern Bank of it; for 'tis not probable that Lot, who was ma­king all the hast he cou'd to the East, took his [Page 257]way through the Country that stands Westwards of the Lake, and pass'd over Jordan.
• 2. In Deu­teronomy 34.3. where the compass of the Land of Canaan, shown by God to Moses, is described, after the Northern, Western, and Southern Tracts are mentioned, it follows, the Plain of Jericho to Zoar, from whence we gather, that this City stood to the Eastwards, over against Jericho.
• 3. And therefore in after Ages it be­longed to the Moabites, as appears from Isaiah 15.5. Jeremy the 48.34.
• 4. For the same reason, Josephus de Bell. Jud. l. 4. c. 27. places this City in Arabia, where he says that the Lacus Asphaltites reaches [...], as far as Zoar, a City of Arabia. St. Jerome likewise in Loc. Hebr. places it beyond the Dead Sea over against Jericho, The Salt Sea which is called the Dead, or the Sea of Asphaltus, i. e. Bitumen lies between Jericho and Zoar.

Therefore Anselm the Minorite, whose words are cited by Quaresmius, in his Elucidatio Terrae Sanctae, Tom. 2. l. 6. c. 14. was in the right when he said as follows; Segor is situated in the Eastern Shore of this Sea, in part of Arabia where this Statue of Salt is, into which Lot's Wife was turned; 'tis very dangerous to go to see it, by reason of the Madianites dwelling there­abouts, who spare no body. But what follows is extreamly absurd, This Sea, as 'tis commonly reported, sometimes swells to such a vast Degree, that the whole Statue is covered with it, and is not to be seen; sometimes it decreases so much, that [Page 258]the Breast and Knees of it may be seen. It stands in a pleasant place between Segor and the Dead Sea: How in the name of wonder, can this be a pleasant place, which is not only situate upon the Banks of the Lacus Asphaltites, but some­times buried under the Waters of it?

Let us now hear Quaresmius himself, who was Praesident and Apostolical Commissary of the Holy Land, and Printed his Elucidation at Ant­werp, Whether, says he, this Statue is still ex­tant I cannot determine, for I saw it not. But some venerable old Men that came from those Parts assured me they had seen it, by the same Token, that a piece of it being taken from it one day, they found it restored the next, which Tertullian likewise observed, and so still conti­nued. The Biduini, who carry Salt to Jerusa­lem from the Mare Mortuum, do likewise affirm that there is a small Chappel there. These courte­ous good old Gentlemen pretended they had seen what they had only read or heard of, for it was a venerable Report many Ages old, that this Statue was not diminished, and the reason of such a Report was this, that they might have something to stop the mouths of those incredu­lous People, who wou'd be saying, they cou'd not imagine how it should last for so many Ages. And least any one should object, that it might be a heap of Salt in that saltish Soil, such as are to be seen in other places, they pre­tended there were infallible Indications to prove it a Female Statue, supporting one Lie with ano­ther, [Page 259]for fear the Story should catch cold. The Author of the Poem concerning Sodom, which is added to Tertullian's Works,

Neither was Tertullian the Inventor of this sil­ly Fiction, for St. Irenaeus had it before him, as appears by the following words, lib. 4. l. 51. The Wife remain'd in Sodom, not now a corrup­tible Flesh, but an everlasting Statue of Salt, and through her Privities, showing her Menses after the manner of Women; because the Church, which is the Salt of the Earth, is left in the Con­fines of the Earth, suffering those things that are Human, and tho' whole Members are often taken from it, yet it perseveres a Statue of Salt, which is the Foundation of Faith, strengthening and sending the Sons to their Father. This ex­cellent Man was impos'd upon by some mon­strous Story-teller, and perhaps too greedily swallowed what he heard, without throughly examining his witness's Reputation. It has been long ago observed by some Judicious Persons, that Orators are allow'd to take some liberty in [Page 260]History, that they may be able to say something fine and Elegant. Now this manner of Death for Lot's Wife, was capable of all the Beauties of Rhetorick and Strains of Tragedy; but the common Death as we have said is described by Moses, afforded little or no matter for Pomp and Ornament.

This seems to be the reason, why some of our Modern Writers of Travels have given an Account of what they never saw, not to take notice, that perhaps they were ashamed to say, they had not seen that, which others who had been in those Parts pretended to have seen, least the World should take them not to have made a true use of their Travels. Christopher Fure­rus, a Noble-man of Germany, whose Travels of Palestine and the neighbouring Countries, were Printed at Nurimberg, in the Year 1621. affirms, that he washed his Hands in the Lacus Asphal­tites, and found that the taste of it was very nasty, and more saltish then ever he found; but be makes not the least mention of the Statue of Salt. Bellonius was in the Province of Jeriche about Jordan, and describes all the Nations about it, l. 2. c. 86. but is silent as to this wonderful Sta­tue; whether he had heard nothing concerning it, or was of opinion that the common Reports were false. You'll find Thevenot does the same, if you read ch. 41. l. 2. Part I. of his Travels into the East. Nay, Nicholas Christopher Rad­zivil, a Polish Prince, who Survey'd these Pla­ces with all the exactness imaginable, I inquired, [Page 261]says he, very carefully of our Arabian, and those that are well skill'd in our Country, who all of them affirm'd, that nothing like it was there to be found.

To return now to the more ancient Times, we might to these Witnesses add St. Jerome, who lived so many Years in Palestine, and took no little care to divulge things of this Nature, and yet he never makes the least mention of this Statue of Salt, altho' he takes notice of the Sub­version of Sodom, of Lot, nay even of his Wise too. Those that are acquainted with his Chara­cter, and know what Pains he takes to show his own wit even upon the names of Places, and other Witticisms, tho' never so far fetched, are no doubt on't sensible, that he wou'd never have lost so Glorious an opportunity as this everlast­ing Statue afforded him to exercise his Talent upon; if any one had presumed to affirm, that so remarkable a Monument was extant in his Time. In his Epitaph of Paula, where he hunts after Mysteries from every place which she saw, or even beheld at a distance, he lost the best opportunity of showing his Wit, that he could have desired, if at that time this Famous Statue was to be seen. As soon as the Sun was up, says he, she stood upon the Brow of Caphar Baracha, that is the Town of Benediction, to which place Abraham followed the Lord; from whence she beheld a vast Solitude, and the Ground where formerly Sodom, and Gomorrah, Adma and Zeboim stood. She view'd the Vine­yards [Page 262]of Balsam in Engaddi and Segor, vitulaus conteruantem, which was formerly called Bale, and was in the Syrian Dialect Translated into Zoar, that is, a little one. She remembred the Cave of Lot (and why not the Statue of Salt, if it was still remaining) and shedding Tears, admonished her Virgin Companions to abstain from Wine, the unlucky Parent of Luxury. If the Statue of Lot's Wife had been then believed to be on the other side of the Lacus Asphaltites, how opportunely might he have introduced Paula, admonishing her Companions to eschew Earthly things, and not to look back. In his Epistle to Rusticus, tho' he makes mention of Lot's Wife, yet he says no more of her than that disordered by Despair, and looking behind her, she was condemn'd to wear an everlasting Mark of her Infidelity. In his Commentary upon Amos, c. 4.11. Lot, says he, was saved, tho' So­dom was destroyed, losing the part and substance of his Body, by which we understand his Wife; and yet this perpetual affecter of Allegories, says no more of her. All which Circumstances clearly show, that in St. Jerome's time no body believed that this Statue of Salt was then Ex­tant.

VI. And indeed we have no Arguments to prove she was turn'd into a Statue; 'tis far more probable, that the Woman either grew benum'd by fear, or else was suffocated by some Bitumi­nous or Sulphureous Vapour. When she saw her native Country destroy'd by Fire from Hea­ven [Page 263]and Earth, with a dreadful Noise, the Ground trembling under her Feet, and she recollected in her mind the sad Destiny that befel all her Friends and Relations, except her Husband and two Daughters; What wonder is it if Grief and Fear so possest her Spirits, that she immediately expired, or at least fainted away, and no one being by to assist her in that deliquium, died up­on the spot. Plutarch in Sympos, L. 4. Qu. 2. affirms, that several Persons have been killed meerly with the fright of Thunderbolts: Add to this, says he, the Consternation and Fear, by which abundance of Men that suffered not the least Injury have been carried off, only by their being too apprehensive of Death. Great num­bers have been kill'd by Thunder, who have not any Footsteps of being struck or burnt, because their Soul with meer fear has flown out of their Body like a Bird. Many, as Euripides says, have been destroyed by the very breath of Thunder, for at other times also the Hearing is easiest affected of any of the Senses, those Di­sturbances and Apprehensions that proceed from Noise, giving always the most terrible Alarms to the Soul. Besides it has been observ'd, that several have been stupified to that degree by an Earthquake, that they have run up and down like Persons distracted and out of their wits; which sad Accident, if it surprized this poor Woman, as her Husband was making the best of his way to escape, 'tis no Mystery that she was not able to save herself. Seneca tells us, [Page 264]that this frequently happen'd when Campania was shaken by an Earthquake, Sen. Quaest. Nat. l. 6. c. 1. and in the 38th. Chapter of the same Book he assigns the following Reasons for it, for if Fear, even when it is moderate and not so ge­neral, makes Men reel up and down as if they were actually mad; what wonder is it, that when the Terror is publick, when Cities fall, when the Earth trembles, when whole Multi­tudes are Buried in the Ruins, that our Minds, what between Fear and Grief should forsake us.

'Tis a hard matter not to be concern'd, when we see Thousands before us are so, and therefore the most resolute Dispositions were so disorder'd by Fear, that they knew not what they did: Nay Men of the best Courage are not exempted from Fear, and the wise Stoick was never yet to be sound, who (as the same Philosopher expres­ses himself) cou'd without any manner of con­cern behold the dreadful and angry Face of Hea­ven when it Thunders, tho' the Firmament were dissolved, and darted its Fires to the Destructi­on of every thing, but especially itself. There is not, and never was such a Man in the World, that cou'd behold the Ground breaking under him, and be at the same time fearless and un­concern'd. And can any one therefore think it strange if we say, that Lot's Wife, overcome by so Tragical a Spectacle, was benummed or fainted away, and consequently cou'd not save herself by flight?

If any one shall Reply, that this manner of Death does not seem probable to them, perhaps 'tis no absurd Conjecture, that this Woman not only cast back her Eyes towards her native Country, but went back thither as soon as the Angels were gone, to behold the Burning of it nearer, and so was suffocated by some poison­ous Vapour; as Pliny the Elder was, whom his Curiosity led too near the Mountain Vesuvius. And this seems to be implied in our Blessed Savi­our's Words, Luke 17.32. Where after he had said Let no Man return back, i. e. to Jerusalem, after he was once gone out of it, the Siege of it now drawing near, he immediately adds, Re­member Lot 's Wife, who returned back perhaps to see whether she cou'd save any of her Hous­hold Stuff. Nor do the Angels seem to have forbidden Lot's Wife to look back, as if God Al­mighty would punish her with Death, only for casting her Eyes back, but that she might not loyter and tarry as those Persons are used to do, who often look behind them out of Love to the place which they leave, or are minded when a Town is destroying, to behold at a nearer Di­stance what becomes of it. And the following Words, and stay not in all the Plain, seem to have been added to oblige them to make the greater speed; the Angels therefore advis'd them to ha­sten, because as the Destruction encreased on all sides, they might be consumed with the rest, tho' they only tarried to look on, which fre­quently happens in such Earthquakes and Fire, [Page 266]as are fed and nourished by the Nature of the Soil. Cornelius Severus, in his Poem of Aetna says,

Namely, such as tarried behind to carry off their Wealth, which perhaps Lot's Wife endeavour'd to do, and because she was not removed from the place where she fell, therefore she is said to be like a Statue of Salt in that salt Country. Nor is there any reason to urge the Emphasis, since we find the same Expression used about Matters of less Importance. In the first of Sa­muel, c. 25. v. 37. the Sacred Historian speaks thus concerning Nabal, And his heart was dead within him, and he was changed into a Stone, that is, after his Wife Abigale had recounted to him the Danger he had escaped, by her making some Presents to David, this foolish old Hunks, ei­ther out of Fear or Covetousness, was so stupi­fied, that he seem'd to be a Stone, and died within ten Days. But altho' Nabal is here said to be made a Stone, yet no one will conclude from thence, that he was actually Metamorphos'd into a Stone: So in like manner we must not suppose Lot's Wife was a Statue of Salt, for all she is said to become a Statue of Salt, or in Salt. The Latin Poets have used the like Expressions to signifie a mighty Amazement: Thus Ovid [Page 267]introduces Ariadne, who had been abondon'd by Theseus, and left all alone in a solitary Island, expressing her Grief and Wonder,

Metam, l. 5. ‘Mater ad auditos stupuit, ceu saxea, voces.’ And l. 13. speaking of Hecuba, after she had seen Polydorus's dead Body,

VII. In the most ancient Histories of the Greeks, which are called [...], we find innumera­ble Stories or Fables, not corrupted so much for the sake of Lying, but because the Narrations of the ancient Inhabitants were not understood well enough, and because their Metaphorical Expressions were erroniously interpreted in the proper or literal Sense. We will here set down some few Examples of it, which we hope will not be unpleasant or disagreeable to the Rea­der.

