[450] Gen. ii. 2. “And on the seventh day God ended all his works.” The word translated work, is Greek or Hebrew which comes from Greek or Hebrew, angel or messenger, and therefore most properly signifies a work done in the execution of some function to which the workman is appointed, as the angel, messenger, officer, or workman of another; and so is fitly used concerning the work of creation; which was performed by the Son of God, who is often called the angel of the Lord: he being the Father’s great officer, and artificer, through whom he performs all his work, and executes his eternal counsels and purposes.

[451] Gen. ii. 5. “And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.” This seems to be observed to teach that all the life that is in the creation is immediately from God, and not from the creature itself: that in itself is wholly lifeless and void, and empty of all perfection. The vegetable life that is in this lower world was immediately from God. Of all the innumerable kinds of principles of life that now are manifest, every one was immediately from God. Though the earth, and the rain, and the cultivation and husbandry of men be now made use of, yet these living principles were not first owing to them, for they were before them. So it is as to all principles of spiritual life in the spiritual creation.

[397] Gen. ii. 9. and iii. 22, 23, 24. Concerning the Tree of Life. This tree seems manifestly to have been designed for a seal of Adam’s confirmation in life, in case he had stood, for two reasons: 1st, because its distinguishing name is the tree of life; and 2d, because by what is said in the latter end of the 3d chapter, there appears to have been a connexion by divine appointment, between eating of that tree and living for ever, or enjoying a continued, certain, and everlasting life. But yet here are these difficulties attending such a supposition. If it was so that this fruit was intended as a seal of Adam’s confirmation in life, and was by divine constitution connected with confirmed life, then it should seem that it was something kept in store, reserved by God to be bestowed as a reward of his obedience and his overcoming all temptations, when his time of probation was ended. There seems to be an allusion to this in Rev. xxii. 14. “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life.” And chap. ii. 7. “To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life.” So that it was not to be come at until the time of his trial was ended, for if he had eat of the tree before his probation was ended, confirmed life would doubtless have been as much connected with it as after he fell, and that would have defeated God’s design, which was that he should not have confirmed life till his obedience was tried; and if so, why was there not need of cherubim and a flaming sword before, to keep Adam from the tree, before he fell, as well as afterwards? Whereas there seems to have been nothing to keep him from this tree. The tree was not forbidden him; for he had leave to eat of every tree, but only the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And as there was no moral hinderance, so there seems to have been no natural force to keep him off: it does not seem to have been out of his reach; for, if so, what occasion was there for placing cherubim and a flaming sword after he fell. The tree does not seem to be hidden from Adam, for, if it was sufficiently secured from him by this means, before he fell, so it was afterwards, and so what need of the cherubim and flaming sword? From the account which Moses gives of the place of this tree, that it was in the midst of the garden, it appears probable that it was in the most conspicuous place in the whole garden; as the tree of life is said to grow in the midst of the street of the heavenly paradise. Rev. xxii. 2. The street of a city is the most public place in it; and that Adam might have it in view to put him in mind of the glorious reward promised to his obedience, to engage him to the greater care and watchfulness, that he might not fail.

The most probable account that is to be given of this matter is this: that the fruit of the tree of life was not yet produced; but that it was revealed to Adam, that after a while the tree should produce fruit, of which whosoever eat should live for ever; that he might eat of it if he persisted in his obedience; and that if he did not persevere in obedience he would expose himself to death before that time, and so cut himself off from ever tasting of it. The tree probably made a most lovely and excellent appearance, and sent forth a sweet fragrance, and perhaps was gay in the blossom, promising most excellent fruit.

This tree, as it grew in the midst of the garden, so probably it grew by the river, that ran through the midst of this Paradise. See Rev. xx. 2. Ezek. xlvii. 12.

[469] Gen. ii. 9. and iii. 22-24. On the Tree of Life.

There is not the least probability that every fruit-tree in the garden of Eden was then loaded with ripe fruit all at one time. If so, there would have been no provision made for Adam’s subsistence through the year, according to those laws which God had established concerning the tree when he created them; for, according to those laws, the same fruit was not to be perpetually hanging; but when the fruit was ripe, the fruit was to be shed, otherwise the seed would not be shed upon the earth in order to a new production, according to Gen. i. 11, 12. “God said, Let the earth bring forth grass; the herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself upon the earth, and it was so.” It is much more probable that it was with the trees of paradise as is represented of the trees that grew on the banks of Ezekiel’s river of living waters. It is represented as though there were all sorts of fruit-trees, and some yielding their fruit one month, and others another; so that there were ripe fruits newly produced every month of the year, and so a perpetual summer, and also a perpetual spring: some trees were hung with ripe fruit, and others in the blossom, in each month in the year. St. John’s vision, Rev. xxii. may be so understood that each single tree bore twelve manner of fruits on different branches; and yet perhaps there is no necessity of so understanding it; and so one sort bore ripe fruit in one month, and another in another; so that the same tree was always in blossom in some part, while some other part was loaded with ripe fruit. But in Ezekiel’s vision the variety of fruits seems to be on different trees, because it is said there shall grow all trees for meat.

Corol. This is a confirmation of the supposition, that the angels were not confirmed till Christ had ended his humiliation, and until he ascended into glory. For Christ is the tree of life in the heavenly paradise, in the native country of the angels; just as the tree of which we have been speaking was the tree of life on earth, the native country of men; and the Scriptures give us to understand that this person, who is the tree of life in this heavenly paradise, is “angels’ food.” Hence we may infer, that the fruit of this tree was the food by which the angels have their eternal life, or their confirmed life. But as man, who was made under a like covenant of works with the angels, would not have been confirmed, if he had persevered in his obedience, till the tree had brought forth its fruit, and till the fruit of the tree was ripe; so it is not probable that the angels were confirmed, until Christ, the Tree of life in the heavenly paradise, had brought forth his fruit. But what is the fruit that grows on this heavenly tree, the second Person of the Trinity, but the fruit of the Virgin Mary’s womb, and that fruit of the earth spoken of Isa. iv. 2. and ix. 6. “In that day shall the branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely, for them that are escaped of Israel.” “For unto us a son is born, and unto us a child is given,” &c. (how often are the children that are born in a family compared in Scripture to the fruit that grows on a tree!) when this holy child had gone through all his labours and sufferings, and had fulfilled all righteousness, and was perfected, as ‘tis expressed in Luke xiii. 32. Heb. ii. 10. and v. 9.: then he was seen of angels, and received up into glory, then the fruit was gathered: Christ, as fall ripe fruit, was gathered into the garner of God, into heaven, the country of angels, and so became angels’ food: then the angels fed upon the full ripe fruit of the tree of life, and received of the Father the reward of everlasting life. Christ did not become the author of eternal salvation to man, till he was thus made perfect, neither did he become the author of confirmed eternal life to the angels, till he was made perfect. Thus the fruit of this tree of life did not become the food of life to either men or angels till it was ripe.

This tree of life did as it were blossom in the sight of the angels, when man was first created in an innocent, holy, pleasant, and happy state, and was that creature from whence this future fruit of the tree of life was to spring, the blossom out of which the fruit was to come. It was a fair and pleasant blossom, though weak and feeble, and proved a fading thing like a flower. When man fell, then the blossom faded and fell off; man came forth like a flower, and was cut down, but the blossom fell in order to the succeeding fruit. The fall of man made way for the incarnation of Christ, it gave occasion to the production and ripening of that fruit, and to its blessed consequences.

Thus, though Christ God man be not the Saviour of the angels, as he is of men, yet he is the tree of life to the angels, and the bread of life as truly as to men.

[77] Gen. ii. 17. “In the day that thou eatest thereof, dying thou shall die.” This expression denotes not only the certainty of death, but the extremity of it. Thou shalt die, in the superlative and to the utmost degree; and so it properly extends to the second death, the death of the soul; for damnation is nothing but extreme death, and I am ready to think that God, by mentioning dying twice over, had respect to two deaths, the first and the second, and that it is to those words the apostle John refers in Revelation xx. 14. when he says, “This is the second death.” It is much such a reference as he made in the 2d verse of that chapter. There he explains to us who the serpent was that beguiled Eve, viz. the dragon, that old serpent, who is the devil and Satan: so here he explains what the second of those deaths, that was threatened to Adam, was. See notes on Rev. xx. 14.

[325] Gen. ii. 17. “Dying thou shalt die.” If we sometimes find such kind of doubled expressions, and also this very expression, dying thou shalt die, as in Solomon’s threatening to Shimei, when no more is intended than only the certainty of the event, yet this is no argument that this does not signify more than the certainty, even the extremity as well as certainty of it. Because such a repetition or doubling of a word, according to the idiom of the Hebrew tongue, is as much as our speaking a word once with a very extraordinary emphasis. But such a great emphasis, as we often use, signifies variously; it sometimes signifies certainty, at other times extremity, and sometimes both.

[320] Gen. ii. 17. “In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” This, in addition to notes in blank Bible, And besides Adam died that day, for he was ruined and undone that day, his nature was ruined the nature of his soul which ruin is called death in Scripture, Eph. ii. 1, 5. Colos. ii. 13. Matt. viii. 22. John v. 25. The nature of his body was ruined that day, and became mortal, began to die, his whole man became subject to condemnation, to death; he was guilty of death, and yet that all was not executed; that day was a token of his deliverance; and his not dying that day a natural death, is no more difficult to reconcile with truth, than his never suffering at all that death that was principally intended, viz. eternal damnation; and probably there were beasts slain the same day by God’s appointment in their stead, of which God made them coats of skins, for it is probable God’s thus clothing them was not long delayed after that they saw that they were naked.

[110] Gen. ii. 21. “Adam received Eve as he awaked out of a deep sleep;” so Christ receives his church as he rises from the dead. Dr. Goodwin speaks of this deep sleep of Adam as a type of Christ’s death, 1st vol. of his Works, part iii. p. 58.

[251] Gen. iii. at the beginning. ”Now the serpent was more subtle,” &c. ‘What is an argument ex posteriori of the devil’s having assumed the form of a serpent in his temptation of our first parents, is the pride he has ever since taken of being worshipped under that form, to insult, as it were, and trample upon fallen man. To this purpose we may observe that the serpent has all along been the common symbol and representation of the heathen deities, Jul. Firmic. de errore Prof an. Relig. p. 15. That the Babylonians worshipped a dragon, we may learn from the Apocrypha, and that they had images of serpents in the temple of Belus, Diodorus Siculus, lib. ii. cap. 4. informs us. Grotius out of several ancient authors, has made it appear that in the old Greek mysteries they used to carry about a serpent, and cry, Greek or Hebrew, the devil, thereby expressing his triumph in the unhappy deception of our first mother. The story of Ophis among the heathen was taken from the devil’s assuming the body of a serpent in his tempting of Eve. Orig. contra Celsus, lib vi. And to name no more what Philip Melancthon tells us of some priests in Asia, is very wonderful, viz. that they carry about a serpent in a brazen vessel, which they attend with a great deal of music, and many choruses in verse, while the serpent every now and then lifts up himself, opens his mouth, and thrusts out the head of a beautiful virgin, (as having swallowed her,) ‘to show the devil’s triumph in this miscarriage among those poor deluded idolaters.’ Nicol’s Conference with a Theist, vol. i.

[452] Gen. iii. 14. “Upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.” This doubtless has respect not only to the beast that the devil made use of as his instrument, but to the devil, that old serpent, to whom God is speaking, chiefly as is evident by the words immediately following. The words, On thy belly shalt thou go, as they respect the devil, refer to the low and mean exercises and employments that the devil shall pursue; and signify that he should be debased to the lowest and most sordid measures to compass his ends, so that nothing should be too mean and vile for him to do to reach his aims. The words, Dust shalt thou eat alt the days of thy life, have respect to the mean gratifications that Satan should henceforth have for his greatest good, instead of the high and glorious enjoyments of which heretofore he was the subject in heaven; and that even in those gratifications he should find himself sorely disappointed, and so his gratifications should from time to time in all that he obtained as long as he lived, turn to his grief and vexation, agreeably to the use of a parallel phrase, Prov. xx. 17. “Bread of deceit is sweet to a man, but afterwards his mouth shall be filled with gravel.” When a man has eagerly taken into his mouth that which he accounted a sweet morsel, but finds it full of dirt, it moves him immediately to spit it out, and so to endeavour to clear his mouth of what he had taken as eagerly as he took it in. So Satan is from time to time made sick of his own morsels, and to spit them out again, and vomit up what he had swallowed down, as the whale vomited up Jonah, and as the devil vomited up Christ, when he saw that he had swallowed down that which, when within him, gave him a mortal wound at his vitals.

[456] Gen. iii. 14, 15. “And the Lord said unto the serpent,” &c. In this first prophecy ever uttered on earth, we have a very plain instance of what is common in divine prophecies through the Scripture, viz. that one thing is more immediately respected in the words, and another that is the antitype principally intended, and so of some of the words being applicable only to the former, and others only to the latter, and of God’s beginning to speak in language accommodated to the former, but then as it were presently forgetting the type, and being taken up wholly about the antitype. Here in the 14th verse, the words that are used are properly applicable only to that serpent that was one of the beasts of the field; so here it is said, Thou art cursed above all cattle; which shows that this prophecy has some respect to that beast that is a type of Satan. But, in the things spoken in the next verse, the beast called a serpent seems to be almost wholly forgotten, and the speech to be only about the devil; for the enmity that is there spoken of, is between the Seed of the man, and that Seed a particular person; for the words in the original are, “He shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel;” it is Greek or Hebrew (He) in the Hebrew, and Greek or Hebrew in the Septuagint; as is observed in Shuckford, vol. i. p. 286.

[322] Gen. iii. 20. “And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.” What Adam in this has respect to, doubtless is that which God had signified in the 15th verse., viz. that Eve was to be the mother of that Seed that was to bruise the head of the serpent, the grand enemy of mankind that had brought death on them, and had the power of death, and so was to be the author of life to all that should live, i. e. all that should escape that death. So Eve was the mother of all living, as all that have spiritual and eternal life are Christ’s, and so the woman’s seed, because Christ was of the woman. Adam, when he had eaten the forbidden fruit, and his conscience smote him, had a terrible remembrance of the awful threatening; “Dying, thou shalt die;” and therefore took great notice of those words which God spake concerning the seed of Eve bruising the serpent’s head; which seem to afford some relief from his terror, and therefore he thought it worthy to give Eve her name from it, as the most remarkable thing that he had observed concerning Eve, and the thing that he thought more worthy to be remembered, and could think of with greater delight and pleasure, than any thing else concerning her, and therefore he thought it above all things worthy that her name should be a continual memorial of it.

That the thing of which Adam took special notice in giving his wife this name, was not her being the universal mother of mankind, or the universality of her maternity, but the quality of those that she was to be the mother of, viz. living ones, is evident from the name itself, which expresses the latter, and not the former; the word Greek or Hebrew Chavah, which we render Eve, expresses Life, the quality of those that she was to be the mother of, and not the universality of her maternity. And it is not likely this would have been if there was nothing in this quality of her posterity that did at all distinguish her from any other mother; which would have been if all that was intended by her being the mother of those that were living, was that she was to be the mother of such as were to live in the world; for so all other mothers might be called Chavah as well as she, or by some name that expressed that quality of life. A name is given for distinction; and therefore doubtless Adam gave her a name that expressed something that was distinguishing; but if what was meant was only that she was the mother of all mankind, then the thing that was distinguishing of her, was merely the universality of her maternity, and not at all the quality of her posterity. Why, then, was not the universality, the distinguishing thing, expressed in the name, rather than the quality, which was not at all distinguishing?

Again: It is not likely that Adam would give her a name from that which did not at all distinguish her from him. If persons have not names that shall distinguish them from all others, yet doubtless they ought to have names to distinguish them from those with whom they always live, and from whom there is most occasion to distinguish them. But if it was not the quality of her posterity, but only the universality of her progeniture of mankind, to which he had respect, that was what was common to her with himself.

If it had been only her being the mother of all mankind to which Adam had respect, it would have been more likely that he would have given her this name on her first creation, and on her being brought to him; which was after that benediction, “Be fruitful and multiply;” but we find that this name was not given on that occasion, but then Adam gave her another name, Gen. ii. 23. He called her Ishah, from her being taken out of man; but the name of Chavah, as the mother of all living, is given on another occasion, viz. just after God had promised that the Seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head, and immediately after God had pronounced the threatening of death on Adam, as in the verse immediately foregoing, “till thou return to the ground, for dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return:” while Adam is under the terror of this sentence of death, he comforts himself with the promise of life couched in what God had said to the serpent. Adam gave Eve a new name on this occasion, from that new thing that appeared concerning her after the fall: as she had her first name from the manner of her creation, so she had her new name given her from Christ’s redemption, and Adam gave her her name from that which comforted him, with respect to the curse that God had pronounced on him and the earth; as Lamech named Noah, Gen. v. 29. “And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work, and the toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed.”

It was a common thing for the progenitors of Christ to have names given them from something that had respect to him or his redemption, or some of his benefits: so were Seth, and Noah, and Abraham, and Sarah, and Israel, and Judah, and others named.

And besides, we have no parallel place in the Bible to justify our understanding this expression, all living, of all mankind that shall hereafter live upon the earth, or including them with those that are now living.

[399] Gen. iii. 20. There are also these further arguments to confirm that Adam does not give his wife the name of Eve, which signifies Life, because she was the mother of all mankind, but because she was the mother of Christ, and of his living seed, who are the seed of the woman of whom God had just spoken. 1st. This name is exceedingly proper and suitable to signify the latter, because, “in Adam all die, but in Christ shall all be made alive; by man came death, so by man also came the resurrection of the dead;” “the second Adam is made a quickening Spirit;” “in him was life, and he is the life.“ All mankind by the first Adam are in a state of death, dead in trespasses and sins, but Christ is the bread of life, of which he that eats should live for ever; and he is thus the fountain of life to the children of men, by bruising the head of the serpent, or destroying him that has the power of death, even the devil; which God had just before promised should be by the Seed of Isha, the name that Adam gave his wife at first.

2. It is not likely that Adam would give this name, viz. Living One, as a distinguishing name for mankind, to distinguish them from other creatures; for the same name is, from time to time in the preceding chapters, given to other creatures, as chap. i. 21, 24, 28. and chap. ii. 19. where the word is radically the same; and so afterwards the name is often given to other animals, chap. vi. 19. vii. 4, 23. viii. 1. and in many other passages of Scripture. And especially it is unlikely that he would give this as a distinguishing name to mankind immediately upon man’s fall, whereby he was ruined, and had brought that threatening on himself, “In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die;” and immediately after he had been told by God that he was dead, (i. e. in effect so,) “dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.” Adam could not mean by the phrase all living, what indeed we sometimes use that expression to signify, viz. mankind; but yet we do not intend by it, all that have had, and now have, the human nature, as though life was a distinguishing property of that nature, but we merely mean by it those that are now alive, to distinguish them from those that are dead, or are not yet born. And it is exceeding unlikely that Adam would now first find out this name to distinguish mankind, even those that yet had no life or being, as though life was a distinguishing property and dignity of human nature, on the occasion of so great, awful, and affecting an event, as the first entrance of any such thing as death into the world, to waste, and destroy, and make fearful havock of all mankind, all Eve’s posterity, and that originally by her means. If Adam had meant by all living, all mankind that then had a being in this world, the name was very improper for her; for he that was living of mankind was the only person of all mankind that she was not the mother of: he was rather the father of her. But in the other sense it is true, Eve was the mother of all living universally, of every living one, as it is in the original. There is not one that has spiritual and eternal life of all mankind, who in this sense is excepted, not Adam, nor Christ, no, nor herself, for in this sense, as she was the mother of Christ, she was her own mother.

3. It is remarkable that Adam had before given his wife another name, viz. Isha, when she was first created and brought to him; but now, that on the occasion of the fall, and what God had said upon it, he changes her name, and gives her a new name, viz. Life, because she was to be the mother of every one that has life; which would be exceeding strange and unaccountable if all that he meant was, that she was to be the mother of mankind. If that was all that he intended, it would have been much more likely to be given to her at first, when God gave them that blessing, viz. “Be fruitful and multiply,” by virtue of which she became the mother of mankind; and when mankind was hitherto in a state of life, and death had not yet entered into the world. But that Adam should not give her this name then, but call her Isha, and then, after that, change her name, and call her name Life, immediately upon their losing their life and glory, and coming under a sentence of death, with all their posterity, and the awful, melancholy shadow and darkness which death has brought on the whole world, occasioned by Eve’s folly, is altogether unaccountable, if he had only meant, that she was the mother of mankind.

4. That Adam should change her name, and call her name Life, after he had given her another name, doubtless was from something new that appeared, that was very remarkable, concerning Eve; and doubtless we have an account of what that remarkable thing was. The scriptural history is not so imperfect as to give us an account of such an event as a person’s name being changed, without mentioning the occasion of that change. We have several times elsewhere an account of the change of persons’ names in Scripture, but always have an account of the reason why; but we have no account of any thing new concerning Eve, that could give Adam occasion thus to change her name, and call her Life, but only what God said concerning her and her seed after her fall. We have an account of this change of her name immediately upon it, and therefore must understand that as the occasion of it. This was an exceeding proper occasion for such a name, and it is natural to suppose that Adam’s mind might now be so affected by the curse of death just pronounced by God, and the promise of life by Eve, as to induce him to change her name from Isha to Life.

It is most probable, that Adam would give Eve her name from that which was her greatest honour, since it is evident that he had respect to her honour in giving her this name. The name itself, Life, is honourable; and that which he mentions concerning her being the mother of every living one, is doubtless something he had respect to as honourable to her. Since he changed her name from regard to her honour, it is most likely he would signify in it that which was her peculiar honour; but that was the most honourable of any thing, that had ever happened, or that ever would happen concerning her that God said that she should be the mother of that seed, that should bruise the serpent’s head. This was the greatest honour that God had conferred on her; and we find persons’ names changed elsewhere to signify something that is their peculiar honour, as the new names of Abraham, Sarah, and Israel.

6. All new names, of which we have an account in Scripture as given prophetically, are given with respect to some great privilege persons have by some special relation to Christ, or interest in him, and his redemption. So Abraham’s and Sarah’s new names were given them of God, on occasion of the promise made to them, that in their seed all the families of the earth should be blessed; and Jacob’s new name of Israel is given because as a prince he had prevailed with Christ in wrestling with him, and had obtained the confirmation of Abraham and Isaac’s blessing to him and his seed, when he and his posterity were in danger of being cut off by Esau.

[466] Gen. iii. 20. “And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she is the mother of all living.” To suppose the living here to mean those that are restored to spiritual life, and shall be saved from death, and have everlasting life, is agreeable to the denomination the apostle gives true Christians, 2 Cor. iv. 11. “Greek or Hebrew*, the living,* or the livers; and again chap. v. 15.

[82] Gen. iv. 1. “And Adam knew his wife, and she conceived and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.” In Eve’s expressing herself thus, it is probable she had an eye to what God said, that her seed should bruise the serpent’s head: and now seeing she had a son, her faith and hope was strengthened that the promise should be fulfilled.

[453] Gen. iv. 3, 4. Cain’s and Abel’s sacrifice. Abel when he comes before God is sensible of his own unworthiness and sinfulness, like the publican, and so is sensible of his need of an atonement, and therefore comes with bloody sacrifices, hereby testifying his faith in the promised great sacrifice. Cain comes with his own righteousness, like the Pharisee, who put God in mind that he paid tithes of all that he possessed. He comes without any propitiation, with the fruit of his ground, and produce of his own labours, as though he could add something to the Most High, by gifts of his own substance; and therefore he was interested in no atonement, for he was not sensible of his need of any, nor did he trust in any; and so being a sinner, and not having perfectly kept God’s commandments, sin lay at his door unremoved, and so his offering could not be accepted, for guilt remained to hinder. This reason God intimates, why his offering was not accepted, in what way he says to him, verse 7th., “If thou doest well if thou keepest my commandments, thou and thine offerings shall be accepted; but seeing thou doest not well, as thine own conscience witnesses that in many things thou hast offended, the guilt of sin remains to hinder thy being accepted without an atonement, thy righteousness cannot be accepted, whatever offering thou mayest bring to me.” See Bp. Sherlock’s Use and Intent of Prophecy, p. 74, 75. and Owen on Heb. xi. 4. p. 18.

[344] Gen. iv. 7. “If thou doest well, shalt not thou be accepted; and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.” Cain was not accepted in his offering, because he did not well because, 1. He was a wicked man, led an ill life under the reigning power of the world and the flesh, and therefore his sacrifice was an abomination to the Lord, Prov. xv. 8. a vain oblation, Isa. i. 13. God had no respect to Cain himself, and therefore no respect to his offering, as the manner of the expression (ver. 5.) intimates. But Abel was a righteous man: he is called righteous Abel, Matt. xxiii. 35. His heart was upright, and his life was pious; he was one of those whom God’s countenance beholds, Psal. xi. 7. and whose prayer is therefore his delight, Prov. xv. 8. God had respect to him as a holy man, and therefore to his offering as a holy offering. The tree must be good, else the fruit cannot be pleasing to the heart-searching God.

2. There was a difference in the offerings they brought. It is expressly said, Heb. xi. 4. Abel’s was a more excellent sacrifice than Cain’s: either, 1. In the nature of it. Cain’s was only a sacrifice of acknowledgment offered to the Creator; the meat-offerings of the first of the ground were no more, and for ought I know might have been offered in innocency. But Abel brought a sacrifice of atonement, the blood whereof was shed in order to remission, thereby owning himself a sinner, deprecating God’s wrath, and imploring his favour in a Mediator: or, 2. In the qualities of the offering. Cain brought of the fruit of the ground, any thing that came next to hand, what he had not occasion for himself, or was not more charitable. But Abel was curious in the choice of his offering, not the lame, or the lean, or the refuse, but the firstling of the flock, the best he had, and the fat thereof, the best of those best. 3. The great difference was this, that Abel offered in faith, and Cain did not “Abel was a penitent, like the publican that went away justified; Cain was unhumbled, and his confidence was in himself, like the Pharisee who glorified himself, but he was not so much justified before God.” Henry on verses 3, 4, 5.

[“If thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.”] Not at Cain’s door, but at God’s door. His wicked doings lay, as it were, at the door of God’s temple, to prevent his admittance and acceptance with God: they stood as a partition-wall between God and him. Wicked men’s sins are a cloud which their prayers cannot pass through, and which hinders their offerings from being brought into the holy place: they are a thick veil before the door of the holiest of all, to hinder their access to God. 1 John iii. 21, 22. “Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence towards God, and whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.”

[51] Gen. iv. 14. It seems to me no way improbable that Cain’s house was intended, and by him understood, not only of him personally, but of his posterity. Such he might learn from his father Adam, seeing the covenant that was made with him was made not only for himself, but for his posterity. If Cain understood it only of himself personally, it seems somewhat strange that he should express himself after such a manner. The inhabited earth was not broad enough for such expressions. The expression, from thy face, may be in the same sense as David was shut out from the face of God when he dwelt in Ziklag, from his altar where his people sacrificed and worshipped him, and where he especially manifested himself. Doubtless there were then such things as well as afterwards.

[323] Gen. v. 29. “And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work, and the toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed.” Noah comforted God’s people concerning their labour and fatigue, that was the fruit of God’s curse on the ground.