They that first related the History of Niobe, who was destroy'd by Grief, dirigius (que) males; i. e. was rendred stupid, or sensless, by her Mis­fortunes, perhaps expressed it after such a man­ner [Page 268]as we find the Sacred Historian did in the Story of Nabal; which after Ages, not regard­ing the Meaning, so understood, as if Niobe had been really changed into a Statue of Stone. But Men of more acute Understandings were aware that something else was formerly meant by it. Niobe, says Tully, in his Tusc. 3. was for a rea­son supposed to be turned into a Stone; because, as I imagine, she was everlastingly silent in her Grief. Palaephatus de incred. Hist. c. 9. who e­ver believes a Man was made of a Stone, or a Stone made of a Man, is a Fool. But the Re­ality of the Truth is this: Niobe, after the Death of her Children, caused her own Statue to be made, and placed it upon their Sepulchre. We might here observe by the bye, that Niobe's Misfortune is said to have happened in Phry­gia; which Country, as we have remark'd in the former Dissertation, has a great Affinity with the Valley of Sodom, since both of them are [...], i. e. burnt. We might add too, that Niobe's Children are reported to be buried by the Gods; which Tzetzes thus interprets, Chil. 4. Carm. 141.

His Conjecture had been far better supported, if he had told us that they were swallowed up by [Page 269]an Earthquake; at that time when Sipylus, where they lived, was overwhelmed in ruines, as we observed before, and that People in fol­lowing times said they were buried by the Gods, because they were cover'd with Earth, without any humane Labour or Assistance. We might likewise take notice, that this Earthquake occasion'd some Lakes near Sipylus to make this Misfortune of Niobe more like the Death of Lot's Wife; but here we only regard those fi­gurative Expressions, from whence these Fables arose. We will only add, that both of 'em are joined together by Clemens Alexandrinus for the likeness of their Destruction, in Admonit. ad Gentes; p. 65. For have not all of you been chang'd into Men without Sense, like some Ni­obe; or to speak more mystically, like the Wife of that Hebrew, whom the Ancients called Lot?

The Story of Medusa, one of the Gorgons, seems to proceed from the same Original. The Graecians had been informed by the Phaenicians, that in the Atlantic Ocean, beyond a Moun­tain which is called [...]; i. e. the Ve­hicle of the Gods, an Island was discover'd, the Inhabitants of which were cover'd all over with Hair like Beasts, and appear'd in so terrible a shape at first to those that beheld them, that with Fear and Surprize, they were as it were changed into Stones; which in the Phaenician Language, wou'd be thus express'd, & viderunt, & facti sunt in lapides; and they saw, and were [Page 270]made into stones. The Greeks so understood it, as if Men by only looking upon them were actually turned into real stones. Which is full as absurd as if the words of Job, c. 41.19. where he describes the mighty strength of a Crocodile, and says, that the stones of a Sling are by him turned into Stubble, should be so wretchedly misinterpreted, as if the sacred Writer affirm'd, there was a certain Beast in the World indu'd with that wonderful Vertue, that it cou'd turn the stones that were thrown at him into stubble. The Phaenicians had added, that there were se­veral Women in that Island, which they call'd [...], because perhaps they call'd the Island Gorgah in their own Language; which word, by an Arabism, signifies a stony Ground, as that Island was, whence the word Gorgith, i.e. a Woman of the Island Gorgah. The word Garagon like­wise is used by the Arabians, when Gorgon is formed. The Phaenicians had affirm'd it in their Relations, that none of these Men cou'd be taken because they fled towards the Mountains, and defended themselves with stones; but that they had taken three Women, who, because they as­saulted their Leaders with tooth and nail, were kill'd by them, and their Skins carried to Car­thage; from which place these Daughters of Phorcy's were taken by the Grecians; one of whom having her Head, which was cover'd with Snakes, cut off by Perseus, it was said to have turn'd Men into stones with only looking upon it. That most Learned Man Isaac Vossius. [Page 271]discover'd part of this a pretty while ago, and show'd that something of truth lurked under this Fable out of Hanno the General of the Car­thaginians; who, as he tells us himself in his Periplus, had been as far as these places, and from thence brought the Gorgon's Skin home to his own Country. We have more particularly explain'd it than he has done; however, 'tis a most certain Observation he made, that these Fables don't merely arise from nothing, as else­where it happens, but have truth for their foun­dation, as we find it verified in this instance.

Samuel Bochart has illustrated this Observa­tion with an infinite number of Examples in his Geographia sacra, which every one almost is ac­quainted with, and therefore I will not give my self the trouble to transcribe them here. I will only give one of my own to make it more plainly appear, that the Stile of the Oriental Writers, who always affected bold and pom­pous Metaphors, is not to be expounded by our modern way of speaking, which is one of the greatest Faults the Interpreters of them have committed. When they wou'd find out the Meaning of any Word or Expression, they ra­ther consider how they wou'd be understood if they spoke so now, than how those People who differ no less from us in Opinion and Fancy, than they are distant from us in relation to time or place, wou'd understand them.

The Fable of the Harpyes is well enough known, and we need not otherwise expound it [Page 272]than by comparing it with the truth. First, To begin with the name, [...] is the very same with the Hebrew word Arbeh, which signifies a Locust. Secondly, One of them is call'd Celae­no. Now in Syriac, Solhams is a kind of a Lo­cust, and the Letters M and N are frequently changed, as appears by the words Moph and Noph, the name of the City Memphis, and seve­ral other Examples. Another of them, as we are inform'd by Hyginus, Fab. 14. was called Achelöe, which is certainly derived from achal, to eat or to devour, as Salham in Chaldee, from whence the name of the former is derived. A­nother's name was Aello, which word comes from the Phaenician hahol, which signifies a Storm, (for which see S. Bochart's Canaan, l. 1. c. 33.) because the Winds commonly bring the Locusts. Thirdly, This is a reason why they are said to be the Daughters of a Tempestuous Wind. Valerias Flaccus, l. 4. speaking of Ce­laeno, says;

The Wind brought the Locusts into Aegypt, as we find in Moses, Exod. 10.13. Fourthly, They were carried away by a contrary Wind, as ap­pears by the 19th Verse of the same Chapter. So in the Poets Zethes and Calais, the winged Sons of Boreas drive them away from Phineus, that is, the Northern Winds. Fifthly, The Har­pyes created a Famine in the Country of Phineus King of Bithynia.

If they leave any thing untouch'd behind them, as one complains in Apollonius, l. 2. The Locusts as they greedily devour every green thing, occasion a Famine or Dearth where ever they come. Bochartus has abundance of things upon this occasion, Hieroz. part 2. l. 4. in the six first Chapters. Sixthly, The Harpyes are reported to have left a most nasty Smell behind them, as Phineus tells us in Appollonius, in the following Verses; viz. v. 229.

How patly this agrees with the Locusts, will sufficiently be demonstrated by these words of St. Jerome in his Commentary upon Joel, ch. 2. We have beheld in our times vast Armies of Locusts cover the Land of Judaea; which after­wards, through the Mercy of the Lord, were by a strong Gale of Wind carried into the Sea: — And when the Sea Shores were fill'd with prodigious heaps of these Locusts that were drowned in the water, the noisome Putrefaction and Smell of them was so hurtful, that it in­fected the very Air, and caused a Pestilence as well of Beasts, as Men. 'Tis said, the Cossacks sometimes have vast numbers of them, which after they are dead leave an abominable Stink [Page 274]behind them. Seventhly, The Harpyes destroy'd whatever they touched, as Plineas complains in the above-mentioned Verses, and so do the Lo­custs, as S. Bochart acquaints in his Hieroz, p. 2. l. 4. c. 3. Eighthly, The Harpyes when they came to devour Phineas's Meat, came with a mighty Swiftness and Noise, which Apollonius thus describes, v. 267.

Bochartus, in the fifth Chapter of the above­mentioned Book, will sufficiently inform us, what a horrid noise the Locusts make with their Teeth, and with their Flying. Ninthly, Phi­neus could not drive away the Harpyes.

Nor can the Violence of the Locusts be avoid­ed, as we find in Joel, ch. 2. and the incompa­rable Bochart in his fourth Chapter, where he interprets the words of Joel. Tenthly, The Har­pyes ravaged Phineus's House against his Will. They march through the City, says Joel, ch. 2.9. they climb the Houses, they creep in at the ve­ry Windows like a Thief. In that part of Scy­thia [Page 275]which the Cossacks now inhabit, there are such vast numbers of Locusts, that they get in­to their Houses and Beds, and leap upon their Tables and Meat, that the People can scarce sit down to Dinner without these troublesome Guests, as those that have travell'd through those Countries have testified in writing. See Monsieur Thevenot's Collection of Travels, Part 1. in his Description of the Cossacks. Eleventhly, The Harpyes could not be wound­ed, as Virgil tells us.

Joel says the same of the Locusts, ch. 2.4. They rush through Darts, and are not wounded, and indeed this swift and sudden Plague cannot be beaten away by Arms. Twefthly, Appollonus and Valerius Flaccus tells us, that by an unusual Anger of the Gods they were sent to Phineus; and that is the reason why the former calls them [...], the Dogs of great Jupiter; and by the latter they are stiled deae, i. e. Goddesses.

And so in Joel, ch. 2.11. the Locusts are called the Army of the Lord.

This, as I imagine, sufficiently shows, that the figurative Expressions of the Eastern Peo­ple, unless they are rightly understood, may occasion great Mistakes; and now, no one will admire that we have given another Interpre­tation of the Statue of Salt, than is commonly done, and which the words at the first sight seem to intimate.

VIII. From hence we may gather how little Foundation there is in this Expression, and she was a Statue of Salt; as likewise in the words of our Saviour, This is my Body; to infer a re­al Conversion of the Bread into the Body of Chirst; which Passage some Learned Men in France have lately too greedily laid hold of to defend their monstrous Opinion. We shall not here prosecute the other Differences between this Expression and the Words of Christ, even though we acknowledged there was a real Me­tamorphosis of Lot's Wife; for we resolved to meddle with no Controversies here, but thought fit to expose the Weakness of this Argument, being thereunto led by this History.

Seeing therefore that matters are so as we have represented them, we think we may make bold to affirm, that the common Belief of the Pillar of Salt, wholly proceeded from misun­derstanding the words of Moses, and has been obstinately maintain'd by the Vanity of some, [Page 277]and the Credulity of others. Nor is there any reason, as we hope we have fully demonstra­ted, to oppose the Consent and Authority of the Ancients to our Opinion, which the most bigotted Patron of them will never pretend that they are to be received blindly, and with­out examination; or when they are proved up­on a due search to be ill-grounded, and contra­dictory to Reason, that they are to be preferr'd before a better. What then? Shall I follow the footsteps of the Ancients? I will indeed follow the beaten road, but if I can find out a nearer and plainer way; I will keep to that. They that writ before us, are our Guides, but not our Masters. The truth lies open for all; it is not wholly possess'd as yet, but much of it is still left for the Discovery of those that come behind us. Sen. Epist. 33.

I. THere is scarce any Place in the whole Bible, which has more employ'd the Jewish and Christian Interpreters, than this Passage in Genesis. 1. The three Chaldee Para­phrasts, Onkelos, Jonathan, and that of Jerusa­lem, with severall Rabbines of the same Opini­on, whose Testimonies have been Collectd by Learned Men, affirm, that the Remarkable De­liverer, whom by way of Excellence they call'd the Messias, was signified by the word Shilo. But a very celebrated Rabbine, Aben Ezra by name, opposes his Country-men, and maintains, that David of the Tribe of Judah, and afterwards King, was here meant. But altho' we own that [Page 279]the Tribe of Judah, ever since Jacob's time, en­joyed some Prerogative of honour above the rest; yet in the first place, neither Scepter, nor Lawgiver, belonged more to that, than any of the other Tribes, till David was advanced to the Throne: In the common Administration of Affairs, the other Tribes were never con­cluded by their Votes, nor had they any man­ner of dependence upon them, nay the Tribe of Benjamin had a King chosen out of their body before that of Judah. And therefore it cou'd never be said that Judah should have a Scepter and Lawgiver, till David's Elevation to the Regal Dignity; for although it should be al­low'd, yet in what sense cou'd it be said, that the Kingdom should remain with Judah, till the coming of him who fixt the Crown in that Tribe.