1. And chiefly as the Redeemer was to be of him, who should deliver his people from all their labours and sorrows, and should procure them everlasting life in the heavenly Canaan, a better paradise than that which was lost, where the ground is not cursed, and shall spontaneously yield her rich fruit every month, where there remains a rest to the people of God, who shall rest from their labours, and their works shall follow them.

2. He first invented wine, which is to comfort him that is faint and weary with fatigue, and the toil of his hands, and which makes glad man’s heart, a remarkable type of the blood of Christ, and his spiritual benefits.

3. To him was given leave to eat flesh, as a relief from the fruit of the curse on the ground, which rendered the fruits of it less pleasant and wholesome. God gave Noah leave to feed on the flesh of other animals, to comfort him under his toil of his hands in tilling the ground. And this is another type of our feeding on Christ, and having spiritual life and refreshment in him: for, in feeding on the flesh of animals, our food and the nourishment of our lives is obtained at the expense of their lives and shedding their blood, as we come to feed on Christ by his laying down his life. And these things in Noah that should be matter of comfort under God’s curse, are the rather taken notice of in him, because in his time the curse on the ground was to be more fully executed than ever it had been before the good constitution of the earth was to be overthrown by a flood, and its wholesomeness and fertility greatly diminished, and so the toil of his hands would be greatly increased, were it not for this relief given that has been mentioned.

4. Before Noah, God’s people did not know how far this curse would proceed; they probably foresaw that God intended to execute the curse on the ground in a much further degree than ever yet he had done. God had not comforted his people by any limits set in any promise made to them, but to Noah God made a gracious promise, setting limits to the curse, promising in some respects a certain measure of success to the labour of their hands, promising that seed-time, and harvest, &c. should not cease.

[5] Gen. vi. 4. The monstrous births that arose from the conjunction of the sons of God with the daughters of men, typify unto us what an odious monster results from the conjoining of holy things with wicked, as of a holy profession with a wicked life in hypocrites, and what powerful enemies against religion such are, whether they are particular persons or churches, as the church of Rome, that monstrous beast, in whom are joined the profession of the name of Christ and many of his doctrine with the most odious devilism, who has horns as a lamb, but speaks as a dragon: and their bulk and huge stature denotes their pride, as none are so proud as hypocrites. Vid. 257.

[257] Gen. vi. 4. And their great bulk, and strength, and renown, besides the pride of such persons and churches as join the religion, doctrine, and worship, and profession of his church, with the deluding glories and bewitching pleasures of this world, and of the heathenish and other human and carnal churches and societies of it, here typified by the beauty of the daughters of men. I say, besides the pride of such churches, these things seem to denote the earthly pomp and splendour, and worldly renown and glory, and great temporal power, that such churches affect, and are commonly in providence suffered to arrive to, as the church of Rome and others.

[428] Gen. vi. 4. “And there were giants in the earth in those days,” &c. Pausanias, in his Laconics, mentions the bones of men of a more than ordinary bigness, which were shown in the temple of Esculapius, at the city of Asepus: and in the first of his Eliacks, he speaks of a bone taken out of the sea, which aforetime was kept at Piso, and thought to have been one of Pelops. Philostratus, in the beginning of his Heroicks, informs us that many bodies of giants were discovered in Pallene, by showers of rain and earthquakes. Pliny, b. vii. ch. 16. says, “That upon the bursting of a mountain in Crete, there was found a body standing upright, which was reported by some to have been the body of Orion, by others, the body of Aetion. Orestes’s body, when it was commanded by the oracle to be digged up, is reported to have been seven cubits long. And almost a thousand years ago, the poet Homer continually complained, “that men’s bodies were less than of old.” And Solinus, chap. i. inquires, “Were not all that were born in that age less than their parents?” And the story of Orestes’s funeral testifies the bigness of the ancients; whose bones when they were digged up in the 58th Olympiad at Yegea, by the advice of the oracle, are related to have been seven cubits in length. Other writings, which give a credible relation of ancient matters, affirm this, that in the war of Crete, when the rivers had been so high as to overflow and break down their banks, after the flood was abated, upon the clearing of the earth, there was found a human body of three and thirty feet long: which L. Flaccus, the legate, and Metellus himself, being very desirous of seeing, were much surprised to have the satisfaction of seeing what they did not believe when they heard.” Grotius de Verit. b. i. sect. 16. Notes.

Josephus, b. v. chap. 2. of his ancient history: “There remains to this day some of the race of the giants, who by reason of the bulk and figure of their bodies, so different from other men, are wonderful to see or hear of. Their bones are now shown far exceeding the belief of the vulgar.” Gabinius, in his history of Mauritania, said that Antæus’s bones were found by Sertorius, which, joined together, were sixty cubits long. Phlegon Trallianus, in his 9th chap. of Wonders, mentions the digging up the head of Ida, which was three times as big as that of an ordinary woman. And he adds also that there were many bodies found in Dalmatia, whose arms exceeded sixteen cubits. And the same man relates out of Theopompus, that there were found in the Cimmerian Bosphorus a company of human bones twenty-four cubits in length. Le Clerc’s Notes on Grotius de Veritat. b. i. sect. 16.

We almost every where in the Greek and Latin historians meet with the savage life of the giants mentioned by Moses. In the Greek, as Homer, Iliad 9th, and Hesiod, in his Works and Days. To this may be referred the Wars of the Gods mentioned by Plato in his Second Republic, and those distinct and separate governments taken notice of by the same Plato, in his third book of Laws. And as to the Latin historians, see the first book of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, and the fourth book of Lucan, and Seneca’s third book of Natural Questions, Quest. 30. where he says concerning the Deluge, “that the beasts also perished, into whose nature men were degenerated.” Grotius de Verit. b. i. sect. 16.

[199] Gen. vi. 14. “Make thee an ark of gopher wood.” The word in the Hebrew language seems to imply that the wood was of a bituminous or pitchy nature, and consequently more capable of resisting wet or moisture, and St. Chrysostom particularly calls it Greek or Hebrew, square wood not liable to rot. The learned Fuller rightly concludes it to be the cypress, from the affinity of the word for cypress in Greek, which is Greek or Hebrew; from whence, if the termination is taken away, Cuphar, or Gopher, consists of such letters as are often changed into each other; neither is there any wood less subject to rottenness and worms than this is, as all writers do allow. Pliny saith that the cypress-wood is not sensible of rottenness or age, that it will never split nor cleave asunder except by force, and that no worm will touch it, because it hath a peculiar bitter taste; and therefore Plato advised that all records that are to be preserved for the benefit of future generations, should be written upon tables of cypress. Martial says that it will last for a hundred ages and never decay. Thucydides saith that the chests were made of cypress in which the Athenians carried away the bones of those who died in war for their country, and the Scholiast gives this reason for it, because it would never decay; and the Pythagoreans abstained from making coffins of cypress, because they certainly concluded that the sceptre of Jupiter was made of this tree, and no reason can be assigned for such a fiction among the poets, but because it was the fittest resemblance of that eternal power and authority which they attribute to him. Theophrastus, speaking of those trees which are least subject to decay, adds this as a conclusion, that the cypress-tree seems to be the most durable of all, and that the folding-doors of the temple of Ephesus being made thereof, had lasted without damage for four generations. In this Pliny is more particular, and saith that those doors were made of cypress, and they had lasted till his time, which he saith was near four hundred years, and still looked as if they were new. And Vitruvius speaks both of the cypress and of the pine-tree, that they kept for a long time without the least defect, because the sap, which is in every part of the wood, hath a peculiar bitter taste, as is so very offensive that no worm or other consuming animal will touch it. He also tells us that such works as are made of such wood will last for ever. And therefore he advises that the beams of all churches should especially be made of cypress-wood, because such as were made of fir were soon consumed by the worm and rottenness; and as it was such a lasting wood, so it was also very fit for the building of ships. Peter Martyr, as cited by the learned Fuller, saith that the inhabitants of Crete had their cypress-trees so common, that they made the beams of their houses, their rafters, their rooms, and floors, and also their ships, of this wood. Plutarch saith that the ship-carpenter in the first place useth the pine from Isthmos, and the cypress from Crete; and Vegetius adds, that the galleys are built chiefly of the cypress, and of the pine-trees, or of the larch and fir; and in the epistle of Theodoricus to Abundantius, the prefect, in which he gives him a commission to build a thousand barks for fetching provisions, or bread-corn; he commands him to inquire throughout all Italy, for proper artists, for wood for such work; and wherever he should find the cypress or pine-trees near the shore, that he should buy them at a reasonable price. Neither was it thus only in Crete and Italy, but Diodorus proves that in Phœnicia there was timber sufficient to build ships, because Libanus, near Tripoli, and Biblus, and Sidon were full of cedar-trees, and larch-trees, and cypress-trees, which were very admirable for show and greatness; and Plato, among the trees that were fit for ship-carpenters to use, places the cypress next to the pine and the larch-trees. And even in latter years, we are told that the Saracens did hasten from Alexandria to Phœnicia to cut down the cypress-wood, and fit it for the use of the ships. And as the cypress-tree was very fit for this use, so it grew in great plenty in Assyria and Babylonia, and therefore Arrian and Strabo speak particularly of it, and that the numerous fleet which Alexander the Great built in those parts, was made of the cypress which he cut down, and which grew in Babylonia. For there was, as they say, a great plenty of these trees in Assyria, and that they had no other wood in the country which was fit for such a purpose.

Bedford’s Scripture Chronology, p. 111, 112. notes that the reason why they needed a sort of wood not subject to decay or rottenness, was chiefly because the ark was so long in building. Had it not been a kind of wood of extraordinary durableness, it would have decayed and spoiled in much less than 120 years, being exposed to the weather.

[259] The country where Noah built the ark, was probably in Babylonia, or the region thereabout, which abounds with cypress or gopher-trees. The Gordyean mountains in Armenia seem to be at a proportional distance, and since they are allowed to be the highest in the world, there is no reason for receding from the commonly received opinion, viz. that those were the hills whereon the ark stopped. Here it is that the generality of geographers place the ark. Here it is that almost all travellers have found the report of it. And lastly, here it is that the inhabitants of the country show some relics of it, and call places after its name to this very day. Complete Body of Divin. p. 324.

“In Armenia est altior mons quam sit in toto orbe terrarum, qui Arath vulgariter nuncupatur; et in cacumine montis illius arca Noe post diluvium primo sedit; et licet propter abundantiam nivium, quæ semper in illo monte reperiuntur, nemo valet illum ascendere; semper tamen apparet in ejus cacumine quoddam nigrum, quod ab hominibus dicitur esse Arca.” Hist. Orient. c. 9.

The mount Gordion, called by the Turks Ardagh, is the highest in the world; the Jews, the Armenians, and the Mussulmans, affirm that the ark of Noah stopped at this mountain after the deluge. La Boulaye’s Voyages. They tell us likewise that the city Nahsivan, which is about three leagues from the mountain Ararat, is the oldest in the world; that Noah dwelt therein when he came out of the ark; that the word Nahsivan is derived from Nah, which signifies a ship, and sivan, which signifies to stop or stay; and that this name was given to it because the ark stopped at this same mountain. Tavernier’s Travels, tom. iv.

[297] Gen. vii. 1-7. The company in Noah’s Ark was upon many accounts a type of the church of Christ. The ark did literally contain in it the church of God, for all flesh had corrupted their way before God, and true religion and piety seemed to be confined to Noah and his family. The ark was made for the salvation of the church, and for the saving the church from the destruction which the world was to undergo, and to which it was doomed, and of which all the rest of mankind were to be the subjects in an overflowing deluge of God’s wrath. So Christ, God-man, mediator, was made for the salvation of his church, to save it from that destruction and woe that is denounced against this wicked world, and that deluge of wrath that will overwhelm all others. The way in which persons were saved by the ark, was by taking warning from Noah the preacher of righteousness to fly from the wrath to come, and hearkening to the call, and flying for refuge to the ark, and getting into the ark. So the way by which we are saved by Christ, is by flying from the deluge of God’s wrath, and taking refuge in Christ, and being in him.

The ark was a refuge from storm, and from wind, the rain that poured down out of heaven in a very dreadful manner, it did not hurt those that were in the ark; so Christ is a hiding-place from the wind, a covert from the tempest. Isa. xxxii. 1. He is a place of refuge, and a covert from storm and from wind. Isa. iv. 6. “He is to his church a refuge from the storm, when the blast of the terrible ones is as a storm against the wall.” Isa. xxv. 4. “He that is built in Christ, when the wind blows, the rain descends, and the floods come and beat upon his house, it will not fall.”

The company in the ark was safe in the greatest catastrophe, when the world was as it were dissolved. So they that have Christ for their refuge and strength, need not fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea, (as they in fact were in the flood, they were in the midst of the sea, the sea surrounded them and overwhelmed them,) though the waters thereof roar and are troubled, though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof, Psal. xlvi. 1, 2, 3. Though the waters were so exceeding great and overwhelming, yet those that were in the ark did not sink in them. Though the waters overtopped the highest mountains, yet they could not overwhelm them; though the ark when it stood on the ground was a low thing, in comparison of other things that the waters overwhelmed, yet the waters could not get above them, but let the waters rise never so high, yet the ark kept above them, which evidently represents the safety of the church in Christ in the greatest danger, so that “when thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee.” Isa. xliii. 2. Concerning those that belong to the church of Christ, it is promised in Psal. xxxii. 6. “For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou mayest be found; surely in the floods of great waters they shall not come nigh unto him.” And though the church often appears as a low thing, as though the mighty waters that come against it could immediately overflow it, yet the church is kept above water, let them come in ever so fiercely, and rise never so high. If it was not the Lord that is on their side, oftentimes her enemies would swallow her up quick. This also represents to us how Christ was kept from sinking under his sufferings. It was impossible that Christ should fail in the great work that he undertook; and though his sufferings were so great, though the deluge that came upon him was so very great, the billows of wrath so mighty, enough to overwhelm a whole world, and to overwhelm the highest mountains, to overtop the stoutest and mightiest, yet Christ did not sink and fail, but was kept above water; he kept above all, and in the issue triumphed overall; as his church also in him shall obtain the victory over all her enemies, and shall appear finally above them, let them rise never so high, and deal never so proudly, as the ark kept still above the water, when the waters were mounted up even to heaven. The ship wherein Christ was could not sink. Matt. viii. 24, 25, 26. “And behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves; but he was asleep, and his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us; we perish. And he said unto them, Why are ye fearful? O ye of little faith! Then he arose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm.”

They that went into the ark were saved, when thousands and millions of others were destroyed; so they that dwell in the secret place of the Most High, that make Christ their refuge, and the Most High their habitation, thousands shall fall at their side, and ten thousands at their right hand; only with their eyes shall they behold and see the reward of the wicked, but no evil shall befall them, nor any plague come nigh their dwelling, Psal. xci.

There was but one ark that any could resort to for refuge in the whole world. So there is no other name, but the name of Christ, given under heaven among men whereby we must be saved. There was no other refuse but the ark. If they went up to the tops of their houses, or to the tops of the highest mountains, it was in vain, the waters overtopped them; so if men trust in their carnal confidences, in their own strength, their own works, and mount high in a towering conceit of their own righteousness, it is in vain. In vain is salvation looked for from the hills, and the multitude of the mountains, for there is no safety but in the Lord. Other refuges did they then probably look for, more likely to save them than the ark, for they could scarce conceive of such a way of safety by the floating of such a building on the waters, the art of making ships having not been discovered before that time. So men’s own righteousness looks more likely to men to save them, than Christ. They are ready to say of the Lord’s anointed, How shall this man save us?

There were but a few saved, when all the rest of the world was destroyed; so the church of Christ is but a little flock.

The door of the ark was open to receive all sorts of creatures, tigers, wolves, bears, lions, leopards, serpents, vipers, dragons, such as men would not by any means admit into the doors of their houses, but if they came they would soon have beat them out again. So Christ stands ready to receive all, even the vilest and worst: he came to save the chief of sinners. There were all kinds of creatures in the ark; so in the Christian church are gathered together persons of all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, persons of all degrees, all kinds of tempers and manners. In the ark the wolf dwelt with the lamb, the leopard lay down with the kid, all were peaceable together in the ark, even those that were the greatest enemies, and were wont to devour one another before, as it is prophesied that it should be in the Christian church, Isa. xi. 6., &c. lxv. 25.

All in the ark was subject to Noah, as the church is subject to Christ; all was saved by his righteousness, Gen. vii. 1. “And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark: for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.” As the church is saved by Christ’s righteousness, there is no rest any where for God’s people but and in Christ, as the dove that Noah sent forth found no rest for the sole of her foot but in the ark; when she wandered from the ark, she found no rest till she returned again. The dove therein was a type of a true saint, as the raven was a type of a false professor, who separates from Christ, and returns to him no more.

The ark was taken up from the earth, and after being long tossed to and fro in the waters, when it was not steered by the wisdom of Noah, but was only under the care of Providence, is rested on the top of an exceeding high mountain, as it were in heaven, and was brought into a new world; so the church of Christ in this world is tossed to and fro like a bark on the water, passes through great tribulation, and appears to be overwhelmed. Isa. liv. 11. “O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest, and not comforted! behold, I will lay thy stones with fair colours, and will lay thy foundations with sapphires.” At last, through God’s care of it and mercy to it, it rests in heaven. The ark, in the midst of the flood, rested on a mountain strong and high; so the church, when ready to be overwhelmed, rests on a rock higher than she.

[354] Gen. vii. 8, 9., and 14, 15, 16. Concerning the resorting of all kinds of birds, and beasts, and creeping things to the ark before the flood. The particular animals that were gathered together to the ark and saved there, when all the rest of their kind were destroyed, were those that God had pitched on, and in his sovereign pleasure chosen, out of the many thousands and millions that were of their kind, and yet they were of every kind, as it were of every nation of birds and beasts. So that here was a lively image of that gathering together of the elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other, that there was before the destruction of Jerusalem, and before the terrible judgments of God that came on the earth at and before Constantine’s time, and that will be before the great destruction of God’s enemies that will be about the time of the destruction of antichrist, when the harvest of the earth shall be gathered in before the vintage, and the gathering together there will be to Christ before the great, and general, and last destruction of the wicked by the general conflagration, when the world shall be destroyed by a deluge of fire. There are elect of every nation that shall be gathered in before the final destruction of the wicked world, as is often said in Scripture, especially in the book of Revelation. The doves and other birds then flocked to the windows of the ark, representing that flocking of souls to Christ which shall be as doves to their windows. They flocked together, the eagle, the vulture, and other rapacious birds, together with doves and other such birds, without preying upon them; representing times of great ingathering of souls to Christ, wherein the wolf dwells with the lamb, and the leopard lies down with the kid, &c.

[346] Gen. viii. 7, 8., &c. Concerning the raven and the dove, that Noah sent forth. The dove is an emblem of a gracious soul, which, finding no rest for its foot, no solid peace or satisfaction in this world, this deluged, defiling world, returns to Christ as to its ark, as to its Noah. The carnal heart, like the raven, takes up with the world, and feeds on the carrion it finds there. But return thou to thy rest, O my soul, to thy Noah, so the word is, Psal. cxvi. 7. “O that I had wings like a dove to flee to him,” Psal. lv. 6. The olive-branch, which was an emblem of peace, was brought, not by a raven, a bird of prey, nor by a gay and proud peacock, but by a mild, patient, humble dove. It is a dove-like disposition that brings in to the soul earnests of rest and joy.

[166] Gen. viii. 21. “And the Lord smelt a sweet savour, and the Lord said in his heart, I will not,” &c. It was not for the acceptableness of that sacrifice that made God promise that he would no more curse the ground, but the acceptableness of the sacrifice of Christ represented by it.

[347] Gen. ix. 5., &c. “And surely your blood of your lives will I require it whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” We have an account of murders before the flood, but nothing that looks as though murder was wont then to be revenged with death by men, in an established course of public justice. Lamech, when he had been guilty of murder, seems not to have been executed for it by men. And by the story of Cain, it should seem that God took the punishment of murder then into his own hands. In all probability, a little before the flood, when we read that the earth was filled with violence, the earth was filled with murders, and that those giants who then became such mighty men, and men of renown, were guilty of many murders, and that it was in the earth as it was in corrupt times in Israel, and the land was filled with oppression and violence, in other respects their hands were full of blood, Isa. i. 15. Jer. ii. 34. “And the land was full of blood,” Ezek. ix. 9. By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, they broke out, and blood toucheth blood: the like in many other places. And there being no human laws for putting murderers to death, therefore God did in a remarkable manner take that work into his own hands in the destruction of those murderers by the waters of the deluge; but now establishes it as a rule henceforward to be observed, that murder shall be revenged in a course of public justice.

Another reason why God now does expressly establish and particularly insist on this rule is, that God had now first given them leave to shed the blood of beasts for food, which had not been granted till now, which liberty they would have been in danger of abusing, to make shedding of blood appear a less terrible thing to them, and so taking encouragement the more lightly to shed men’s blood, had not God set up this fence.

[238] Gen. ix. 12, 13, 14, 15. Concerning the rainbow that God gave for a token of the covenant to Noah. The author of Revelation Examined with Candour, supposes that the rainbow was never seen before Noah saw it, on occasion of his revealing his covenant to him, and says, “The tradition of antiquity concerning the rainbow, seems strongly to confirm this opinion; for Iris, which is the name of the rainbow with the Greeks, is said to be the daughter of Thaumas, i. e. Wonder, and the messenger of Jupiter, to carry his great oath to the other gods when they had offended. Now this seems to be a fable plainly founded upon the solemn covenant now mentioned, which God made with men after the deluge: the covenant of God on this occasion plainly implies the oath of God, as you may learn from Isa. liv. 9. where God declaring his resolution of mercy to the Gentiles, useth these words, ’For this is as the waters of Noah unto me, for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.’”

[348] Gen. ix. 12., &c. Concerning the rainbow, the token of the covenant. This is on many accounts a token of God’s covenant of grace, and his special promise of no more overthrowing the earth with a flood in particular.

It was a most fit token of the covenant of grace of which this particular covenant was a part, and also an image, as appears by Isa. liv. 8, 9, 10. Tokens of things that appertain to the covenant of God do as fitly confirm this promise, as they did the promise mentioned in the 7th chap. of Isaiah, ver. 14. It is light which is the symbol of God’s favour and blessed communications to those that are the objects of his favour, and a symbol of hope, comfort and joy, excellency and glory. It is a very pleasant light, excellently representing that grace and love that is manifested in the covenant of grace, and that sweet comfort and peace, and that excellent grace and glory, that is the fruit of that love.

It is light manifested in all the variety of its beautiful colours, which represent, as has been elsewhere shown, the beauty and sweetness of the divine Spirit of love, and those amiable sweet graces and happy influences that are from that Spirit.

It is a pleasant sweet light in a cloud, which is the symbol of the divine presence, and especially of God manifest in the flesh, or in the human nature of Christ, and therefore fitly represents the pleasant grace and sweet love of God as appearing in Christ God man. The light of the sun is more beautiful and pleasant to our weak eyes appearing thus in a cloud where the dazzling brightness of it is removed, and its pleasantness retained and illustrated, than when we behold it in the sun directly. So the divine perfections, as appearing in Christ God man, are brought down to our manner of conception, and are represented to the greatest advantage to such weak creatures as we are, and appear not glaring and terrifying, but easy, sweet, and inviting. The light of the rainbow in a cloud, teaches the like mystery with the light of fire in a pillar of cloud in the wilderness, even the union of the divine nature, or God dwelling in flesh.

It is a pleasant light in the bosom of a dissolving cloud, that is wearied with watering, and is spending itself for the sake of men, and in order to shed down its fatness, its nourishing, benign, refreshing influences on the earth, and so fitly represents the beauty, and love, and excellent fulness of Christ, as it is manifested in his dying for men. The drops of rain fitly represent Christ’s blood, and also his word, and the blessed communications of his Spirit, which come by his death, and are compared to the rain in the Scripture.

As the cloud fitly represents the human nature of Christ’s person, so also it doth Christ mystical, or the human nature of the church. In the rainbow the light of the sun is imparted to, and sweetly reflected from, a cloud, that is but a vapour that continues for a little while, and then vanishes away in an empty, unsubstantial, vanishing thing, driven to and fro with the wind, that is far from having any light or beauty of its own, being in its own nature dark.

The multitude of drops from which the light of the sun is so beautifully reflected, signify the same with the multitude of the drops of dew that reflect the light of the sun in the morning, spoken of, Ps. cx. 3. (See notes in the place.) They are all God’s jewels, and, as they are all in heaven, each one, by its reflection, is a little star, and so do more fitly represent the saints than the drops of dew. These drops are all from heaven, as the saints are born from above; they are all from the dissolving cloud: so the saints are the children of Christ, they receive their new nature from him, and by his death they are from the womb of the cloud, the church: Jerusalem which is above, is the mother of us all: the saints are born of the church that is in travail with them, enduring great labours, and suffering, and carnal persecutions; so those jewels of God are out of the dissolving cloud. These drops receive and reflect the light of the sun just breaking forth, and shining out of the cloud that had been till now darkened and hid, and covered with thick clouds; so the saints receive grace and comfort from Christ’s rising from his state of humiliation, suffering, and death, wherein his glory was veiled, and he that is the brightness of God’s glory was as it were extinguished, as was signified in the time of it, by that eclipse of the sun. The light which in the sun, its fountain, is one and unvaried, as it is reflected from the cloud appears with great variety; so the glory of God, that is simple, is reflected from the saints in various graces. The whole rainbow, composed of innumerable shining beautiful drops, all united in one, ranged in such excellent order, some parts higher and others lower, the different colours one above another in such exact order, beautifully represents the church of saints of different degrees, gifts, and offices, each with its proper place, and each with its peculiar beauty: each drop may be beautiful in itself, but the whole, as united together, much more beautiful. Numb. xxiv. 5, 6. “How goodly are thy tents, O Jacob! and thy tabernacles, O Israel! as the valleys are they spread forth, as the gardens by the river’s side; as the trees of lign-aloes which the Lord hath planted, and as the cedar-trees beside the waters.” Ps. xlviii. 2. “Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion.” Ps. 1. 2. “Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God hath shined.” Ps. cxxii. 3. “Jerusalem is builded as a city compact together.” Part of this bow is on earth, and part in heaven, so it is with the church. The bow gradually rises higher and higher from the earth towards heaven, so the saints from their first conversion are travelling in the way towards heaven, and gradually climb the hill, till they arrive at the top. So this bow in this respect is a like token of the covenant with Jacob’s ladder, which represented the way to heaven by the covenant of grace, in which the saints go from step to step, and from strength to strength, till they arrive at the heavenly Zion; so in this bow the ascent is gradual towards the top in the way to heaven; the beginning of the ascent is sharpest and most difficult; the higher you ascend the easier the ascent becomes. On earth this bow is divided, the parts of it that are here below are at a distance from one another, but in heaven it is united, and perfectly joined together. So different parts of the church on earth may be divided, separated as to distance of place, have no acquaintance one part with another, and separated in manner of worship and many opinions, and separate in affection, but will be perfectly united in heaven. The parts of the rainbow, the higher you ascend, the nearer and nearer do they come together; so the more eminent saints are in knowledge and holiness, the nearer they are to a union in opinion and affection; but perfect union is not to be expected but in heaven.