II. Some Jewish and Christian Interpreters are fully agreed, that something is here pro­mised to the Tribe of Judah, or to the whole body of Israel, which was to cease at the coming of the Messias, or a short time after. Those that maintain the whole Republick of the He­brews descended from Jacob to be meant here, don't consider that Jacob foretells their Destiny in this place, to each Tribe one after another; nor can they produce one single instance out of the Scriptures, where the whole People of Is­rael are call'd Judah, before the Babylonian Cap­tivity. Neither can it be replied, that Jacob might very well give his Posterity this name, [Page 280]because the Holy Ghost, who spoke out of his Mouth, knew that the time when this Pro­phecy was to be fulfilled, the common name of all the Tribes should be that of the ^* Jews; be­cause, as we observ'd just before, Jacob only says such things as belonged to every Tribe in particular, and does not mingle their common lot together; and besides, if the last words of this Prophecy are to be understood of the Peo­ple of Israel in general, why should not the former be so too? and that being once granted, how cou'd the Interpreters say that Shilo ought to be descended from Judah?

Therefore it necessarily follows, that some­thing peculiar is foretold to the Tribe of Judah in this place. The Ancients were of opinion, that the Administration of all Affairs in the Jewish Republick was in the Tribe of Judah, ever since the time when Jacob pronounced these words, to the coming of our Saviour. Now, 'tis certain, that neither before King David, nor after Zedekiah, any one of the Tribe of Judah had the Regal Authority, as all that are never so little conversant with sacred History will own. Therefore others acknowledge, that there was indeed no King of the Tribe of Judah be­fore David, and after Zedekiah; but for all that [Page 281]maintain, it may truly be said that the Jewish Republick should not be utterly dissolved before the coming of the Messias, because out of that Tribe the Common-wealth recovered their strength by degrees, and preserv'd some sort of Government in their hands, even till the days of Christ. But Jacob does not promise, that the Scepter should continue with Judah, and not be wholly taken from him, till the Messias should come, but that it should not depart from him; which Expression plainly denotes, the perpetual Continuation of a Kingdom, interrupted by no Calamities.

III. Some Jews are of opinion, that 'tis here prophecy'd of Judah, that the Rod wherewith he is to be beaten, shall not depart from him; but that still one or other shall command, and impose Laws upon him, till the coming of the Messias. But besides, that the particular words, which compose this Prediction, will by no means admit of this Interpretation, it is appa­rently false, whither we understand the Tribe of Judah, or the whole People of Israel, as it may easily be proved by the History of the Old Testament, and particularly the Reigns of David and Solomon.

We will not pursue this Argument any far­ther, which wou'd furnish matter enough for a large Volume, if it were to be examined with all that Nicety it deserves. But the Reader may consult for his farther Satisfaction Hueti­us's Demonstratio Evangelica, Prop. 9. Cap. 4. [Page 282]where he has set down all the different Opinions with incredible Pains and Acuracy. To him may be added the Pugio Fidei, p. 2. cap. 4. with the Learned Observations of Jos. de Voisin, where the several Testimonies of the Rabbines chiefly are collected. We shall only subjoin another Interpretation of this Prophecy, which they have not taken notice of; and some Peo­ple perhaps upon a due examination will find it to be more agreeable not only to the Gramma­tical Sense of the words, but also to the Events here predicted.

IV. Some Persons therefore believe, that Ja­cob promised nothing more to Judah in this place, but that when the Regal Dignity had once honour'd his Tribe, it should be translated to no other, but continue there till it was whol­ly extinguished. The Maintainers of this Opi­nion interpret Shiloh to be the End or Cessati­on of it, to wit, of the Scepter and Royal Po­wer. Now if this were the true Interpretation of the word, there is nothing in Jacob's Pre­diction which wou'd occasion the least difficul­ty: for it appears by the sacred History, that from the time that David sate upon the Throne of Israel, the Kings descended from him go­vern'd the Tribe of Judah without the Inter­vention of any other Family, till the Kingdom of Judah was wholly dissolv'd. Whereas in the Kingdom of the ten Tribes, even before it was utterly destroy'd by Salmanassar, the Re­gal Dignity did not stand in one, but several [Page 283]Tribes, according to the different Descent of their Kings. The chief Objection that can be rais'd against this Interpretation will be, that it disarms the Christians of an Oracle, own'd by the Jews themselves, whereby they have suc­cessfully prov'd against the latter, that the Mes­sias was already come. But an Interpreter must not always consider what the Jews will give him leave to say, or what wou'd be serviceable to his Cause, if it were true, but what is really consonant to the Truth it self, no less than if there were no such People as the Jews now in the World, or if we had never had the least Dispute with them about the coming of the Messias. Though the Jews were not mistaken in their Expectation of the Messias, yet all those places in the Old Testament, which out of their former immoderate, and now their prepo­sterous Desire of his coming, they have ex­pounded concerning him, must not therefore be affirmed to relate to him, merely because the Jews think so. That the Rabbins have forced several Passages in the Bible to favour the Mes­sias, without any reason on their side, is suffi­ciently known to those that have either read them, or what the Christians have collected out of their Writings. Therefore as it was a true Tradition of the ancient Jews, that there should come at last a Deliverer to Israel, so any unprejudiced Person will own that they might sometimes commit Mistakes in expounding some Text of the O. Testament, which they supposed to relate to him.

V. This we don't say with that prospect, as if we had the Vanity to imagine that this last Interpretation of Jacob's Prophecy ought to take place of all other, whether already found out, or hereafter to be discover'd, as being the unquestionable meaning of this Passage: but that after the Merits of all the other Opinions have been impartially considered, it will more plainly appear either on which side the Truth stands, or where and by what Methods it is to be acquir'd, or lastly why it cannot be found out?

AND God said let there, ch. 1.3.] The He­brews commonly describe God working all things by his Word, to denote his transcen­dent Power over the whole Creation, and with what ease he does whatever he pleases. Thus the Psalmist, Psalm 33.6. By the Word of the Lord were the Heavens made, and all the Host of them by the Breath of his Mouth: Psalm 148.5. He commanded, and they were created. And as he creates by his Commands, so he destroys after the same manner. He shall smite the Earth, says Isaiah, c. 11.4. with the Rod of his [Page 285]Mouth, and with the Breath of his Lips he shall slay the Wicked. If there is any Sublimity in these Expressions, as we own there is, it is to be ascribed to the Genius of the Hebrew Language, and not to the Eloquence of Moses, as Longinus, [...] imagined: for other­wise Moses rather uses an humble stile in his Historical Narrations, as Huetius has observed, Prop. 4. c. 2. Dem. Evang.

And the Earth brought forth Grass, ch. 1.12.] This Verse is a meer Repetition of the former, which after Moses had said and it was so, was al­together unnecessary. But the Hebrew Wri­ters are far from that Severity of the Atticks, who could not endure any Superfluities. Seve­ral things are redundant in the sacred Volumes, and others defective, which wou'd not a little contribute to the Perspicuity of the Sentence. However, this is not so much to be attributed to their Writers, as to the Condition of their Language, which the most partial Patron of it must acknowledge to be unpolished and uncul­tivated, though it sometimes affects, as has been observed in the preceding Praragraph, ac­cording to the Genius of the other Oriental Languages, a pompous and magnificent way of Expression.

God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, ch. 2.3.] As one contrary is best illustrated by another, it will not be mal à propos to enquire what is the meaning of Maledi­cere diis, i▪ e. to curse a day; that so we may [Page 286]understand what it is, benedicere dici, or to bless a day. Among the Hebrews that was said to be a maledictus dies, or a cursed day, which the Greeks called [...], and the Romans exsecrabiles, or unauspicious, by reason of some remarkable Destruction or Calamity which had happen'd on that day. Thus, Jeremiah 20.14. the Prophet to denote how wretched a Life he lived, Cursed be the day, says he, wherein I was born: let not the day wherein my Mother bore me be blessed: That is, let that day be reckoned ominous in all future Ages, for the Birth of an unfortunate Child. The Roman Senate out of a servile Compliment to Nero, decreed that A­grippina's Birth-day should be reckon'd among the dies nefasti, as we find in Tacitus, Ann. 14.12. Which Custom the Romans borrowed from the Graecians, and they from the Oriental Peo­ple. Now on such a day they were forbidden to show any publick mirth, or rejoycing in me­mory of the unlucky Accident whatever it was, that happen'd on it. Hence Job cursing the day of his Nativity, wishes, ch. 3.7. that no joy be in it. And therefore to curse a day, is all one as to pray that it may become execrable and o­minous, and that all Demonstrations of Glad­ness may be intermitted upon it; to bless a day is to wish that it may be esteemed fortunate, and celebrated with publick Rejoycings, and a blessed day is the same with a happy, or a festi­val day. From these Premises it follows, that when God is said to have blessed the seventh [Page 287]day, we are to understand by that passage, De­um voluisse eum diem festem haberi, & hilaritèr transigi. However, we are not to infer from this place, that Mankind ever since the Crea­tion of Adam, observ'd this day as a Festival, because Moses when he relates the History of the earliest times, frequently takes occasion to re­mind the Israelites of the Original of some Rites which he instituted; and does not speak as Adam, or those that were before him would have done if they had transmitted their own Actions in writing, but suits himself to the Language and Genius of his own times. See chap. 7.2.

To see what he would call them, c. 2.19.] Here the famous Axiom of the Rabbines takes place, Loquitur lex ut filij hominum, for God did not want the help of Adam to give names to the Beasts. Perhaps this was not done in the compass of one day, if as some believe, Adam viewed all the several sorts of Animals, neither is it credible that all the Creatures in the Uni­verse, both wild and tame, and all the Fishes, were brought before Adam to receive their names. In all appearance those Beasts and Fowls that are peculiar to America, never came upon this Errand, neither will any one I be­lieve, presume that the Fishes quitted their Ele­ment for this purpose. We have already ob­served in our Dissertation upon the Flood, that the word all is frequently applied to signify some certain kinds, but not omnia genera, and [Page 288]therefore we may suppose that with Eve's Con­sent Adam bestowed particular names upon some of the tamer and most common Animals in Syria. For what occasion had Adam for Speech and Names of things, so long as he was alone? Therefore the order to be neglected here, as it frequently is; see ch. 1. [...].5, 8, 10.

Now because this is related in a few words, we must not therefore conclude, that it was transacted in a few hours, and therefore we lie under no necessity to affirm with some Inter­preters, that by a miraculous and extraordina­ry Effect of the Divine Power all sorts of living Creatures came in troops to Adam to have names bestowed upon them. 'Tis more agree­able to reason to believe that words were inven­ted by degrees, and that these Animals receiv­ed their names as our first Parents happen'd to behold them, or to talk of them.

And whatsoever Adam called every living Creature, that was the name thereof, ibid.] The Rabbines pretend that these names were given them in the Hebrew Tongue; but how preca­riously this is affirmed, we have plainly shown in our Dissertation about the Hebrew Tongue. Perhaps Moses designed to hint in this place that the Invention of a Language, which is of such absolute necessity to all the affairs of hu­mane Life, was one of the first cares of our first Parents: or perhaps the Sovereignty of Man over the Beasts, is intimated by this be­stowing of names upon them. Whence [Page 289]among the Eastern People those that had new Masters, had new names given them by them, as Joseph from Pharaoh, Gen. 41.45. Eliakim King of Judah from Pharoah Necha, 2 Chron. c. 36.4. And Daniel and his Companions, by Ne­buchadnezzar, Dan. 1.7. The Rabbines likewise, and some of the Interpreters, pretend that Adam bestow'd these names with great Sagacity and Wisdom; from whence they conclude, that he was acquainted with their different natures, as Bochart endeavours to show, Hieroz. part 1. lib. 1. cap. 9. But that Learned Man takes it for granted all along, that Adam spoke He­brew, such as we find it in the holy Volumes, which as we have already observed, is doubt­ful. Besides, those names are sometimes ta­ken from something remarkable obvious in the Animals, which any one might have discovered at first sight. In short, most of the Reasons of the Hebrew names are supported by very slight Conjectures, and are by no means to be obtru­ded as certainly true, upon such as are well skilled in these matters: not to repeat what we said before, that but few of the Animals had names immediately given them, but only as our first Parents took notice of them, or knew them by frequent Experiments.

And he took one of his ribs, c. 2.21.] From this, or some such sort of a Narration among the Orientals, Plato in Eusebius's Opinion, Praep. Evang. l. 12. c. 12. seems to have taken what he [Page 290]writes concerning the nature of the first Man, in his Symposian, where he supposes that he was at first [...], both Man and Woman grow­ing together, and that this Animal afterwards was divided into two parts, one of which be­came a Man, and the other a Woman. The an­cient Rabbines reading this Passage in Plato, as they were always fond of Monsters and Prodi­gies; they soon liked it, and endeavoured to countenance this strange Opinion by some pla­ces of Scripture absurdly applied, as particularly c. 12. Male and Female he created them. Now that this Doctrine was first borrowed from Pla­to, and afterwards crusted over with the Au­thority of the Bible to recommend it the better, we shall be soon convinced if we consider that the Rabbines had several other Opinions of the same nature, which they took originally out of this Philosopher, and then published them as if they had taken them out of the Scriptures, as the notion of the Transmigration of Souls, and the like. Therefore we have no reason to won­der, as the Learned Grotius does, that the Rab­binical Expositions agree so well with Plato's Doctrine. Thus we see the Christian Interpre­ters frequently expound the Scripture, so as to make it support the Hypothesis of the ancient or modern Philosophers.

And were not ashamed. c. 2.25.] We use to blush when we are discovered committing some­thing which is in its own nature evil, and con­sequently [Page 291]unlawful; or when we do something which is indeed lawful, but not in such a manner or at such a time. Neither of which cou'd be said to be here, for neither is it immoral [...]o go with­out Cloaths, neither if it is unlawful to do so before others, is it unlawful before ones Wife alone. 'Tis therefore somewhat strange how our first Parents should afterwards be ashamed of the Nakedness, when there were no more in the World but themselves.

Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering, ch. 4.3.] Grotius thinks this was done by no positive Command of God, but merely by the Dictates of nature, which sug­gested to him, that as a conspicuous Respect was to be paid to his Maker, so he was obli­ged to shew it by offering those things to him which are most esteemed by Men. Several ancient Christians and Jews were of the same Opinion, as Outram in his Treatise De Sa­crificijs, l. 1. c. 1. has shown. But others as­sign the Original of Sacrifices to an express Command of God; which I am the easier in­clined to believe, because that in the begin­ning of the World, after our first Parents were guilty of so notorious a Defection, Man­kind in all probability was too rude and ig­norant to find out of themselves, that the Be­nificence and Power of God was to be ac­knowledged by these external Ceremonies. God who, [...], fed [Page 292]them, and was their Governor, as Plato speaks of the Men of the Golden Age, seems to have taught them these Rites, least in process of time they should forget their Creator.

Of the firstlings of the flock, and the fat there­of, ch. 4.4.] Since eating of Flesh seems to have been unknown before the Flood, there­fore Grotius supposes that no Victims were sacrificed, because nihil deo sacrari solet, nisi quod in usu sit hominum. As this reason is by no means to be rejected, so he omits a­nother of no less importance, which is brought from the Scarcity of Creatures. In the be­ginning there were but small numbers of Oxen, Sheep and Goats, and therefore it is scarce credible that the munificent Lord of the Universe wou'd have them lessened mere­ly for his own honour, since it wou'd be so prejudicial to Mankind. For the same reason Triptolemeus enacted a Law. [...], that no Animals should be hurt; [...], to worship the Gods with the fruits of the Earth. Long after him Draco comman­ded the same, for which consult Porphyrius de Abstinentia, l. 4. Varro de R. R. l. 2. c. 4. speaking of the Oxe; hic socius hominum in rustico opere, & cereres Minister. Ab hoc An­tiqui manus ita abstineri voluerunt, ut capite sanxerint, siquis occidisset. Quâ in re testis At­tice, testis Attice, testis Peloponneses.

To come now to Abel's Oblation, since the Hebrew hhalab signifies Milk as well as Fat; I should chuse to render it by the former, and believe that by a common [...], with the Hebrews, Abel brought of the firstlings of his Flock, and of the Milk thereof, is put in­stead of, Abel brought of the Milk of the first­lings of his flock. 'Tis credible that God wou'd have them signify by this Rite that the in­crease of all Creatures was owing to him: And perhaps for the same reason the Aegyp­tians offer'd Milk to their Deities, See Diod. Bibl. lib. 1.

A Fugitive, and a Vagabond shalt thou be, ch. 4.12.] It may not be amiss here to ob­serve that amongst the Graecians and other Peo­ple, in the earliest times of Antiquity, Mur­der was punished with Banishment. Thus Medon the Brother of Ajax was banished to Phylace.

Far from his native Country having killed a Man] Several Examples of this nature Fei­thius has collected in his Antiqu. Homer, l. 2. cap. 8. And as the Learned Spelman has ob­served in the time of the Saxons, it was not pu­nished with Death here in England.

Shem, Ham, and Japhet, c. 5.32.] Tho' we read that Noah begot these three Sons, af­ter [Page 294]he was five hundred years old, yet it is not mentioned which of them is the eldest. How­ever, we may gather that the Rights of Pri­mogeniture belonged to Japhet, from Gen. 11.10. Shem was a hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad, two years after the flood; that is, in the sixth hundred and second year of Noah, for the Deluge fell out in the sixth hundred com­pleatly. And therefore Shem was born to Noah when he was five hundred and two years old, and consequently was not his first-begotten, since he began to get Children when he was five hundred years old. And as for Ham he is expresly said, Gen. 9.24. to be the youngest; Whence it necessarily follows, that Japhet was the eldest, who is therefore, tho' by the bye, called Shem's elder Brother, Gen. 10.21.

Nevertheless, either because the Nation of the Hebrews was descended from Shem, or because the Rights of Primogeniture were transferred to him, though the sacred Histo­ry takes no notice of it; he is both here, and sometimes below, nominated first, as se­veral Learned Men have imagined. And thus Abraham's Name is mentioned before his Brother's, chap. 11.26. Jacob's before Esau, chap. 28.5. and Ephraim's before Manasseh, chap. 48.20. I wish they had informed us why Ham the youngest is reckoned the second in order, and Japhet last though he was the first begotten, both here and chap. 7.13. chap. [Page 295]9.18. chap. 10.1. and elsewhere. 'Tis cer­tain that in his Father's Blessing, chap. 9.27. Japhet is unquestionably preferred to Ham. But perhaps in all these Matters we are more curious than we need; and indeed in the rec­koning up of the Generations, chap. 10. Japhet is placed first, and Shem the last. After the same manner Jacob, who is generally set before Esau, is named after him, chap. 35.29. And Jacob gave up the ghost, and died, and was ga­thered unto his people, being old and full of days: and his Sons, Esau and Jacob buried him.

Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee, chap. 7.2.] Those Creatures seem first to be called clean, which those that call'd them so, fed upon; as on the other hand, those were called unclean, from which they ab­stain'd; for whatever reasons they did it, 'tis certain there is no Cleanness or Ʋncleanness in the Animals themselves, as the different use of different Nations sufficiently testifies. Af­ter the Mosaical Law there was a twofold Cleanness and Uncleanness in Animals; for only three sorts of clean Quadrupeds, and two of Birds, were allowed in Sacrifices, Lev. 1, 2.14. whereas several more were permitted to be eaten; see Levit. 11. But it is doubted whe­ther this Distinction was known in Noah's time, because 'tis highly probable that no sort of Flesh was eaten before the Flood. Those that maintain the Affirmative, ground themselves [Page 296]upon this Text. However, though God Al­mighty is here introduced speaking in a direct Oration, according to the Genius of the Ori­ental Languages; yet it is not manifest that he used these very terms. Perhaps he com­manded Noah to take Sevens of such Crea­tures as were wholesome for Food, which are here called clean, and only pairs of those that were unwholesome. And perhaps after all, the sacred Writer who has all along a grea­ter regard to the Sense than the bare words, accommodates himself to the Language of his own times.

And Noah went in and his Sons, chap. 7.7.] As Noah either had no more Children than these before the Deluge, or if he had, they were not alive: so likewise his Sons either had begot no Children before it happened, or else had buried them. Whatever side the Rea­der choses, it is evident from hence, that Man­kind before the Flood had not peopled many Countries. For if Noah's Family, when he was six hundred years old, only consisted of three Sons who had no issue, we may pro­bably suppose that several more had not a more numerous Off-spring.

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat to you, ch. 9.3.] Before the Deluge Man had so far a right over the living Creatures, that he might make use of their Milk, their Wool and their Skins, in case they happen'd to die, [Page 297]and while they were alive, might employ them to draw or carry his Burdens, but was not al­lowed to seed upon them. Otherwise it had been in vain to have given Noah a Permission here to do what was lawful for him before; and besides, Moses expresly tells us, chap. 29. that Herbs and Fruits were given to the Anti­diluvians for Meat. I shall not stay to con­fute some Theological or Philosophical Con­jectures which oppose this Exposition, since they cannot be admitted without committing violence upon the Mosaical History.

And told Abraham the Hebrew, c. 14.13.] Some are of opinion that this is a Patrony­mec Appellation derived from Heber, who is reckon among Abraham's Ancestors, ch. 11.14. But the Scripture no where tells us why the Hebrews should rather take their name from him than from any one else. 'Tis certain that Abraham might with as much, nay with more pretence have been called the Therachite or Nachorite; and we have already shown in our first Dissertation, that what the Rabbines im­pudently tell us of Heber's great Piety, and his preserving the ancient Religion and Language in his Family, is a groundless Fiction. There­fore others suppose it is derived from the Pre­position Heber, which signifies on the other side, because Abraham was born on the other side the Euphrates, and passed that River to [Page 298]come into Canaan. Of this Opinion were the LXX. who have translated it [...], and Origen upon Matthew, [...]. The same likewise was the Judg­ment of St. Jerome, whose words upon the 7th Chapter of Ezekiel are as follows; Abraham Hebraeus, i. e. [...], & peregrinus, transi­tor (que) memoratur. Now the reason why this Appellation was not given to the Edomites, or the other Descendants of Lot and Abraham, but only to Abraham's Posterity by Isaac and Jacob, is, because the first was really born be­yond the Euphrates, and the second fetched him a Wife from thence, as refusing to enter into such an Alliance with the Canaanites, whom in this particular Jacob followed, who likewise lived a great part of his Life on the o­ther side of that River.

Thou shalt go to thy Fathers in Peace, ch. 15.15.] This is a common Periphrasis of Death, like these in Latin, ire ad plures, ire in com­munem locum. R. Salomon concludes from hence, that Therah who was an Idolater, re­pented before he died, and that his Soul went to the Mantions of the Blessed, because it is here said, that Abraham who was a pious Man, and acceptable to God, shou'd go to him. But Sr. Jerome has rightly observed, that this Ex­pression is not to be depended upon, since the Good and Bad when they die, are equally said [Page 299]to go to their Fathers. The Hebrews likewise mean the same thing by this Phrase, to be ga­thered to his People; which is used concerning Abraham, ch. 25.8. but can be urged no more than the former, since 'tis plain that neither was Abraham buried with his Country-men the Chaldeans; but purchased himself a Mo­nument in Canaan: Neither can his Soul be said when it quitted his Body, to be in the same condition with that of the Chaldean Idolaters. However, these Phrases (whatever the Signifi­cation of them might afterwards be) seem to take their Original from such like Opinion as this, viz. that the Souls of the Dead go to some certain Recepcacles, where every Nation and Family live apart by themselves. Ezekiel, ch. 32. v. 22. and the following Verses, seems to allude to this Opinion, Ashur is there, and all her Company, &c.