This beautiful, pleasant light, appears after the heavens have been covered with blackness, and have poured out rain on the earth, seeming to threaten its destruction by a deluge; so it is a fit symbol of his mercy after his anger, the turning away of his anger, his mercy appearing in the forgiveness of sins. So the glorious gospel follows the law, and Christ’s glory follows his sufferings, and comfort in the hearts of the saints follows sorrows of conscience; yea, this light is light in darkness, it is a beautiful light reflected from the dark cloud, showing God’s love in his anger, his love appearing in his frowns. God’s love never so greatly appeared as in the sufferings of Christ, the greatest manifestation of his anger against sinners, and his love when the shower is over in past threatenings, and convictions, and terrors of conscience, which the saints have been the subjects of.

The rainbow, if completed, would be a perfect circle, the most perfect figure in every part united, fitly representing the most excellent order and perfect union that there shall be in the church of Christ. The rainbow is sometimes in Scripture represented as a circle, Rev. x. 1. “And a rainbow was upon his head.” The reason why the circle is not now complete, is because a part of it is as it were under the earth; but if we by standing on a high mountain, or otherwise, see it all raised above the earth, we should see it a complete circle. So the church of Christ is now incomplete, while a part of the elect church is buried under the earth, and a part has never yet received being, but after the general resurrection, when that part of the church that is now under the earth shall be raised above it, then the church of Christ would be in its complete state. If we could view the resurrection church from a high mountain, as the apostle John viewed it, and saw it in the colours of the rainbow, reflected from these precious stones, we should see the circle completed without any part wanting, all disposed in the most perfect union and beautiful order. The order of the drops of the rainbow, supposing them to represent saints, and the sun to represent Christ, is the most apt, commodious, and beautiful, both with respect to the sun and each other. They are in the most apt order with respect to the sun, all opposite to him, and so placed in a fit posture to view the sun, and to receive and reflect his rays, all at an equal distance from the sun, and all in a sense round about him to testify their respect to him, and yet none behind him, but all before his face, and all in the most apt order to behold and reflect light on, and converse together, and assist and rejoice one another. On the whole, here is an image of the most pleasant and perfect harmony, of a great and blessed society, dependent on, blessed in, and showing respect to, the fountain of all light and love.

The sun is as it were in the centre of this beautiful circle of little jewels or stars, as the sun is in the centre of the orbits of the planets, and as the ark, and the mercy-seat, and the seven lamps, were in the midst of the tabernacle of blue, and purple, and scarlet, those colours of the rainbow, and as Christ is in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, and as the throne of the Lamb is in the midst of the saints of heaven, who are round about that throne, and also a rainbow round about the throne, Rev. iv. 3, 4. and as the Lamb, who is the light of the new Jerusalem, has that city adorned with the colours of the rainbow round about him.

Each drop contains in itself a beautiful image of the sun reflected after its manner according to that part of the sun’s glory which is most conspicuous in it: one contains a red image of the sun, another a yellow one, another a green one, and another a blue one, &c.: so each saint reflects the image of Christ, though each one has his particular gift, and there be some particular grace or spiritual beauty that is most conspicuous in him. The whole bow, when completed into the form of a circle, or all that multitude of shining jewels or stars together united into that excellent form and order, do together constitute one complete image of the sun. Though the image differs from the sun itself in the following things: 1. That whereas the disk of the sun is full within its own circumference, the image is empty, it is a circle not filled, but left empty to be filled with the sun; so Christ has all fulness in himself, but the church is in itself an empty vessel, and Christ is her fulness. 2. Whereas the light is single in the sun, in the bow it is diversified, reflected in a great variety, the distinct glories of the sun as it were divided, and separately reflected, each beauty by itself, as it is in Christ and his church. 3. Though there be so many that each one reflects a little image of the sun, and the whole bow or circle be of so great extent, and be so beautiful, yet the sun infinitely exceeds the whole in light, the whole reflects but a little of the brightness of the fountain.

A drop of rain fitly represents man. It is a very small thing, of little value and significancy; a drop of the bucket, and light dust of the balance, are mentioned together as small and worthy of no consideration. It is very weak, very mutable, and unstable, exceeding liable to perish, soon falls and is dissipated, and cannot be made up again. The continuance of a drop of rain is but short, it is a thing of a very posting nature, its course is swift, and in a moment it sinks into the earth, and is no more, which fitly represents the frailty and mortality of man, whose days are swifter than a weaver’s shuttle, who is but a momentary thing, and hastens with a swift course to the grave. Man’s dying and sinking into the grave is compared to this very thing, of water’s being spilt on the ground, sinking into the earth, and so being irrecoverably gone, 2 Sam. xiv. 14.

The drops of rain reflecting the light of the sun in the rainbow fitly represent the saints, for in them fire and water are mixed together, which fitly represents the contrary principles that are in the saints’ flesh and spirit. In those drops are a brighter spark of heavenly fire in the midst of water, and yet it is not quenched, it is kept alive by the influence of the sun, as the heavenly seed and divine spark is kept alive in the saints in the midst of corruption and temptation, that seem often as if they would overwhelm and extinguish it. So God suffers not the smoking flax to be quenched. The drop in itself is wholly water, as the nature of man in itself is wholly corrupt; in the saints, that is, in their flesh, dwells no good thing; they have no light or brightness in them, but only what is immediately from heaven, from the Sun of righteousness. In the drops of the rainbow is represented both the saints descending to the grave by the flesh, and also their ascending to heaven by the spirit of holiness, for the water descends swiftly to be buried in the earth, but by the fire, a beautiful light, in them is represented an ascent as it were up a hill from the earth to heaven.

These drops fitly represent the saints on another account, as Mary’s alabaster box of precious ointment represented the heart of a saint; this drop, though itself is weak and frail, yet is clear and pure as alabaster, and contains as it were a spark or show of beautiful heavenly light in it, which represents the same divine grace that Mary’s precious ointment did.

[419] Gen. x. and xi. The dispersion and first settlement of the nations. By the descendants of Jophat were the isles of the Gentiles divided, Gen. x. 5. By the Isles, the Hebrews denoted not only such countries as were on all sides encompassed by sea, but also such countries as were so divided by the sea from them as that they could not be well come unto, or at least used not to be gone unto, but by sea; in brief, they called islands all beyond sea-countries, and all people islanders, which were wont to come by the sea to them and to the Egyptians, among whom the Jews lived a long time, and so called things by the same names, at least in Moses’s time, when the people were lately come out of Egypt. Now such are not only the island of Cyprus, Crete, and other islands of the Mediterranean, but also the country of the Lesser Asia, and the countries of Europe; and indeed those countries, so many of them as were then inhabited and known to the Jews, were not only beyond the sea, but peninsulas mostly encompassed by the sea, as the Lesser Asia, Greece, Italy, and Spain. And that not only Europe, but the countries of the Lesser Asia were called isles, seems manifest by Isa. x 10, 11. “The Lord shall recover the remnant of his people from Assyria, Egypt, Pathros, Cush, Elam, Shinar, Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.” Lesser Asia is either here included under the term, islands of the sea, or wholly left out; but it is not likely the countries of Asia would be mentioned, so many of them to the south-east and north of Judea, far and near, and the countries of Europe beyond the Lesser Asia, and all countries of the Lesser Asia wholly passed over.

The sons of Japhet were seven, Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras. The sons of Gomer were Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah. The sons of Javan were Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodenim, Gen. x. 2, 4.

To begin with Gomer and his sons, to whom we may assign the greatest part of the northern tract of the Lesser Asia for their first plantations. Josephus tells us expressly that the Galatians who lived in this tract were called Gomerites, and Herodotus tells us that a people called Cimmerii dwelt in those parts; and Pliny speaks of a town in Troas, a part of Phrygia, called Cimmeris. All the northern part of Lesser Asia was anciently called Phrygia by the Greeks, which is a word that in the Greek language signifies torrid or burnt country, as Gomer in Hebrew is from the Radix Gamar, which signifies to consume; and its derivation Gumra, or Gumro, signifies a coal, and it is certain there was a part of this country which was specially called by the Greeks Greek or Hebrew Burnt Phrygia.

Ashkenaz, who of the three sons of Gomer is first named by Moses, was seated in the western part of the nation of Gomer, i. e. in the north-west part of the Lesser Asia; as it is hardly to be questioned, there being so plain footsteps of his name to be found in those parts; for in Bythinia there is a bay formerly called the Ascanian bay, together with a river and lake of the same name, and in the lesser Phrygia, or Troas, there was both a city and province anciently known by the name of Ascania, and there was isles lying on the coast called the Ascanian isles; nor is it any way unlikely but that in honour of this Ashkenaz, the king and great men of those parts took the name of Ascanias, of which name, besides Ascanius, the son of Eneas, we find a king mentioned in the second book of Homer’s Iliads, which came to the aid of Priamus at the siege of Troy, and from hence probably came that name the Greeks gave to the sea, the Euxine sea. From the family of Ashkenaz, upon the coasts along which lies the entrance into this sea, with some variation of the sound, which length of time might naturally introduce. And the prophet Jeremiah foretelling the taking of Babylon by Cyrus, has this expression, chap. li. ver. 27. “Call together against her the kingdom of Ararat, and Miseni, and Ashkenaz;” where, by the kingdom of Ashkenaz, may very well be understood the inhabitants of those parts we are speaking of, for Xenophon, as Bochart has well observed, tells us that Cyrus having taken Sardes, sent Hystaspes with an army into Phrygia, that lies on the Hellespont, and that Hystaspes having made himself master of the country, brought along with him from thence a great many of the horse and other soldiers of the Phrygians, whom Cyrus took along with the rest of his army to Babylon.

Riphath, the second son of Gomer, is probably supposed to have seated his family in the parts adjoining eastward to the plantation of his brother Ashkenaz. This opinion is confirmed by the testimony of Josephus, who expressly says that the Paphlagonians, a people inhabiting some portion of this tract, were originally called Riphateans, from Riphat. There are also some remainders of his name to be found here among the writings of the ancient Greeks and Latins. For in Apollonius’s Argonauticks, there is mention made of the river called Rhebœus, which rising in this tract, empties itself into the Euxine sea. The same is called by Dionysius Periegetes and others, Rhebas. Stephanus does not only acquaint us with the river, but tells us also of a region of the same name, and whose inhabitants were called Rhebœi; and Pliny places here a people called Riphœi, and another called Arimphœi.

The third and last son of Gomer named by Moses, is Togarmah, whose family was seated in the remaining, and consequently in the most easterly, part of the nation of Gomer, and this situation of the family of Togarmah is agreeable both to sacred and common writers; for as to sacred Scripture, Ezekiel thus speaks, chap. xxxviii. ver. 6. “Gomer, and all his bands, the house of Togarmah, of the north quarters, and all his bands;” and again chap. xxvii. ver. 14. “They of the house of Togarmah traded in thy fairs, (i. e. the fairs of Tyre,) with horses, and horsemen, and mules.” Now the situation that we assign to Togarmah makes it in a manner lie true north from Judea and Cappadocia, by which name a considerable part of the lot of Togarmah was in process of time known to the Greeks, was very well stocked with an excellent breed of horses and mules, and that the inhabitants were esteemed good horsemen, as is well attested by several ancient heathen writers, as Solinus, of Cappadocia, Dionysius Periegetes, Claudian, and Strabo; and there are to be found footsteps of the very name of Togomah in some of those names, whereby some of the inhabitants of this tract were known to old writers. Thus Strabo tells us that the Trochmi dwelt in the confines of Pontus and Cappadocia. And several towns lying on the east of the river Halys, and so in Cappadocia, are assigned to them by Ptolemy. They are by Cicero called Trogmi, and Trachmeni by Stephanus; and in the council of Chalcedon they are called Trocmades or Trogmades; there being frequent mention made in that council of Cyriæus, bishop of the Trogmades.

We next proceed to say something of the colonies which, coming from the nation of Gomer, in process of time spread themselves in several parts of Europe. Herodotus tells us that a people called Cimmerii formerly dwelt in that tract of Lesser Asia, which we assign to Gomer. So he tells us withal that these people put out a colony to Palus Mæotis, on the north of the Euxine sea, and so gave the name of Bosphorus Cimmerius to the strait betwixt the Euxine sea and the Mæotick lake, now commonly called the strait of Caffa.

This colony of the Cimmerii increasing in process of time, and so spreading themselves still by new colonies further westward, came along the Danube, and settled themselves in the country which from them has been called Germany. For as to the testimony of the ancients, Diodorus Siculus (as Mr. Mede observes) affirms that the Germans had their original from the Cimmerians, and the Jews to this day (as the same learned person remarks) call them Ashkenazim of Ashkenaz. Indeed they themselves retain plain marks enough of their descent both in the name Cimbri and also in their common name Germans, or as they call themselves, Germen, which is but a small variation from Gemren, or Gomren, and this last is easily contracted from Gomerin, that is, Gomereans; for the termination en is a plural termination of the German language, and from the singular number, Gomer, is formed Gemren by the same analogy that from brother is formed brethren. The other name Cimbri, is easily framed from Cimmerii, and by that name the inhabitants of the northwest peninsula of old Germany, now called Jutland, were known not only to the ancient, but latter writers, and from this name of the inhabitants, the said peninsula is called Cimbrica Chersonesus, and that frequently by modern authors.

Out of Germany, the descendants of Gomer spread themselves into Gaul, or France. To prove this, Mr. Camden quotes the testimony of Josephus, when he says that those called by the Greeks Golatæ were originally called Gomerites, which words may be understood either of the Asiatic Golatæ, commonly called by us Galatians, or the European Galatæ, commonly called by us Gauls. If it be taken in the former sense, then it is a testimony for the first seating of Gomer in the tract of the Lesser Asia we have assigned him, and on this account it is before taken notice by us. Mr. Camden also produces the testimony of other writers to prove the Gauls to be from Gomer, as of Appian, who, in his Illyricks, says expressly that the Celts, or Gauls, were otherwise called Cimbri. Those barbarians whom Marius defeated, Cicero plainly terms Gauls, and all historians agree that these were the Cimbri. And the coat-armour of Beleus, their king, digged up at Aix, in Provence, where Marius routed them, does evince the same, for the words Beleos Cimbros were engraven upon it in a strange character. Again: Lucan calls that ruffian that was hired to kill Marius, a Cimbrian, whereas Livy and others affirm him to have been a Gaul; and by Plutarch the Cimbri are called Gallo-Scythians.