And he lift up his Eyes, and looked, and lo three Men stood by him, ch. 18.2.] Some pre­tend that these were three Angels in humane shape; one of whom, as being chief of the Em­bassy, came to Abraham, and the other two went to carry God's Commands to Lot. But others are of Opinion, that he who is called Jehovah, v. 13, 14, 17, 20, 22. and whom A­braham calls the Judges of the Earth, v. 25.27. was the second Person of the holy Trinity. But as these People make the Divinity assume [Page 300]a humane shape upon trivial grounds, not al­together so becoming the Divine Majesty, so they have none of the Jews that lived in the Apostolical times to countenance their Opi­nion. 'Tis certain, that if Abraham did really entertain the highest God, the Exhortation of the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ch. 13.2. is one of the coldest things in the World, Be not forgetful to entertain Strangers, for there­by some have entertained Angels unawares. He ought to have added, nay and God himself, which had made his Argument much more efficacious. However, these ancient Stories of the Angels travelling up and down the Earth in humane shapes, seem to have given occasion to the Opinion of the Pagans, that the Gods used to visit Mankind. Thus one of Penelope's Suiters in the Odysses, blames Antinous for striking Ʋlysses, because, says he, the Gods are accustomed to travel thro' Towns and Cities in the Disguise of Guests, to behold the Manners and Behaviour of Mortals. See Acts 14, 11. Now it was not the Custom of Tra­vellers at this time to knock at the Door, or to speak to those Persons first by whom they hoped to be entertained: But they only stood in the High-way, waiting till they were cal­led, and at their departure used to receive a Viaticum from their Host, to support them upon the Road. For in those Ages there were no Inns in the Eastern Countries, no more [Page 301]than there are now a days, except a sew Kervansera's, as they call them, for the Re­ception of Strangers; so that they must ei­ther lye all night in the Streets if they came to any Town, or else lye in some Body's House who was so kind as to receive them. A remarkable Instance of this we find in Judges, ch. 19.15. Thus likewise among the Greeks and Romans, though in the latter Ages they had Inns and Victualing Houses, yet formerly they had none. Hence came the Fashion of lodging in private Houses, and hence Hospitality came to be so much commended. Upon which Argument consult Tomasinus de Tesseris.

And Abraham there called on the name of the Lord, the everlasting God, ch. 21.33.] Perhaps the sacred Historian added this Epi­thet here, to distinguish the true God, whom Abraham worshipped, from those Divinities that were sometimes born, and were to dye at last. If Philo Byblius's Sanchoniathon was a faithful Expositor of the Phaenician Theolo­gy, those People only own'd two Gods to be eternal, and held that the rest were gene­rated; for after that manner does he explain their Doctrine in Eusebius, Dem. Evang. l. 1. c. 10. He teaches that the first Principle of all things was a dark dusky Air full of Wind, or the breath of a dusky Air, and a turbid Chaos, [Page 302] encompassed with Darkness: That these were eternal, and had not an end in many Ages. And afterwards relates the Generations of the Gods, who alone were worshipt. The Gre­cians believed that the Nymphs were born with Oaks, and that they died along with them; and perhaps they borrowed this Opi­nion from the Oriental Nations, as they did several more. Thus we find in Plutarch, de Oracul. Defectu, that Cleombrotus supposes those Deities that had been the Presidents of Oracles formerly to be dead; upon which fol­lows the famous Story of the Death of Pan the Great, and other Relations of that nature; by which it appears that the Nymphs and Daemons, or their Gods of the lower rank, was commonly believed to be mortal, altho' they were long-lived. Therefore Abraham seems to have opposed the everlasting God, who had no beginning, and who is capable of no end; to some such sort of an Opinion received by the Eastern People.

And there was set Meat before him to eat, but he said, I will not eat till I have told my Errand.] In the ancient times it was usual to receive Strangers, and entertain them with a Repast, before they asked them any Que­stions. Thus after Nestor had given a plen­tiful Meal to Telemachus, Odysses, l 3. and the other had eaten as much as was sufficient, [Page 303]then at last the old Gentleman thought it high time to examine him: 'Tis best to ask News of Strangers, says he, ‘ [...],’ i. e. after they have filled their Bellies. Nay, sometimes several days pass'd over their Heads, before they thought fit to lay down the oc­casion of their coming. Thus Esdras and his Companions, who brought the Vessels belong­ing to the Temple, staid three days in Jeru­salem, before they restored them to the Priests. Thus, Iliad. 8. Homer tells us that the King of Lycia entertained Bellerophon for nine days successively, and that when the tenth Morn­ing appear'd, he began to ask him Questions. Dares Phrygius speaking of Antenon, who was sent Ambassador to Peleus, tells us, that the latter well-comed him for the space of three days, but on the fourth enquired upon what Message he came; Die quarto rogat eum quid venerit. After the same manner Laban here took Abraham's Servant within doors, and set some Meat before him, though he had no Ac­quaintance with him, and asked him no Que­stions; but the other finding that God had di­rectly sent him to Abraham's Relations, was in pain till he had delivered his Errand.

Tell me I pray thee thy name, ch. 32.22.] Some Interpreters suspect that Jacob knew his Antagonist, with whom he wrestled, to be an Angel, because he desired him to bless him; but then this Passage makes them at a stand: for how cou'd he imagine to be a jot the better after he knew the Angel's name. We are desirous to know the names of those, with whom we have any dealing, because when we once know that, we may find out who, and what manner of Men they are, by enquiring of those that are better acquainted with them. But since there is no Correspon­dence between us and the Angels, after we know the names of two or three of them, we know them no more than we did before. Thus Manoah, who took the Angel that ap­pear'd to him for a Prophet, desires him to tell him his name, and subjoins this reason for it, that when thy Sayings are come to pass, we may do thee honour; that is, give thee all the respect that is usually paid to a Prophet. 'Tis true indeed, that the Jews and the other Eastern People, talked much of the names of Angels in the following times; but 'tis scarce credible that in Jacob's days such Notions were current, nor do we find the least footstep of them in the Bible before Daniel.

Ask me never so much Dowry and Gift, ch. 34.12.] It was the Fashion of that Age for the Suitor to offer Presents to the young Woman's Parents, as appears plainly by this Passage. Thus also in the Heroical times, quorum mores, says our Author, multa Orien­talibus habent similia, among the Greeks, the Son-in-law that was to be paid his [...], to the Father of the Girl, which we learn from several places of Homer, collected by Feithi­us, in his Antiquitates Homericae, l. 2. c. II. As for instance, in the Odysses, where Vul­can is said to find Mars in very scurvy Cir­cumstances with his Wife, and to chain them both to their good Behaviour, he protests he will not release them, till her Father returns every farthing of the Portion he gave him for his Harlot of a Daughter, because she was hand­som. Hence Aristotle, Polit. l 2. c. 8. relating the most ancient Manners of the Greeks, tells us among other things, that they purchased their Wives of one another. At this day the same is practised by the Turks and Persians. See Thevenot's Travels, l. 1. c. 41.

And they gave unto Jacob all the strange Gods, and all their Ear-rings, c. 35.4.] There were two sorts of Ear-rings, one of which were chiefly worn by the Women for Orna­ment [Page 306]sake, but are not meant in this place; the other were esteemed sacred, and the Men used to wear them as an Amulet to preserve them from all harm. Perhaps too some fi­gures were ingraved upon them under a cer­tain Constellation, after the manner of Talis­mans, which the Idolatrous People fondly ima­gined to have great Efficacy in them. A­mong the Carthaginians, not only the free men, but their very Slaves had their Ears loaded with Rings. Plautus in Paenulo, Acts 5. sc. 2. speaking of the Punic Slaves, introduces Milphio thus discoursing with Agorastocles;

These Rings hung down from the top of the Ear, as appears from St. Austin, in whose time this Superstition still continued among some African Chrstians. These are his words, in Epist. 73. Execranda autem superstitio ligatu­rarum, in quibus etiam inaures virorum in summis ex unâ parte auriculis suspensae deputan­tur, sed ad serviendum Daemonibus adhibetur. These Rings, in his Questions upon this place, he calls the Phylacteries of Idols. Jacob's Ser­vants here seem to have carried such sort of [Page 307]Rings in their Ears, which he commanded them to lay aside, as being consecrated to strange Gods.

And they sate down to eat, ch. 37. v. 25.] After the manner of the Oriental People, who used to lay a Carpet upon the Floor, and so sate down to eat, which Custom still continues, and when they were in the Coun­try either sate upon the green Grass, or upon the Skin of some Beast. Among the ancient Persians, their Kings seem to have observed the same Posture, as appears by Darius's Ta­ble, which was so low, that when Alexander sate upon Cyrus's Throne, it served him for a Footstool. For thus Curtius, l. 5. c. 2. tells us, that afterwards he sate in the Royal Throne, which was much too high for him, and as his Feet did not touch the lowest Step, one of the King's Pages put a Table under them; which a little below is said to be the same where Da­rius dined. Homer's Heroes too sate at their Meat, but upon Seats.

I will go down into the Grave to my Son, ch. 37. v. 35.] In the Hebrew 'tis Scholah. The LXX have rendred it [...], and the Vulgar in infernum. This word and the an­cient Translations of it, have not a little em­ploy'd the Interpreters of the Old and New [Page 308]Testament. We shall set down the undoubt­ed Significations of it as briefly as we can, and then enquire in what Sense it is here to be taken. In the first place it signifies any place below the Superficies of the Earth, whe­ther made hollow by Art or Nature. Hence Isa­iah metaphorically uses it to denote a low and mean Condition, ch. 14.11. and for the same reason Jonas calls the Fish's Belly by the same name. Secondly, it is taken for a Grave or Sepulchre, Is. 14.15. where the King of Babylon is said to be brought down to Hell, to the sides of the Pit; which words are there set down as Synonimes. See likewise, Psalm 141.7. In the third place it does not so much seem to signify the Grave, as the State of the Dead, or the Place where they are poetically feign'd to rest, and discourse together. Thus in the 14th Chapter of Isa­iah, the King of Babylon, who is expresly said, v. 19, 20. to be cast out of the Grave, and to be denied a Burial, is yet in the ninth Verse supposed to go Scholah to Hell, where the Dead come to meet him. Hell (Schol) from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming; it stirreth up the Dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the Earth; it has raised up from their Thrones all the Kings of the Nations: All they shall speak, &c. see Ezekiel, ch. 32. And by this word is meant not the [Page 309]Mansions of the happy, such as the Elysian Fields, or the fortunate Islands, were among the Grecians, but the common Receptacle of the Dead in general, as appears not only by the above-mentioned places, but Job, c. 2.17. ch. 10.21. and several other Passages of the Old Testament. Now 'tis past dispute that it is not here to be taken in the first Sig­nification; so that the Question is, Whether Jacob meant the Grave, or else the Place and State of the Dead? It cannot be pretended that he meant the former; for how cou'd he say, I will go down into the Grave to my Son, since he did not believe him to be buried, but to be torn to pieces by a wild Beast? Therefore we must understand it of the Place or State of the Dead, as the LXX Interpre­ters have done, who have rendred it [...]; and the Vulgar, Descendam ad filium meum lugens in infernum. But what Sentiments Jacob had of that State or Receptacle of the Decea­sed, no Circumstances out of History inform us, nor can we safely judge of his, by our own Opinion upon that matter.

You are Spies, to see the Nakedness of the Land are you come, ch. 42.9.] This Suspi­cion of Joseph was so much the more plau­sible, because his Brothers came from those [Page 310]parts, by which alone Aegypt is accessible on the side of Asia. This is the only place, says Herodotus, l. 3. c. 5. where Aegypt can be openly enter'd; where he relates at large how Cambyses invaded it, and marched with his Army this way. Consult but Ptolomy's Tables, and the matter appears plain enough. It was on all sides secured from the hostile Incursions of the Africans, if we may believe Diodorus Siculus, lib. 1. Bibl. by large unpas­sable Deserts. The Sea which lies to the Northwards of it, is shallow and destitute of Harbours, so that it did not fear an Invasi­on from that quarter: Only on the Eastern Frontier it lay open and unguarded. For this reason Sesostris, to secure his Pass against the Irruptions of the Syrians and Arabians, for­tified it with a Wall fifteen hundred furlongs in length, which reached from Pelusium to Heliopolis, Diod. lib. 1. p. 52. and upon the same account perhaps it was that Nero the Son of Psammetichus, King of Aegypt, drew a Trench from the Pelusiac Arm of the Nile, to the Gulf of Arabia, and endeavoured to joyn the Mediterranean to the Southern Sea.

They knew not that Joseph understood them, for he spoke unto them by an Interpreter, ch. 42.23.] Although the Aegyptian and He­brew Language nearly resembled one another, [Page 311]yet there might be that difference between them, as the Canaanites and the Aegyptians cou'd not understand one another in ordina­ry Discourse. Thus we see the French don't understand the Italians or Spaniards, although these three Languages are derived from the Latin; and thus in the time of the Kings, the Jews did not commonly understand the Chaldean Tongue, as appears from 2 Kings, ch. 18. v. 26. Now 'tis evident from this place, that Jacob's Sons spoke in the Canaani­tish Language, unless we wou'd rather suppose them to speak Chaldee, and not a Tongue which was only peculiar to one Family, as the Rabbines pretend: for then how had it been possible to have procured an Interpreter, unless we suppose that one of Jacob's Ser­vants had run away from his Master, and fled into Aegypt, of which we don't find the least mention.

They sate before him, the first-born accord­ing to his Birth-right, and the youngest accord­ing to his Youth; and he took and sent Messes unto them, but Benjamin 's Mess was five times so much as any of the rest, ch. 43. v. 33.] Though we have no account in any Profane Authors of the Customs used by the Anci­ents at their Feasts, which equal this in An­tiquity, yet it may receive some Illustration [Page 312]from what we find in Homer. In the first place Homer's Heroes did not sit down pro­miscuously, as we do about our round Ta­bles, but every Man according to his Qua­lity, or the Respect which the Master of the Feast was minded to show him. Thus Hector upbraids Diomede when he run away, that the Grecians honour'd him with a Seat and Flesh, and full Cups.

The [...] here seems to be the [...], as Eustathius has remarked upon this place, that is, the chief Seat at Table. Secondly, 'tis e­vident that in the Heroical times they used long Tables, or perpetuae mensae, as Virgil calls them: So that the most honourable Seat was consequently at the upper end, where we may suppose Reuben sate, and his other Brethren below him, according to their Age. Thirdly, as here in Moses, so we find in Ho­mer that each of the Guests had his equal Dividend of Meat, unless a greater Portion was bestowed upon any one of them, to show him more Honour. For this reason, as Athe­naeus informs us, l. 11. Homer calls them [...], or equal Feasts. In short, as it appears from the above-mentioned place in Homer, where mention is made of Diomede, [Page 313]that he had a larger share of Victual al­low'd him upon the score of his Valour; so Joseph ordered Benjamin to be treated after this manner, honoris causâ.

The Cup whereby my Lord divineth, chap. 44.5.] The sacred Volumes no where take notice of any Divination perform'd by a Cup; and what several Learned Men have told us of the Effusion of Wine in the Jewish Sacri­fices out of a Cup, is nothing to the pur­pose, since it does not at all appear that they gathered any Auguries that way. The an­cient Grecians indeed made a Judgement of future Events by the noise of the Wine poured out in honour of the Divinity, and before their Libations pray'd to the Gods to send them some auspicious Signs. Some­times too they threw this Wine into the Fire, and the greater the Flame was, so much the better was the Omen. We find in 2 Samuel 23.16. that Water was some­times poured out unto the Lord; but the Scripture in no place informs us that the Jews gather'd any Omens from thence. And therefore as the Greeks borrow'd great part of their Religious Rites from the Ae­gyptians, 'tis probable that the latter, ob­served the same Method in their Libations, and that Joseph had a respect to them here.

That you may dwell in the Land of Goshen, ch. 46.34.] 'Tis unquestionable that the Land of Goshen 'was situate in the Lower Aegypt, as also that it was the first Pro­vince or Nomus, which a Traveller coming out Syria enters, since Jacob so soon as he came thither, sent to acquaint Joseph with the news of his Arrival. By this place it appears, that it was famous for rich Pa­stures, otherwise it wou'd ne're have been offer'd to a Company of Shepherds, as the most convenient place in the Kingdom for them. 'Tis likewise certain, that this Tract of Land was appropriated to the Aegyptian Shepherds, who lived separate from the rest of their Country-men: For otherwise how cou'd Joseph conclude, that this Province wou'd be assigned to his Brethren immedi­ately, upon their discovering what Occupa­tion they followed, unless it was the Cu­stom of that Nation so to do? As will plain­ly appear by the following words.

For every Shepherd is an Abomination to the Aegyptians, ch. 46.34.] Learned Men are used to enquire upon this place the first, whether it appears by any Testimony out of Prophane Authors, that the Aegyptians avoided the Company of Shepherds? The [Page 315]second, for what reason they hated them? As for what regards the former, we don't here mean all Shepherds in general, but on­ly such as fed Sheep or Goats. According to Herodotus, l. 2. c. 164. the Aegyptians were divided into seven Classes, Priests, Sol­diers, Cow-herds, Hog-herds, Merchants, In­terpreters, and Sea-men. As for the Cow­herds, we no where find that the Aegyptians despised them, but the above-cited Historian expresly affirms so much of the Hog-herds, ch. 47. where he tells us, that the rest of the Aegyptians refused to have any Alli­ances with them. Among the Mendesians, if we may believe him, Goat-herds lived in great reputation, because they worshipped Goats. But these same People that looked upon it to be a hainous Sin to sacrifice Goats, thought it no Crime to serve Sheep after that manner. The contrary to which was observed by the Thebans, as we find in the same Author. So far Herodotus, who is more particular in this Affair than any one else; however, he does not seem to consist with himself, for since he makes two different Ranks of his Hog-herds and Cow-herds, why does he not farther branch them out into Goat-herds and Shep-herds? &c. with much more reason on his side. Dio­dorus comprehends them all under the name [Page 316]of [...], or Pastors, but does not acquaint us in what Credit they lived with the o­ther Aegyptians.

Now with Submission to Persons of grea­ter Learning, I am of Opinion that as the Aegyptian Superstition varied with respect to Time and Place; so that eating of Sheep was held unlawful in the Tanitic Kingdom in Jo­seph's time, and that as the Shepherds did ei­ther really feed upon them, or at least were suspected to do so, the rest of the Aegyptians shun'd their Company. Thus they thought they contracted an Impurity if they kissed a Grecian, because the latter made no difficulty to eat Cow's Flesh, which Animal was migh­tily ador'd in Aegypt. For this reason they cou'd not be brought to use so much as a Knife or a Kettle, if it came out of Greece, out of a fear that the Flesh of a Cow might have been cut by the former, or boiled in the latter. Though we are told by Herodotus that the Mendesians used to sacrifice, and consequently to eat Sheep; yet at the same time he in­forms us, that the Thebans, who had a much greater Authority in the Country, abstained from it: and Diodorus, lib. 1. p. 99. reckons Sheep among those Creatures from which the Aegyptians abstained. Besides those private Reasons which the Priests assign'd for this Ab­stinence, [Page 317]he says the following ones were used to be given, viz. that Sheep brought forth Young twice a year, that they cloathed Man­kind with their Wool, and nourished them with Milk and Cheese. And therefore since several of the Aegyptians either for these, or some other Reasons, abstained from Sheeps Flesh, what wonder is it if they expressed an utter Aversion to those Men whom they knew, or else suspected to feed upon it, if they shun'd their Conversion, and obliged to live by themselves in a particular Tract of their Country? Indeed some Learned Men doubt whether we can discover any certain Tokens of Idolatry in Aegypt so early as the days of Joseph, but what they pretend they can no where find; this Moses expresly tea­ches us, Exod. 8.26. and the Israelites be­came infected with Idolatry in Aegypt, as Eze­kiel lays it to their charge, ch. 20. v. 7, 8.

And Joseph placed his father and his brethren in the land of Rameses, ch. 46.11.] Here cannot be signified that City, which is said, Ex. 1.11. to be built long after the Death of Joseph by the Israelites; nor indeed had these People, who lived under Tents and remo­ved from one Place to another, any occasion for a City at first: Therefore others under­stand it to be part of the Country of Goshen. [Page 318]The Conjecture of the learned Sir John Mar­sham seems to be the best grounded, who sup­poses it to be the Name of a King, and used in the Genitive Case. For Diodorus tells us, that the third part of all Egypt belonged to the King, and therefore 'tis all one as if Moses had said, that part of the Lands belonging to the Crown was granted to Jacob and his Family. The abovementioned ingenious Author has proved out of Syncellus, that Ramesses Tubae­tes reign'd at that time in Egypt, upon Sae­cul, VII.

I. MEN are so fond of Prodigies, as to believe often without any Reason, that God alter'd the ordinary Course of Nature; of which I have given a pregnant Instance, in my Dissertation concerning the Statue of Salt. Tho' such an Opinion ought not to be approv'd, because it fills the Minds of Men with a super­stitious Credulity, exposes the Sacred History to the Contempt and Laughter of Prophane Men, and makes them disbelieve true Miracles and Prodigies; yet we ought to bear with those who entertain it, because it they add something to the Scripture, they take nothing from it; and because their Opinion arises from a Mind inclin'd to ascribe whatever is Great and Won­derful to the Divine Power. But those who put a false Interpretation upon true and manifest Miracles, and dare ascribe every thing to the ordinary Course of Nature, can't be endured, for they came by this Opinion out of Obstina­cy and Pride, which Vices allow them not to admire any thing, or believe any that's unusual and extraordinary. It may be said further, that because they dare not openly deny some Facts grounded upon very good Reasons, and undeni­able Testimonies, they endeavour to under­mine [Page 321]the belief of them, whilst they can hard­ly confess, that any thing happens above the ordinary Course of Nature.

Omitting for the present what may be said concerning Prodigies and Miracles in general, I shall endeavour to vindicate one of them from the Cavils of some Men, by giving a clear Ex­plication of it. I mean the Passage of the Is­raelites through the Red Sea upon the dry Ground, as Moses relates it, Exod. 14. Those who affirm, that all this happened according to the ordinary Course of Nature, say, that Moses, who knew that Country well, observed the time of the Tide, and that the Sea retiring back, as it is wont to do, he might easily go from one Shoar to another upon the dry ground; and that being a Cunning Man, he vented among the ignorant Multitude, as a Pro­digy what happened according to the ordinary Laws of Nature. Were it not so, say they, the Egyptians had not gone boldly into the Sea as as well as the Israelites; and they had not been so bold as to follow them, if they had seen the Sea divided by a Miracle, lest he who had di­vided the Waters of the Sea, only for the sake of the Israelites, should bring them back into their Channel, to destroy the Egyptians. They add, That perhaps the Wind favoured by chance, the Design of Moses, and wonderfully encreased the Reflux of the Sea, as the Writer of that History intimates, when he observes, [Page 322]that The Lord caused the Sea to go back by a strong Wind.

II. 'Tis not my business at present, to vin­dicate the veracity of Moses; it will be suffici­ent to shew, that their Assertion is contrary to his Words; for these Men are so confident of their Ability as to think, that they can main­tain their Opinion by the very words of the Scripture. Wherefore I shall first explain the words of Moses, and before I shew how far the Power of God was concerned in this matter, I'llenquire into what could be done by the Pow­er of Second Causes; and then I'll shew what what God himself did towards it, and what was done by the Second Causes; Lastly, I shall answer the Objections of our Adversaries.

III. God speaks thus to Moses, Exod. 14.16. But lift up thy Rod, and stretch out thine hand over the Sea, and divide it: and the chil­dren of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the Sea. It appears from Verse 20, 21. That Moses received those orders towards the Evening. Then Moses obeying God's Or­ders, smote the Sea, but it was not presently divided; for thus we find Verse 21. And Mo­ses stretched out his hand over the Sea, and the Lord caused the Sea to go back by a strong Wind all the Night, and made the Sea dry Land, and the Waters were divided. When therefore Mo­ses smote the Sea, there arose a strong Wind, which divided the Waters by degrees; for Mo­ses [Page 323]himself says, that the Wind drove back the Waters of the Sea all that Night, that is, almost all the Night; for the Egyptians were already gone into the Sea, in pursuit of the Israelites, in the Morning Watch, as he says V. 24.

'Tis well known, that the Hebrews divided the Night into three Watches; which being so, and seeing the Sacred History tells us, that the Sea return'd in the Morning-watch; 'tis likely, that the Wind blew almost 12 Hours together, from Sun-setting to Sun-rising: for the Israe­lites departed a little after the Equinox of the Spring. If we knew in what Watch of the Day or Night the Sea covered the Shores, or retired from them, we might explain this mat­ter more accurately. But seeing the Sea Ebs and Flows in twelve Hours, 'tis likely, that it began to go back in the beginning of the Night, and that the Reflux was hastened and encreased by a strong Wind: but the next Tide was slower, the same Wind blowing still, and keeping back the Waves for some time; during which interval of time, the Israelites went through the dry Channel of the Sea-Let us suppose, for Example, that the Sea be­ing return'd to the South, was to flow again to­wards the North, about the beginning of the Second Watch, if there had been no Wind; the Sea might have gone back, before the Second Watch, by reason of the Violence of the Wind, and not have returned to the Nor­thern Shores of the Red Sea but some Hours la­ter; [Page 324]so that the Israelites might go over during the whole Second Watch; that is, during four Hours at least. Indeed they were already gone through the Sea, before the Morning-watch, in which all the Egyptians went into the Chan­nel and were Drowned.