Hence we conclude that the ancient inhabitants of Britain were descended from Gomer, for it is not to be questioned but that the isle was first peopled from those countries of the European continent which lie next to it, and consequently from Germany or Gaul. The name by which the offspring of those ancient Britons, the Welch, call themselves to this very day, is Kumro, or Cimro, and Kumri, and in like manner they call a Welch woman Kumraes, and their language, Humeraeg; and since the Saxons and Angles were Germans, who, as was before observed, were descendants of Gomer, and were near neighbours to the people that were more especially called Cimbri, hence it follows that our ancestors, who succeeded the old Britons, were also descended from Gomer.

But now to proceed to the other sons of Japhet, as the nation of Gomer first seated itself in the northern tract of the Lesser Asia, so the nation of Javan seated itself in the southern tract of the same. And this appears not only from the name of a country in this tract called Ionia, but also from the situation of the four families of Javan’s sons within this tract, which are mentioned in this order by Moses, Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim, Gen. x. 4.

Tarshish seated himself on the eastern part of this tract, as is probable, on several considerations. For Tarsus is a chief town of Cilicia, and Josephus expressly affirms that Cilicia, and the country round it, was originally known by the name of Tarshish. It is scarcely to be doubted, but this was the Tarshish to which the prophet Jonas thought to flee from the presence of the Lord, as also that this principally was the Tarshish mentioned so often by the prophets, on account of its trading with Tyre.

To the west of Tarshish, adjoining the portion appertaining to Kittim, or Cittim, which word having a plural termination, does, in all probability, imply the descendants of Keth, or the Ketians. Ptolemy tells us of a country here called Cetis, and Homer in Odys. 4. mentions a people called Cetii, who were thought to take their name from a river, Cetius, in the same quarter. But it is remarkable that this is agreeable to the name mentioned by Homer. Josephus will have the isle of Cyprus to have been the seat of the Cittim, because therein was a town called Citium, of good note, but it is not to be questioned, but the continent was peopled before the island, and consequently that the Cittim first seated themselves on the continent, from which they might, probably enough, send in process of time some colony over into the neighbouring island of Cyprus.

The two remaining families of Javan, viz. Elishah and Dodanim, seated themselves on the western coast of the southern tract of the Lesser Asia. Here upwards, or northwards, were anciently situated the Æoles, who as they carry some marks of their pedigree in their name, so are expressly affirmed by Josephus to have been descended from Elishah, and from him to have taken their name. And since the country, peculiarly called in after-ages, Ionia, joined to the south, of what was in said ages peculiarly called Æolia, it is probable that the said Ionia, (so peculiarly called perhaps, from Javan’s living therewith his son Elishah,) was possessed originally by the sons of Elishah, or else partly by them and partly by the Dodanim of whom next.

On the same western coast, south of the family of Elishah, may the family of Dodanim be supposed to have first planted itself, for there we find in ancient writers a country called Doris, which may not improbably be derived from Dodanim, especially if this be plural, as the termination seems to import, and so the singular was Dodan; which being softened into Doran, the Greeks might easily frame from thence Dorus, whom they assert to be the father of the Dorians. Certain it is from the Greek writers themselves, that the Dorés or Dorians were a considerable body of the Greeks, insomuch that Dorico Castra is taken by Virgil to denote the whole Grecian camp, wherefore it is very probable that they had their extraction from one of the sons of Javan, the father of the Greek nation, and distinguished themselves from the other families of Javan, by assuming to themselves the name of the father of their family, as the others did, and consequently called themselves Dodanim, which the Greeks in time moulded into Dorés. The Greeks say of Dorus, the father of the Dorians, that he was the son of Neptune, who evidently was the same with Japhet; (see No. 405.) and though Dodanim was the grandson of Japhet, yet according to the usual way of speaking among the Hebrews, he was called the son of Japhet. The change of Dodan into Dorus is the more likely, by reason of the great likeness there is between the Hebrew D and R. Hence, (viz. from Doris,) some might pass over to the isle of Rhodes, which might take its name from those Dodanim, which by reason of the likeness of letters is sometimes writ Rodanim, which seems to have been the opinion of the Seventy Interpreters, by their rendering the Hebrew word Dodanim by Greek or Hebrew, Rhodii.

I proceed now to speak of the colonies of the posterity of Javan, that in process of time were made from their first settlements, and I shall begin with the two last mentioned, Elishah and Dodanim; for those lying on the western coast of the Lesser Asia, as they increased, peopled by degrees the many isles that lie on the adjoining sea, and so at length spread themselves into the European continent. The family of Elishah seems to have possessed themselves of most, or at least the most considerable isles lying in the sea between Europe and Asia, forasmuch as they are called by the prophet Ezekiel xxvii. 7. the isles of Elishah. What the prophet there says of the blue and the purple from the isles of Elishah, is very applicable to the isles of this sea, forasmuch as they did abound in this commodity, and are on that account celebrated by common authors, and some of them took their names from it. And the sea itself on which these isles were, seems originally to have been called the Sea of Elishah; which name, though it wore away in process of time in other parts, yet seems to have been all along preserved in that part, which to this day is frequently called the Hellespont, as if one should say Elisæ Pontos, the Sea of Elishah. And this derivation of the word Hellespont will appear yet more likely, when we consider that the descendants of Elishah, passing over into Europe, came afterwards to be termed Hellenes, and their country Hellas, a name which in process of time became common to all Greece; in which there were other footsteps of Elishah’s name to be found formerly, as in the city and province of Elis, in the Peloponnesus, in the city of Eleusis, in Attica; and in the river Elissus, and Ilissus, in the same province. Some think the Campi Elisii, so much celebrated among the Greeks, to have been so called from Elishah.

As to Dodenim, or the Dorians, the Spartans, or the Lacedemonians, looked on themselves to be of Dorick extraction, and there were formerly remainders of the name to be found in those parts of Greece. In the province of Messena, in the Peloponnesus, there was a town called Dorion, and of the other tract of Greece, lying above the isthmus of the Peloponnesus, there was a considerable part called Doria, Dorica, or Doris; to say nothing of Dodona: and all the Greek nation is sometimes called Dores, as was before observed, out of Virgil.

As to Kittim, or the Cittim, they probably sent their first colony to the neighbouring isle of Cyprus, which seems to be called the land of Chittim, Isa. xxiii. 1-12. But in process of time wanting more room, and therefore seeking out further, and finding the lower parts of Greece already inhabited by the descendants of Elishah and Dodanim, they still proceeded on, coasting along the western shores of Greece, until they came to the upper and northern parts of it, which not being yet inhabited, some of them planted themselves there, while some others of them descrying the coast of Italy, went and settled themselves in that country. Hence it comes to pass, in probability, that both Macedonia in Greece, and also Italy, are denoted in Scripture by the names of Cittim, or Kittim. The author of the book of Maccabees plainly denotes Macedonia by the land of Chetiim, when he says that Alexander, the son of Philip the Macedonian, came out of the land of Chetiim, 1 Mac. i. 1.; so also chap. viii. 5. the said author calls Perseus king of Macedonia, king of the Citims. The more ancient name of this country was Macetia, and the Macedonians themselves are otherwise termed Maceta.

The place of Scripture where Chittim, by the consent of almost all expositors, denotes the Romans, is Dan. xi. 29, 30. for by the ships of Chittim, there mentioned, is understood the Roman fleet; by the coming whereof, Antiochus was obliged to desist from his designs against Egypt. There are also several footsteps of the name Chittim, or Cheth, to be found in Italy, among eminent writers; as a city of Latium, called Cetia, mentioned by Dionysius Helicarnasseus: another city among the Volsci, called Echetia, mentioned by Stephanus; also a river near Eumæ, called Cetus. Nay, there are not wanting authors who expressly assert the Romans and Latins to have had their extraction from the Citii, or Cetii, as Eusebius, Cadrenus, Suidas; whose testimonies are produced by Bochart; and this learned person observes further, that the word Chetim does, in the Arabic tongue, denote a thing hid, so that the name Latins might be originally only a translation of the old eastern name Chetim.

There remains now only the colonies of Tarshish to be spoken of, and wheresoever else they seated themselves it is highly probable that Tartessus, a city and adjoining country in Spain, and much celebrated by the ancients for its wealth, was a colony of Tarshish. Bochart has observed that Polybius, reciting the words of a league between the Romans and Carthaginians, mentions a place under the name of Tarscium; and Stephanus expressly says, that Tarscium was a city near Hercules’s Pillars: the situation whereof agrees well enough with that of Tartessus. Again, what is said by Ezekiel, chap. xxvii. ver. 12. agrees very well with this Tarshish; for the words of the prophet run thus, “Tarshish was thy merchant by reason of the multitude of all kinds of riches; with silver, iron, tin, and lead, they traded in thy fairs;” i. e. in the fairs of Tyre. Now, as has been before observed, Tartessus was celebrated among the ancients for its multitude of riches, and the metals mentioned by the prophet were such as Spain did formerly abound with. Some also are of opinion that the Etrusci of Italy, otherwise called Turrheni and Tusei, were a colony of Tarshish. The word Etrusci, without the initial E, (which was frequently added to derivatives,) contains the radicals of Tarshish.

The descendants of Tarshish were the most expert seamen, and consequently the chief merchants of the early ages of the world. Hence the whole Mediterranean sea seems to have been at length comprehended under the name of the sea of Tarshish. And because the descendants of Tarshish were wont to make longer voyages, and to adventure further into the open sea, than others did in those days, it is not unlikely that they had ships built for this purpose, and so of somewhat different make both as to size and shape from the vessels commonly used by others: and hence it is probable that all vessels built for longer voyages and greater burdens came to be called ships of Tarshish, because they were built like the ships of Tarshish properly so called.

Having observed these things concerning the settlements and colonies of the four families of Javan, I would here add something with respect to Javan himself, the father of this whole nation; and I would observe that it is probable that the colonies that passed over in process of time into Europe, though they were distinguished in reference to their distinct families by their distinct names, yet were all at first comprehended under the name of Jonians. Indeed the Scholiast in Aristophanes (as Bochart hath observed) expressly says, that all the Greeks were by the Barbarians called Iaones, i.e. Ionians. Hence the Ionian sea came to be extended anciently to the western coast of Greece, and that northwards up as far as the western coast of Macedonia. Now it is plain that the name Ionians was derived from the founder of this nation, Javan. For the Hebrew word, setting aside the vowels which are of disputable authority, may be read Ion, or Jaon. But supposing the word to be all along pronounced with the same vowels it has in the Hebrew text at present, it is granted by the learned in the same language, that the true pronunciation of the Hebrew vowel, Kamets, carries in it a mixture of our vowel o as well as a, so that the Hebrew Greek or Hebrew is very regularly turned into the Greek Greek or Hebrew, whence by contraction may be made Greek or Hebrew. Since therefore not only the forementioned Scholiast, but also Homer, styles those who were commonly called Iones, by the name of Jaones, it is not to be doubted but the Ionians were so called from Javan the founder of their nation. Agreeably to what has been said, we find the country of Greece denoted in the book of Daniel from time to time, the country of Javan, Dan. viii. 21. Dan. x. 20. Dan. xi. 2.; and also in Joel iii. 6. And though the Athenians affirm that the Asiatic Ionians were a colony of theirs, yet Hecateus in Strabo affirms, that the Athenians, or Ionians of Europe, came from those of Asia.

Having spoken somewhat largely of the posterity of Gomer and Javan, because Europe appears to be chiefly peopled by them, we now proceed to take notice of the other sons of Japhet, among whom I shall speak next of Tubal and Meshech, which are so mentioned together from time to time in Scripture, that it is evident that their settlements were adjoining one to the other.

Meshech joined on to the nation of Gomer eastward, and so settling at first in part of Cappadocia and Armenia, what according to the present vowels in the Hebrew is Meshech, was by the Seventy Interpreters, and others, read Mosoch, and hence it is very probable that they are the same called by the Greeks Greek or Hebrew, Mosci, who were seated in those parts, and from whom no question but the neighbouring ridge of hills took the name of Montes Moschici, mentioned by the old geographers.

To the north of Meshech adjoined the first plantation of Tubal, who, by Josephus, is expressly affirmed to be the father of the Asiatic Iberians. The same historian asserting that when the Greeks called Iberi were originally called Theobeli from Tubal, adds hereunto that Ptolemy places in those parts a city called Thabilica. Mr. Bochart supposes the Tibareni, a people mentioned by old authors in this tract, to have been so called, from Tubal, by the change of L into R, which is very frequent. But that Meshech and Tubal seated themselves in those parts is in a manner put beyond dispute, by what is said of those two nations in Ezek. xxvii. 13. ”Tubal and Meshech were thy merchants; they traded in slaves and vessels of brass in thy market.” For it is evident from the testimonies of heathen writers that the Pontic region, especially Cappadocia, was remarkable formerly for slaves, as also that in the country of the Tibareni, and Iberia, there was the best sort of brass. Mr. Bochart observes that the Hebrew word translated in this place brass, is sometimes rendered steel; and hence he remarks that as a piece of iron or brass is in the Arabic tongue called Tubal, probably from its coming out of the country of Tubal, so it is likely that from the excellent steel that was made in their country, some of the inhabitants thereof were denominated by the name of Chalybes among the Greeks: the word Chalybs, in the Greek language, signifying steel.

That the Muscovites, or Moscoviles, in Europe, were a colony originally of Meshech, or Mosoch, called by the Greeks, Moschi, is very probable.

Magog is, by the testimony of Josephus, Eustathius, St. Jerome, Theodoret, and, (as Mr. Mede expresses it,) by the consent of all men, placed north of Tubal, and esteemed the father of the Scythians that dwell in the east, and north-east, of the Euxine sea. This situation is confirmed by Scripture itself, Ezek. xxxviii. 2. “Set thy face against Gog, in, or of, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal.’’ Bochart conjectures that the mountain called by the Greeks Caucasus, took its name from Gog. But the name of Gog was entirely preserved in the name Gogarene, whereby was formerly denoted a country in those parts, as we learn both from Strabo and Stephanus. And from hence perhaps in time was fashioned the name Georgia, Gurgistan, whereby at this very day is denoted a considerable tract in this quarter. That Gog denotes the Scythians in the prophecy of Ezekiel, may be rationally inferred from Ezek. xxxix. 3. where God speaks of Gog thus, “I will smite thy bow out of thy left hand, and will cause thine arrows to fall out of thy right hand.” Now it is too well known to the learned to need proof, that the Scythians were remarkably famous of old for their skill in the use of the bow and arrow, insomuch that some among them for their winking with one eye when they shot, are said to have given them the name of arimaspi, one-eyed. Nay, it is thought by some, and not without ground, that the very name of Scythians was derived from shooting, forasmuch as in the German tongue shooters are called Scutten.

To say something of the colonies of Magog. In the panegyric of Tibullus to Messala, we find mention made by the poet of a people about the river Tanais, called Magini, which probably came from Magog. Yea, it is not improbable that the Mæotick lake into which the Tanais runs, took its name from the descendants of Magog; for Magogitis, or Magotis, the Greeks might naturally after their manner soften into Maiotis, which the Latins and we render Mæotis. We read in Pliny, that the city in Syria, called Hierapolis, was by the Syrians called Magog, which name it is thought most likely to have taken from the Scythians, when they made an excursion into Syria, and took this city. On the like account it is that the city in Judea, called Bethsan, was also called in after-ages, Scythopolis. Now Hierapolis being thus called Magog, it is not improbable but the adjoining part of Syria might be from thence called Magagene; which afterwards might be moulded into Gomagene, and so into Comagene; by which the northern part of Syria was denoted among the Greeks and Latins.

The next son of Japhet is Madai, who is almost universally looked upon to be the father of the Medes, who are all along denoted by the name of Madai in the Hebrew text. Bochart thinks the Samaritans a colony from those; he conjectures that the name of the Samaritans was originally Sear-Madai, which in the original language denotes the remnant, or posterity, of the Medes. See objections against this and another region allotted to Madai, in Pool’s Synops. vol. i. col. 117, 118.

Tiras, or Thiras, the last son of Japhet, is by universal agreement esteemed the father of the Thracians. The name whereby the country of Thrace is called in oriental writers, plainly shows that the Greek name Thrace was originally derived from Thiras, the founder of the nation. Ancient writers also tell us, that here was a river, a bay, and a haven, each called by the name of Atheyras, and they mention a city in the peninsula of Thrace called Tyristasis, and a tract in this country called Thrasus, and a people called Trausi. We learn also from them that one of the names of Mars, the god of the Thracians, was Greek or Hebrew. Hence Homer calls Mars by an epithet Greek or Hebrew, Mars Thurus. We read also in old authors of Tereus, the son of Mars, and first king of the Thracians, and of one Teres king of Odrysæ, a people in Thrace: and the Odrysæ themselves are said to take their name from one Odrysus, a great person among them, insomuch that in after-ages he was worshipped by the Thracians as a god. As for the colonies of Tiras, it is hardly to be doubted but some of them planted themselves in the country over against Thrace, on the north side of the Euxine sea. For there is a considerable river in those parts, called in both Greek and Latin writers Tiras. The very same as the name of the father of the Thracian nation, which river is now called the Niester. There was also a city of the name of Tiras, standing on this river. The inhabitants of these parts were also formerly known by the name of Turitæ, or Tyragetæ. Though probably the Tyritœ might denote the true descendants of Tyras; and the Tyragetæ might denote a mixed race, that arose out of the Tyritæ mixing with the Getæ, a bordering people, descendants of the Cetim, who settled in Macedonia.

It is not unlikely that Tyras might first sit down with his family in the Lesser Asia, in the country of Troy, which had nothing to part it from Thrace but the narrow strait of the Hellespont, and the ancient king named Tros, whence the country is denominated, was probably no other than Tyras. It is the common opinion and tradition among Greek writers, that the inhabitants on the east side of the Hellespont and Propontis, were originally or anciently Thracians.

We proceed next to the first plantations of the sons of Shem. There are five sons of Shem mentioned by Moses, viz. Elam, and Ashur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram.

I shall begin with the settlement of Aram, as being the first nation of the branch of Shem, adjoining to the nations of the branch of Japhet, already spoken of. For the portion that fell to the nation of Aram, lay in the countries called by the Greeks Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Syria. It is probable that Armenia took its present name from Aram. Mesopotamia, as it was so called by the Greeks, from its situation between the rivers Euphrates and Tygris, so it was called by the Hebrews Aram Naharaim, i. e. Aram of, or between, the two rivers. And whereas one part of this country, viz. that lying next to Armenia, was very fruitful, and the other to the south very barren, and so of the like sort with Arabia Deserta, to which it adjoined, hence the former is in Scripture distinguished by the name of Padan-aram, which is equivalent to, Fruitful Aram.

Aram’s sons are four, viz. Uz and Hul, Gether and Mash. As for Uz, he is by a great agreement of the ancients said to be the builder of the city of Damascus, and his posterity are supposed to have settled the country about it. Here see Pool’s Synopsis on Gen. x. 23.

The family of Hul, or as it is in the original, Chul, may, with great probability be placed in Armenia, particularly the Greater Armenia, for there we find the names of several places beginning with the radicals of Chul, as Cholva, Cholvata, Cholimna, Colsa, Calura; and to mention but one more, Cholobatene, which last seems to have been formed from the oriental Cholbeth, which denotes the same as the house or dwelling of Chol. Now this Cholobatene being the name of a province in Armenia, from this especially we may gather with good probability that Chul with his family seated himself in those parts.

Between Hul to the north, and Uz to the south, their brother Mash seated himself, viz. about the mountain Masius. From this mountain issues out a river of Mesopotamia, called by Xenophon Masca, which probably comes from the name of this son of Aram, who otherwise is called in Scripture Meshech, the radicals whereof are plainly contained in the name Masca. The inhabitants of the tract adjoining to the M. Masius, are by Stephanus called Masieni, or Masiani.

Gether probably seated himself east of his brother Hul, on the eastern borders of Armenia; where some in Ptolemy observe a city called formerly Getaræ, and a river of the same country called Getras.

We now pass on to the nation of Ashur, which is eastward of the nation of Aram, in the country called Ashur in the eastern tongues, which is Assyria, properly and originally so called, living east of the Tigris, and wherein stood the city of Nineveh, which was afterwards called Acetabene, and also was sometimes by a change of S into T formerly called Attyria. The most ancient king of Assyria was said to be the son of Zames, i. e. Shem, and is styled in Suidas, and some others, Thuras, corruptly for Atthuras, i. e. Ashur; for Ashur in the Chaldee tongue is Atthur, or Atther. This Thuras, the son of Zames, was worshipped by the Assyrians as their Mars, or god of war.

That Elam seated himself in the southern tract beyond the river Euphrates, is beyond dispute, not only from the authority of the Scriptures, wherein the inhabitants of the said tract are plainly and frequently denoted by the name of Elam, but also from heathen writers, wherein we read of a country here called Elymais, and a city of the same name.

To the lot of Arphaxad is assigned by learned men the more southern part of Mesopotamia, where the plain or vale of Shinar lay, on the river Tigris, together with the country of Eden, and the tract on the east side of the same river, called Arapachitis, a name plainly derived from Arpachshad, which is the name of Arphaxad in the Hebrew text. That the vale of Shinar, with the country of Eden, was part of the first plantation of Arphaxad, is supposed on these probabilities: 1. That Noah, after the flood, returned and settled himself again in these parts, as well knowing the goodness of the soil and pleasantness of the country, which is confirmed by a town here called Zama from them. 2. That upon the dispersion of mankind and confusion of tongues, as the primitive Hebrew tongue was preserved in the family of Arphaxad, so agreeably hereunto this family still continued in the same parts where they then were, together with their grandsires, Noah and Shem. 3. This opinion may be confirmed from Gen. x. 30. “And their dwelling was from Mesha, as you go unto *Sephar,*a mount of the east;” for the Mesha here mentioned is probably esteemed to be the same mountain as is before mentioned under the name of Mash, or Mesius, in the western parts of Mesopotamia; so that if the forecited text is to be understood of the descendants of Arphaxad, (as is thought by several learned men, and also by the historian Josephus,) it will import thus much, that the southern part of Mesopotamia, lying on the east of the mount Mesha, or Mesius, was first peopled by the descendants of Arphaxad; (and accordingly we here find Phalga, a town probably named from Peleg, or Phaleg, settling there;) and so on eastward as far as to Sephar, a mount in the east. Now this mount Sephar is probably thought to be the mountain adjoining to Siphare, a city in Aria, and which lies directly east from Mesha; and though this be a long tract of ground, yet it will be but proportional to the numerous descendants of Arphaxad, especially by Joktan, of whom more by and by. 4. It is the tradition of the ancients, Eustathius, Antiochenus, and Eusebius, that Salah, the son of Arphaxad, seated himself in Susiana; and agreeably hereto, we read in old writers of a town called Sela. But now Susiana did contain part of the country of Eden, which adjoined to, or in all probability was part of, the vale of Shinar, largely taken. 5. It is further confirmed that Arphaxad seated himself in the vale of Shinar, because we find that Terah, and Abraham his son, came out of those parts, Gen. xi. 31. “And Terah took Abram his son, and went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan.” Now it is confessed, I think by all, that Chaldea comprehended at least a great part of the vale of Shinar, and it is certain that it comprehended as much of the country of Eden as lay west of the common channel of the Euphrates and Tigris. On this text of Scripture seems to be grounded what Josephus saith of the Chaldeans being called the Arphaxadeans.

Having thus seen the first settlements of the descendants of Arphaxad, let us turn our eyes a little upon their after-colonies, particularly those that sprung from Joktan, of whom Moses reckons up no fewer than thirteen sons; and as Moses assigns their habitation from Mesha to mount Saphar, so in this tract learned men have observed the names of several places, which by their likeness to the names of Joktan’s sons, seem to tell their respective situations.

There is nothing certain concerning Lud, the remaining son of Shem, but that he did not seat himself in the country of Lesser Asia, called Lydia.

Ham was the youngest of the three sons of Noah. He had four sons, Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan. We find Egypt twice or thrice in the book of Psalms called the land of Ham, whence it seems probable that Ham went thither himself, and there settled with his son Mizraim. And it is scarce to be doubted but the person denoted by the Greeks under the name of Jupiter Ammon (in honour to whom there was a temple erected in the parts of Libya adjoining to Egypt, much celebrated for its oracles) was no other than Ham.

It is well known that the nation of Canaan settled itself in the country so often called in Scripture the land of Canaan. Upon the dispersion of mankind, the country living on the east and south-east of the Mediterranean sea fell to the share of Canaan, so that he was seated between the nation of Aram to the north and east, and the nation of Cush, his brother, to the south and south-east, and Mizraim, another of his brothers, to the south-west: his western boundary was the Mediterranean sea. His descendants are thus reckoned up by Moses, Gen. x. 15, 18. ”Canaan begat Sidon his first-born, and Heth, and the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite, and the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, and the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite.”

Of Sidon were the inhabitants of the city of Sidon, and the country about; which city, as is apparent both from sacred and ancient profane writers, was in the more early ages of the world much more considerable than Tyre. Sidon is called Great Sidon, Josh. xix. 29.; but Tyre does not seem to have become considerable until about David’s time. Homer never so much as once mentions Tyre, but often makes mention of the Sidonians, and Tyre is expressly called the daughter of Sidon, Isa. v. 12.

The second family of Canaan mentioned by Moses, is that of Heth, whose posterity placed themselves in the southern parts of Canaan, about Hebron, as appears from Abraham’s concern with them there, Gen. xxiii. We also read that during Isaac’s dwelling at Beersheba, Esau took him wives of the daughters of Heth, Gen. xxvi.

The Jebusites were seated about Jerusalem, which was originally called Jebus, 1 Chron. xi. 4.; so that the Jebusites joined on to the Hittites in the mountains towards the north. As the Hittites and Jebusites, so also the Amorites, dwelt in the mountainous or hilly part of the land of Canaan, as appears from. Josh. xi. 3. And the spies gave this account, Num. xiii. 29. “And the Hittites, and the Jebusites, and the Amorites dwell in the mountains, and the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and the coast of Jordan.” Now as the Hittites seem to have possessed the hill country to the west and south-west of Hebron, and the Jebusites to the north, so the Amorites might settle themselves at first in the hill country to the east and south-east of Hebron. This seems probable, because the mountainous tract lying next to Kadesh-Barnea, is called the mount of the Amorites, Deut. i. 7.; and we are told, Gen. xiv. 7. that Chedorlaomer smote the Amorites that dwelt in Hazezon-tamar, which was the same place with Engedi, 2 Chron. xx. 2. and so was seated in the hilly part of the land of Canaan to the east, or towards Jordan. And their neighbourhood to the country beyond Jordan might be the occasion that the Moabites were in process of time dispossessed thereof by the Amorites; whence that tract beyond Jordan is called the land of the Amorites; and Sihon, the king thereof, is always called king of the Amorites.