Now that we may understand how so many Thousands of Men might go through the Red Sea in so short a time, we ought to consider two things; First, that the extremity of that Gulph is very narrow, as 'tis granted by all those, who wrote about it, and not above two Miles broad. It was therefore no difficult thing for the Israelites, though they were so nume­rous, to go a great pace through the Channel of the Sea in a few Hours, which otherwise could not be understood, if it was broader. From whence also it follows, that the Sea go­ing back towards the South, leaves not only the Shores dry, but its very Channel, because of the narrowness of the place, unless it be deeper in some places. I think there is no need I should prove, that the Israelites went through it at the further end of the Gulph, seeing it plainly appears that they did, from the situ­ation of the place in which they encamped, as it is described Exod. 14.2.

Secondly, It ought to be observed, that there was no need the Israelites should run away in Battle aray, and in a long File. A great space having been dryed by the Wind, they might go over in a large Front, as the Egypti­ans [Page 325]tried to do it after them; for the whole Ar­my of the Egyptians had not been drowned, if few of them had gone together, seeing those that were beyond, had been at a great distance from those that were in the Front. But all the Egyptians were drowned, not one excepted; from whence it is manifest, that they went into the Channel of the Sea in a large Front.

IV. But I must consider more carefully the strength of the Wind which blew upon the Sea, Exod. 14.29. The Children of Israel, says Moses, walked upon dry Land in the midst of the Sea, and the Waters were a Wall unto them, on their right hand and on their left. Which words ought not to be taken in a literal sence, nor those which we find Exod. 15.8. With the blast of thy Nostrils the Waters were gathered to­gether: the Floods stood upright as an heap, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the Sea. Who sees not that this is a Figurative Speech? For

• 1. God blows not with his No­strils, nor did Moses believe he did, who teach­es every where, that God hath no humane shape,
• 2. There is a great difference between a Heap of Corn and a bulk of Ice; nor could the driving of the Waters into the Ocean be compared to both, but in a Figurative sence, from whence it appears, that neither of them can be understood in a proper sence.
• 3. Had the Waters been congealed on both sides, there had been no need of a Strong Wind blowing all that Night, to uphold its Weight; for from the [Page 326]time the Water was divided, and congealed on both sides, it could not return into the middle Channel, but by the melting of the Ice.

In like man­ner; the Water might be said to be as as a Wall unto the Israelites, because they could not go through it, on the Right hand, or on the Left; nor does any thing hinder, but there might be some Water on their Left Hand, in deep Pits, tho' the greatest part of it was removed to the Right Hand, by the Ebbing of the Sea, and the Ford through which they went was left dry. Thus Nahum 3.8. the Sea is said to be a wall to the Ci­ty of No. Art thou better says the Prophet, than populous No, that was situate among the Rivers, that had the waters round about it, whose ram­part was the Sea, and her wall was from the Sea.

I think therefore, that such was the Division of the Waters of the Red Sea, that when the Wind, which encreased its Ebbing, had driven all the Waters, except that which remained in deep Pits, from the further end of the Gulph towards its Mouth, there appeared a large Ford over against the Israelites, through which they went to the opposite Shore; which could the more easily happen, because that Sea being full of Fords, when there happens a greater Reflux then ordinarily, those Fords are left dry; tho' as I shall shew hereafter, the Wind which God raised, drove the Sea farther then ever it was before, or hath been since, that we know of.

Most of those, who described that Sea, say that 'tis Fordable. They also say that it hath [Page 327]a violent Ebbing and Flowing. P. Belonius Observ. Book II. ch. 67. Speaking of a Town call'd now Tor, says, That it is Situated on a high place, for the Sea swells sometimes so much, that it overflows the Fields, and surrounds the Town with its Waters. Nor can it be otherwise in a Narrow Streight, especially when it reaches from South to North; for the Sea flows from the South, thro' a Narrow Passage with great vio­lence, and having no room to Expatiate, it must needs be high: on the contrary when it Ebbs, it must of necessity leave many Fords empty, and the extremity of the Golph almost dry.

However a place out of Psalm 136. v. 13. may be objected against my Hypothesis. There 'tis said, That God divided the Red Sea into Parts: which words seem to imply that the Waters were so divided by the Wind, as to be driven on the right hand and on the left. But they might be said to be divided into Parts, if the Water remain'd on both sides, tho' it was not heap'd up by the strength of the Wind; for the Water, which return'd towards the South, was separated from that which remain'd in the Northern Pits: Which Water left in those Pits, may be call'd a Part, because it was separated from the rest of the Water by the violence of the Wind.

We read in the Annals of Geneva, that in the Year MCCCCXC. the South-wind blew with so great a Violence, that the Water of the Rhone, (a most swift River,) flowing from the [Page 328] Leman Lake to the South, stood still a quarter of an Hour. In like manner the Wind might encrease the Motion of the Ebbing Sea, and stop its Impetuosity when it flowed again. It was observed in Holland, in the Year MDCLXXII. that the Ebbing of the Sea lasted Twelve Hours, which hindred the Descent of the English: whether this was the Effect of the Wind, or some other cause, is not well known. Why therefore could not the Ebbing of the Red Sea last longer than it usually did, through the Divine Will, and return Later to the same Shores?

V. Having thus explain'd the Words of Mo­ses which concern the thing itself, it will not be needless to enquire from what part of Hea­ven the Wind blew. The Lord, says Moses, caused the Sea to go back by a strong East-Wind all that night, as our Translation renders it. But I am of Opinion the Hebrew word Kadim cannot here signifie an East-Wind, because such a Wind was fitter to drive the Floods to the Shore, wherein the Israelites were, than to divide the. Waters; unless we suppose that it blew only on a certain part of the Sea, so as to hinder the Waters from running in the middle. But who can apprehend how so many thou­sands of Men could, I will not say, stand in the Channel of the Sea, but go thro' it in so short a time, whilst so violent a Whirl-wind blew in their Faces?

I should think therefore that the Word Ka­dim [Page 329]denotes not that part of Heaven from whence this Wind blew, but a Violent Wind, from whencesoever it blew. Nor did Moses add the word strong, because the Wind call'd Kadim is not commonly a violent one; but be­cause the Wind, which drove the Waters of the Red Sea towards the Ocean, was extream­ly violent. The word Kadim signifies a vio­lent Wind, Psal. 48.8. Ezech. 27.26. Job 27.21 Jer. 18.17. Isa. 27.8. Jon. 4.8. we may therefore understand by the word Kadim a North-wind. Nor could any other Wind open a passage to the Israelites thro' the Fords of the Sea, as I have shewed.

VI. The thing it self favours my opinion, as we have seen, and no strong Argument can be brought against it from the words of Moses. Some therefore will perhaps endeavour to con­fute it some other way, Viz. by accusing it of Novelty. But I may shelter my self under the Authority of Josephus, who seems to have had the like thoughts, when he compared the Passage of the Israelites with Alexander's March thro' the Sea of Pamphylia, in these words, Book II. towards the End: No Body will admire that strange Story, that Men, who liv'd many Ages ago, and were free from malice found a way to escape, even thro' the Sea, whe­ther God would have it so, or whether it hap­pen'd by chance; seeing the Sea of Pamphylia gave way to Alexander King of Macedonia, who liv'd not long ago, and open'd a Passage to [Page 330]him, when he had no other, when God design'd to destroy the Empire of the Persians. I shall not enquire whether those Two Events may be com­par'd in every thing: 'tis false that Alexander had no other way, and they differ in other things: But however it appears from those words that Josephus believe, not without rea­son, that Alexander's Passage was like that of the Israelites in this, Viz. in his going thro' the Sea, when the Wind turn'd, which he could not do, whilst it blew. I shall here set down the words of Arrianus, who relates the thing thus, Book I. He lead those who were with him thro' the Sea all along the Shore. No Body can go that way, but when the North-Wind blows; but if the South-Wind blows hard, none can go thro' the Shore. It happen'd then, not without the Will of God (as he, and those that were with him said) that a violent South-Wind turn'd into the North, and so he had a quick and easie Passage. It appears from those words of Arrianus, who relates the thing, as Josephus understood it, that this latter Historian had the same thoughts as I have concerning the Pas­sage of the Israelites thro' the Red Sea.

Josephus might also have added out of Livy Book XXVI. Ch. 45. if he knew it, what that Historian says concerning the taking of New Carthage by P. Scipio Africanus, to stop there­by the Mouth of the Romans, who denied the Truth of the History of the Hebrews. The Words of Livy run thus: As soon as he was [Page 331]told the Sea Ebbed, he lead his Army to it, because he heard from some Fisher Men, who had been there in some light Boats, and were gone thro' the Fords, when their Boats stuck, that he might easily go to the Wall of the Town a foot. It was about the middle of the day, and besides the Water was going back according to its ordi­nary Ebbing, a violent North-Wind arose blow­ing the same way the Sea Ebbed, which so laid open the Fords, that in some places the Water came only to the Belly, and in other places scarce to the Knee. Scipio having carefully observ'd this, and ascribing it as a Prodigy to the Protection of the Gods, who open'd a new way for the Ro­mans thro' the Sea, he commanded his Souldiers to follow Neptune as their Guide. But neither Scipio nor Alexander could know that the North-Wind would blow, when it was necessary for them: And seeing the Providence of God ruled the Actions of the Heathens, not only those of the Hebrews, nothing hinders but he might sometimes designedly help Natural Causes on their behalf.

VII. It appears also from the Death of the Egyptians, that the Sea was divided, as I have said. First, Moses says, that when the Israelites went into the Sea, The Egyptians pursued and went in after them, in the Night-time, to the midst of the Sea, even all Pharaoh's Horses, his Chariots, and Horse-men, Exod. 14.23. The Egyptians believed that the Israelites took hold of the Opportunity of an Ebbing, which was [Page 332]greater than it used to be; and that therefore they ought presently to pursue them, least the Passage should be stopt by the return of the Waters. Tho' the Egyptians were transported with anger, yet, had they suspected that it was a Prodigy, they had certainly never been so mad as to go into the Channel of the Sea; and they might have seen that it was undoubtedly a Miracle, were it not that they might with some likelyhood ascribe the thing to an Extra­ordinary Reflux.

When the whole Army of the Egyptians came into the Sea, and the Israelites got to the opposite Shore, that is, in the Third Watch of the Night, as we learn from what follows, Mo­ses was commanded to smite the Sea, which being done, Exod. 14.27. The Sea return'd to its strength, when the morning appear'd. Which seems not to have happen'd by degrees, but God made use of an extraordinary South-Wind, which brought back with a great violence and in a very short time the Waves, which stood still by the strength of the North-Wind. This we learn from Moses's Song, Exod. 15.10. Thou didst blow with thy Wind, the Sea covered them: They sank as lead in the mighty Waters, &c. If the Waters were congealed and heaped up on both sides, what need was there of a Wind, to make them return to their place? As they stood up only by the Will of God; they might return into their Channel by the same Will, provided God would have recall'd the [Page 333]Efficacy of his Power; for they had dropt down by their weight like melted Ice.

Lest the Egyptians should avoid by flying the violence of the Reflux, besides the South-Wind by which it was hasten'd, Moses says, That God Troubled the Host of the Egyptians, and took off their Chariot-wheels, that they drave them hea­vily, Exod. 14.24, 25. That we may the bet­ter understand this, we must remember that the Army of the Egyptians was made up only of Chariots and Horse-men. For Pharaoh brought with him no Infantry, to overtake more easily the Israelites, nor did he want any, seeing he might easily rout an unarm'd People only with his Chariots and Horse-men. Besides the March of the Horse-men and Chariots was made slow­er by a secret Efficacy of the Divine Power, Three things might make that Passage more difficult to the Egyptians than to the Israe­lites.

• 1. There might be in some Places abun­dance of Mires too deep to drive Chariots and Horses thro' them without great trouble; where­as Men a Foot might easily get over them, es­pecially the Israelites, who were used to wan­der with their Flocks in the Marshes of Egypt. Tho' the Bottom of the Sea is not the same e­very where, yet no Body will wonder, that I say there might be here and there some Miry Places in a Space, that was some Miles Broad, a little while after the Sea left it.
• 2. If there were no Mires in some places there [Page 334]was abundance of deep Sand, in which Wheels will sink deeply, and thro' which Horses can go but slowly. Diodorus Siculus says Book III. There is a vast quantity of Dirt and Sand in that Sea, and that the Floods sometimes carry so much Sand about the Ships that Sail in it, that they stick fast in the Ground. That Sand hin­dered without doubt the Chariots and Horses from going fast. If it be objected that Moses says several times that the Israelites went thro' the Sea as thro' a Dry Land; I answer, It ought not to be so understood, as if the Channel of the Sea had not been so much as moist and dir­ty. The Land is said to be Dry, because there was no Waves upon it, and it is opposed not to Moistness but to Water, as Gen. 1.9. And God said, let the Waters under the Heaven be gather­ed together unto one place, and let the Dry Land appear — and God called the Dry Land Earth. See also Chap. 8.13. Philo therefore laid too great a stress upon that Word, when he said that the Isrelites went thro' the Sea as thro' a way paved with Stones; for, (as he goes on) the Sand grew hard, and made one solid Body. Miracles have been often invented, (to explain some Words of Scripture upon which they put too literal a Sense) of which the Holy Writers never so much as dream'd.
• 3. The Bottom of the Sea being uneven, and full of Rocks and ^† Shrubs, could not give a [Page 335]Free passage to the Chariots. Nay, 'twas al­most impossible for those, who drived the Cha­riots, and hastened to pursue the Israelites in the Night time, and then to make their escape to the Egyptian Shores, not to encumber and hinder one another, and even to overturn their Chariots, and break the Wheels against the Rocks. Now some Chariots overturned or broke, were sufficient to disturb the whole Ar­my, and it could go but slowly, whilst their Ranks were broke, and every Horseman endea­voured to go faster then another. This Moses seems to teach us in the words I have quoted. All which things I have mentioned, did without doubt hinder the march of the Horse and Cha­riots.

When the Israelites saw this, besides they perhaps observed that the Wind was turned, knowing that the Sea would presently flow in, they began to think more seriously of making their escape. Then at last they perceived, that the God of the Israelites was not less Pow­erful in the Sea, then he had been in Egypt. So that condemning their rashness, they turned back, and made haste to the Egyptian Shoar; but the Waves breaking upon them they were Drowned. Josephus not only says, that the Water of the Sea was driven on the Egyptians by the Wind, but also, that there arose at the same time a violent Storm, which perhaps he learned from the Egyptian Priests of his time. The Egyptians added, that their Ancestors were [Page 320]forced to come home, and leave off pursuing the Israelites, by reason of the Storms, as it appears from Justin, Book 26. Ch. 2. But Moses says, that they all Perished in the Sea, and that not one of them escaped to bring the News of their Calamity. From whence one may ob­serve by the bye, that Josephus omitted that part of the Tradition of the Egyptians, because it was contrary to the History of Moses; but willingly alledged, according to his Custom, that part which was not inconsistent with it.

VIII. If the Histories of Manetho, and of some others, who wrote the Antiquities of the Egyptians were extant, we might perhaps find in them several Footsteps of the Truth, which Josephus, who made use of them did not see. Indeed 'tis certain, as several Learned Men have observed, that in the Fragments which he hath preserved to us, there are many things which he understood not well. There is something in Strabo, Book XVI. which seems to belong to the passage of the Israelites thro' the Red Sea, tho' he says it happened in a Neighbouring Country. A wonderful and extraordinary thing, says that Author, is reported to have happened in the Shoar between Tyre and Ptolemaïs. 'Tis said, That the Inhabibants of Ptolemaïs, having engaged in a battle with General Sarpedon; and being put to flight, were overwhelm'd as they fled, by the Sea coming upon them as a Tide; and that some were carried into the Sea, and others left dead in some low Places. Afterwards, when [Page 337]the Sea Ebbed, their Bodies were found lying promiscuously among dead Fishes. What happen'd in the Red Sea, was transferred to the Shoars of Tyre, and disguised with false Circumstances. The word Sarpedon was also falsly accounted a Proper Name; for Sar-Phadon in Hebrew, sig­nifies the Head of Deliverance, or of those who are Delivered, which Encomium suits Moses ve­ry well. Diodorus Siculus heard the Troglo­ditae report a like thing. 'Tis reported, says he, by the Ichthyaphagi, who live near that Sea, as they have it from their Ancestors, that there having been a GREAT REFLUX, the whole Channel of the Gulph was dried up, and lookt Green: And when the Earth had been seen at the bottom, a violent Flowing came in of a sudden, and restored the Channel to its former State. Which Words describe the thing well enough, as I have shewed that it happened.

Indeed, if the Ichthyophagi said nothing else, they were more modest than some Christians, who having made themselves Masters of those places, have corrupted every thing with abun­dance of feigned Tales; an Example of which we find in Orosius. Book I. Ch. 10. There re­mains still, says he, some certain Monuments of that event. For the Track of the Chariots and Wheels may be seen, not only in the shore, but also at the bottom, as far as the sight can reach, and if it be confounded, either by chance or out of curiosity, it is of a sudden divinely restored to [Page 338]its former state, by the Winds and Waves; that whosoever learns not to fear God, by applying him­self to Religion, which he knows may be terrified by an ancient Example of God's Anger.

IX. I have hitherto sufficiently shewed, how God opened a passage for the Israelites through the Red Sea; but I have not shewed yet what was done by the ordinary Laws of Nature, and what by an extraordinary effect of the Di­vine Power: What happens after the latter manner, is called a Miracle in the Stile of Chri­stians, but Events of the former kind go not by that Name. Again, There are two sorts of things which God does above the order of Na­ture; some are such, as cannot be ascribed to natural Causes, as things are now: For Exam­ple, If a body heavier than another goes not be­low it, as if an Iron thrown into the Water sinks not, if a humane Body remains in the midst of Flames without being hurt in the least, and the like. Others being considered in them­selves, might be lookt upon as the Effects of na­tural Causes, such are an extraordinary Wind, and Reflux of the Sea. Natural Causes may produce them, and often do it: But if God does those things and the like, by an Act of his Will, without using natural Causes, and with­out expecting the Order he established from the beginning of the World; then, I say, what was not a Miracle by its Nature, is rightly called so. If God by his special Will raises a Wind, when [Page 339]no Wind had risen by the ordinary Course of Nature, and drives the Waves much farther than they used to go, when the Reflux had not been greater than it used to be by the ordinary Laws of Nature, those things are call'd Miracles, and are really so.

There might be therefore Miracles of both sorts in what happen'd to the Red Sea. Perhaps the North-Wind had not blown, if God had not raised it, and caused the South-Wind to cease. Perhaps the strength of that Wind was so great by the Will of God, that no Natural Wind could have removed the Sea so far. The same may be said of the Reflux: Perhaps the Sea had not returned back when it did, if God had not removed it, nor would it, by its natural Eb­bing, have gone back so far as to leave a Pas­sage Large enough for so many Thousands of Men.

This therefore must be granted to us, even by obstinate Men, that there might be some Miracles properly so call'd in that Event; pro­vided the thing happen'd, as 'tis related, which I think I may now take for granted. But it will be ask'd, how shall we know that those things happn'd, not by Natural Causes, but by an Extraordinary Effect of God's Power? In an­swer to which, I say, First, that the Extraordi­nary strenth of the Wind, and the Reflux which was so great, that perhaps the like was never seen, shew the Power of God in them. Second­ly, [Page 340]if nothing Extraordinary happen'd, the E­gyptians had no reason to rejoyce, nor the Isra­elites to be Terrified, when they saw themselves shut up between the Sea and the Mountains, for they might escape by expecting the Reflux of the Sea; nor is it likely that so many Thou­sands of Men knew nothing of the Nature of the Ocean, from which their former Habitati­on was but a few days journey distant. Lastly, it was also a Miracle in this respect, Viz. Be­cause Moses, who could expect nothing else but an Ordinary Reflux, foretold the Israelites that the Egyptians should perish, but that they themselves should escape without any damage. Fear ye not, says he, stand still, and see the sal­vation of the Lord, which he will shew to you to day: for the Egyptians, whom ye have seen to day, ye shall see them again no more, for ever. Could any Humane Prudence foresee that, and that there would be a place in the Channel left dry, and so large, that so many Thousands of Men might go thro' it in few Hours without any danger; and that the Egyptians should be so blinded as to follow the Israelits, thinking there was nothing Extraordinary in the mat­ter? If it be said, that God revealed this to Moses, we have what we desire, for the very Revelation will be a great Miracle. When a Miracle is foretold, before it happens, 'tis a most certain Criterium of such a Miracle; for from thence it may be evidently inferred, that [Page 341]God bears a Special Love to Him, whom he thus forewarns; and that an Extraordinary thing happen'd, which could not be known if God had not been pleased to fortel it.

Indeed if an Event, which is not manifestly above the Power of Nature, were not foretold, it could not be said, after it hath happen'd, to be most certainly a Miracle wrought in the behalf of those, to whom it hath been beneficial. For who sees not that a prudent Man may suddenly make use of an unexpected Event tho' it hapens not in his behalf? Wherefore tho' the Wind had not turn'd without a Miracle, when Alexander passed at the foot of Mount Climax, yet he could not boast of it as of a special favour of the Deity, for how could he shew that God hath done it in his behalf? He went thither to see whether he could go that way, designing either to stay sometime till that way might be passable, or to lead his Army another way. This Strabo Book XIV. intimates clearly enough; There is a streight of the Sea near Phaselis, says he, thro' which Alexander led his Army. For there is a Mountain call'd Climax, which lies near the Sea of Pamphylia, and leaves a narrow passage in the Shore, which is Dry when the Sea is Calm, so that Travellers may go thro' it, but when the Sea flows in, it is for the greatest part cover'd with Water. The way thro' the Mountain goes a great way about, and is difficult: They go thro' the Shore in fair Weather. Then he adds, Alexander hap­pen'd [Page 342]to be there in Stormy Weather, and because he relied much on Fortune, he sat out before the Waves, were calm'd, and so he and his Army marched all the day in the Waters to the Belly.

From whence it clearly appears that Alexan­der boldly made use of that opportunity, which had been more convenient, if he had not been so hasty; and therefore if he boasted that God had open'd a way for his Army, 'twas a meer Stratagem he used to encourage his Soldiers. Which perhaps was the reason why Alexander himself made no mention of any Miracle wrought in his behalf, in his Epistles, wherein be spoke of that Expedition, as we learn from Plutarch in his Life. His March thro' Pamphy­lia, says he, hath been a Subject which many Historians have treated Eloquently to raise ad­miration, and swell their Style, as if the Sea had gone back by the Will of God—But Alexander himself in his Epistles mentions no Miracle, and only says, that having set out from Phaselis, he went thro' Mount Climax.

From whence it appears, how great a diffe­rence there is between the Passage of Alexander thro' the Shore of the Sea of Pamphilia, and the Passage of the Israelites thro' the Red Sea, not to say that Alexander might have gone another way, Viz. thro' the Mountain, whereas the Is­raelites could not go thro' the Mountains. The approach of the Soldiers of Publius Scipio to the Wall of Carthage does not less differ from [Page 343]the Passage of the Israelites; and tho' that Cun­ning Man ascribed it as a Miracle to the Gods, to be more chearfully obeyed by his Soldiers; yet he durst not assure them that the Town would be certainly taken, and if that Stratagem of his had not well succeeded, his vain under­taking had not been perhaps so much as men­tion'd in History.

X. I think I have sufficiently clear'd both the History of the Passage of the Israelites thro' the Red Sea, and what Josephus says con­cerning it; whom I have not alledged, as if I relied much upon his Authority, in things of that nature; but because some Learned Men, whose Authority ought not to be slighted in the Common-wealth of Learning, are more moved with his Testimony than with Argu­ments. They and their like Object sometimes the Novelty of an Opinion, which they read no where else, as if it were a certain sign of Falshood, and can't rest contented without the Testimony of an Ancient Author. But I have especially endeavour'd to satisfie those, to whom too great a Love of Prodigies and wonders of some Mean and Imprudent Interpreters hath given occasion to doubt of the Truth of some Ancient Histories. For I have often observed that the Doubts of some Men, who are no Fools, arise from their judging of very Ancient Histo­ries, not after a careful Examination, but ac­cording to the common opinion of those with [Page 344]whom they live. Which is certainly very un­just; for can any thing be more repugnant to Justice and Equity than for a Man to give his Verdict, not as the Cause, which he ought to know perfectly, requires, but as he, that pleads that cause, defends it. If any one thinks I have not well pleaded the Cause I took in hand, I shall be glad to be better in­formed, and as willing to hear another as if I had never thought of, nor writ on this Sub­ject.