The Girgasite is the next family mentioned by Moses, who probably seated themselves at first along the upper part of the river of Jordan. Here, on the eastern side of the sea of Tiberias, or Galilee, we find in our Saviour’s time a city called Gergesa.

The Hivite we find was seated in the upper or northern parts of Canaan, and so adjoining to his brother Sidon. For we read, Judg. iii. 3. that “the Hivites dwelt in mount Lebanon from mount Baal-Hermon unto the entering in of Hamath.”

In process of time, these families intermixed one with the other; whence we read of some Hivites, Amorites, and Hittites in some other places than those we have assigned them for their first settlements, and also the Amorites becoming the most potent nation in process of time. Hence they are put to denote, frequently, any one or more of the other nations of Canaan.

Many of the posterity of Canaan of different families, either originally or afterwards, (possibly by being dispossessed of their original settlements by the Philistines, or by other means,) appear to have settled confusedly together, and to have become so intermixed that the names of their distinct families were not kept up, but they were called by the general name of Canaanites. Hence we read in the forecited passages, Numb. xiii. 29. the Canaanites dwelt by the sea, and by the coast of Jordan.

As to the remaining families of Canaan mentioned by Moses, the first of them that occurs is the Arkite; which is probably thought to have settled himself about that part of mount Libanus where is placed by Ptolemy and others a city called Arce. Not far from this settlement of the Arkite, did the Sinite likewise settle himself; for in the parts adjoining, St. Jerome tells us, was once a city called Sin. As for the Arvadite, the little isle of Ardus, lying up more north, on the coast of Syria, is supposed to have taken its name from the founder of this family. In the neighbourhood on the continent did the Zemarite probably fix, forasmuch as on the coast there we find a town called Symyra, not far from Orthosia. And Eusebius does expressly deduce the origin of the Orthosians from the Samareans.

The only remaining family is the Hamathite, or the inhabitants of the land Hamath, often mentioned in sacred writ, and whose chief city was called Hamath. This country lay to the north of all the rest of the posterity of Canaan.

The nation of Cush had its first settlement in the country adjoining to his brother Canaan on the south, that is in Arabia. That by Cush in Scripture, is denoted Arabia, and not Ethiopia in Africa, is manifest every where in Scripture, particularly from Num. xxi. 1. compared with Exod. ii. 15-21. and Hab. iii. 7. 2 Kings xix. 9. 2 Chron. xiv. 9. and Ezek. xxix. 10. “I will make the land of Egypt desolate, from the tower of Syene even unto the borders of Cush.” Now all that have any knowledge of old geography, know that Syene was the border of Egypt towards Ethiopia in Africa. There Cush being the opposite boundary cannot be Ethiopia in Africa, but must be Arabia.

The sons of Cush are Seba, Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtecha; to which Moses subjoins the two sons of Raamah, Sheba and Dedan; and then adds lastly that Cush begat Nimrod, who began to be a mighty one upon earth, Gen. x. 7, 8,. &c. Now we shall find all these but the last seated in Arabia. As for Seba, the first son of Cush, he probably seated himself in the south-west of Arabia, where we find a city called Sabe. On the south-east side we find another city called Sabana, where we may therefore place Sheba, the grandson of Cush, by Raamah; and the reason why we choose this to be his situation, rather than the other side of the country, is, because it is on the eastern side of Arabia that we find his father and his brother situated; and it is likely he seated himself in their neighbourhood. On this account we find him always mentioned with his father and brother, as Ezek. xxvii. 22. “The merchants of Sheba and Raamah were thy merchants,” and chap. xxxviii. “Sheba and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish,” &c. Now these two names, Sheba and Sebah, being so much alike, the two different families were confounded by the Greeks, and called promiscuously Sabeans. Hence Pliny says that the Sabean nation inhabited those parts spreading themselves to both seas, i. e. from the Red sea to the gulf of Persia. But the sacred writers exactly distinguish them, Ps. lxxii. 10. “The kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts.”

On the same side of Arabia with Sheba was seated, as has been mentioned, both his father Raamah and his brother Dedan. For, as to the former, we find on this shore of the Persian gulf a city called Rhegma by Ptolemy; which it is not to be doubted was so called from this reason, for the Hebrew name, which in our translation is rendered Raamah, is in other translations, particularly the Septuagint, rendered (agreeably enough to the radicals) Rhegma. Nor far from Rhegma, mentioned by Ptolemy, we find on the same coast eastward another city called Dedan, now-a-days Dadaen, from which the neighbouring country also takes its name, as Bochart has observed, from Barboza, an Italian writer in his description of the kingdom of Ormuz.

On the same shore of the Persian gulf, but higher northward, we find in Ptolemy the situation of a city called Saphtha, whence it is probable that Sabta, the son of Cush, seated himself here.

Higher still to the northward was seated Havilah, or Chavilah, along the river Pison, on the western channel of the two, into which the common channel of the Tigris and Euphrates again is divided, before the waters thereof empty themselves into the Persian gulf. That Havilah was seated here, is confirmed in that Moses tells us it was seated on a branch of that common channel of which Euphrates and Hiddekel were a part: and in this country, where we have placed Havilah, there was, agreeably to what Moses says of Havilah, plenty of gold, and that good gold; which is agreeable to what ancient authors tell us of Arabia. Moses adds, that in Havilah was Belodach, which some take to signify pearls, others the Bdellium gum. It is much the most likely, however, that pearls are what are intended; for Moses, in describing the manna, says it was like coriander seed, and the colour thereof as the colour of Belodach. Now it is evident from another description that the colour of manna was white, Exod. xiv. 31. which is opposite to pearls, as also is the roundness of the manna, but in nowise to the Bdellium gum. Hence the Talmudists, mentioning this description of manna, instead of saying it is like the colour of Bdellium gum, say it is like the colour of pearls; and it is certain that there is no place in the world that produceth so fine pearls, and in so great plenty, as the sea next to the shore of this country, where we place Havilah; as is evident from the testimony of Nearchus, one of Alexander’s captains; of Isidorus; of Chorax, who lived a little after; of Pliny, and Ælian, and Origen; of Benjamin, a Navarian; of Tudela, who lived five hundred and fifty years ago; of Texeira, a Portuguese; of Balbyn, Linscot, Vincent, Le Blanc, Tavernier, and Thevenot. And if we understood the Belodach of the Bdellium gum, this also abounded in Arabia, and particularly near the Persian gulf, as appears from the testimony of many ancient writers. And as to the Schoham, which Moses says was to be found in Havilah, which we render the onyx-stone, it is doubtless some precious stone that is meant by this; and it is evident from ancient writers, both sacred and profane, that Arabia formerly abounded with precious stones. See Ezek. xxvii. 22, 23.

And that this very country was the country of Havilah, is manifest from Gen. xxv. 18. where we are told that the Ishmaelites dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, that is before Egypt; and from 1 Sam. xv. 7. where we are told that Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur that is before Egypt. In both which passages, by this expression, from Havilah unto Shur, is probably meant the whole extent of that part of Arabia from east to west; and it is evident that Shur was the western boundary of Arabia, from those passages, and also from Exod. xv. 22. where we read that Moses brought Israel from the Red sea, and they went out into the wilderness of Shur; and therefore it seems no less evident that Havilah was in the eastern extremity of Arabia, over against it, and consequently where we have placed it. Where we find in common authors a people placed, whose name retains the visible footsteps of the name of their forefathers, Havilah, or Chavilah, as it is in the original; thus, by Eratosthenes, are placed on these parts the Chavlothi; by Tresans, Anienas, the Chaulosii; by Dionysius Periegetes, the Chablasii; and by Pliny, the Chaveleai.

There remains now Subteca, who, we must not doubt, placed himself among the rest of his brethren, especially since there is room enough left for him in the northern part of Arabia. His descendants might from him regularly enough be styled at first by the Greeks Sabsaceni, which name might afterwards be softened into Saraceni, by which name it is well known that the people of this tract were formerly denominated; and this is the more probable, because Stephanus mentions a country in those parts called Saruca.

The reason why no mention is made in the Scriptures of the Sabtaceans, may be this, that those parts of Arabia lying next to the Holy Land, are by the sacred writers denoted by the name of the whole land of Cush, or Arabia, it being to them as it were instar totius; being the only part of the land of Cush they were usually concerned with; and they probably learnt it first in Egypt of the Egyptians; who, after their father Mizraim, called the country the land of Cush, it being natural to him to call it from the name of his brethren, rather than from one of his children.

Moses having named the other sons and grandsons of Cush, subjoins, Gen. x. 8. “And Cush begat Nimrod.” By this distinct mention of Nimrod after the rest of his brethren, the sacred historian is supposed to intimate that Nimrod was indeed the youngest of the sons of Cush, but, however, the most remarkable of them: and accordingly it immediately follows in the text, “He began to be a mighty one upon the earth.”

By what method Nimrod became thus mighty, Moses seems to intimate by these words, “He was a mighty hunter before the Lord.” He probably applied himself to hunting, to destroy the wild beasts that began to grow very numerous, and very much to infest the parts adjoining to the nation of Cush; and by his great art and valour in destroying wild beasts, he inured himself and his companions to undergo fatigue and hardship, and withal to manage dexterously several sorts of offensive weapons. Being thus occasionally trained up to the art of war, and perceiving at length his skill and strength sufficient, he began to act offensively against men.

The country at first assigned to Nimrod, the youngest son of Cush, was probably the country on the east of Gihon, the eastern branch of the common channel of Euphrates and Tigris, after its second division, before it emptied itself into the Persian gulf, next to his brother Havilah, his brethren having possessed Arabia. This part next to Arabia was assigned to him, and so being the portion of one of the sons of Cush, was called the land of Cush, as it is by Moses when speaking of the river Gihon, “The same is it which compasses the whole land of Cush;” which country was formerly, by the Greeks and Latins, called by the name of Susiana, and is now called Chuzestan. The Nubian geographer, and some other Arabians, call it Churestan. The inhabitants of the land call it absolutely and plainly Chus, if we will believe Marius Niger. The same region is called Cuthah, 2 Kings xvii. 24. speaking of the people transported thence into Samaria, by Salmanezer. The word Cuthah, or Cuth, undoubtedly came from the word Cush, or Cus, the last letter of which is often changed by the Chaldeans into a T, or Th, as Dion hath observed; so they called Theor, for Sor, and Attyria, for Assyria. There are yet many marks of the word Cush found in the same province. We find there the Cassians, neighbours of the Uxians, according to the position of Pliny, Ptolemy, and Arrian. There is also a little province of Susiana, viz. Cissia, and the people Cissians. The poet Eschylus takes notice of a city of that name, situated in the same land, and what is remarkable, he does distinguish it by its antiquity.

This country was probably named Cush before Nimrod was born, or at least when he was young, before he distinguished himself in the world, from Cush his father living here, in that part of the face of the earth, that fell to the lot of him and his posterity, that was nearest to the original settlement of Noah and his sons, and was the pleasantest and most beautiful, like Eden, on which it bordered. While Cush sent forth his elder sons to settle Arabia, it is likely that he staid here himself with his youngest son, who was probably very young when the earth was divided.

But Nimrod, when he found his strength and ability for war, and being grown famous for his extraordinary valour in destroying wild beasts, was not contented with the lot assigned him; but invades first the neighbouring part of the nation of Shem, which upon the division of the earth fell to the lot of the family of Arphaxad, and so makes himself master of the lower part of the land of Shinar, being a most pleasant and fruitful country, and pitching on that very place where the city and tower of Babel had been, began to build the capital city of his kingdom. Moses says, “The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.” As to Erech, it is probably the same that occurs in Ptolemy under the name of Arecca, and which is placed by him at the last or most southern turning of the common channel of the Tigris and Euphrates. The fields hereof are mentioned by Tibullus, on account of its springs of Naphtha. The Archevites, mentioned Ezra iv. 9. are thought to be some that were removed from Erech to Samaria. What in the Hebrew is Acchad, is by the Seventy Interpreters writ Archad, whence some footsteps of this name are probably thought to be preserved in the river Argades mentioned by Ctesias, as a river near Sittace, lying at some distance from the river Tigris, and giving name formerly to Sittacene, a country lying between Babylon and Susa, and because it was very usual, particularly in those parts, to have rivers take their name from some considerable city they run by; hence it is not improbably conjectured, that the city Sittace was formerly called Argad, or Acehad, and took the name of Sittace from the plenty of Psitlacias, or Pistacias, a sort of nut, that grew in the country. Strabo mentions a region in those parts under the name of Artacene, which might be framed from Archad. As to the other city belonging to the beginning of Nimrod’s kingdom, viz. Calneh, and which is called, Isa. x. 9. Calno, and Ezek. xxvii. 23. Cauneh. It is mentioned as a considerable place, Amos vi. 2. “Pass ye up into Calneh and see.” It is said by the Chaldee interpreters, as also by Eusebius and Jerome, to be the same with Ctesiphon, standing upon the Tigris, about three miles distant from Seleucia, and for some time the capital city of the Parthians. That this opinion concerning the situation of Calneh is true, is mightily confirmed from the country about Ctesiphon being by the Greeks called Chalnoitis; and since we are expressly told by Ammianus Marcellinus, that Pacnus, a king of the Parthians, changed the name of the city Ctesiphon, when he gave it that name, we may reasonably suppose that its old name was Calneh, or Cholone, and that from it the adjacent country took the name of Cholonitis.

And whereas it is said, Gen. x. 11, 12. in our translation, “Out of this land went forth Ashur, and built Nineveh, and the city of Rehoboth, and Colah, and Resen, between Nineveh and Calah, the same is a great city.” It might have been rendered as agreeably to the original, and much more agreeably to the preceding verses, and the drift of the historian, Out of that land he went forth into Ashur, and built Nineveh, &c.; for Moses in the preceding verse having told us what was the beginning of Nimrod’s kingdom in the land of Shinar, then goes on to tell us how he extended it further afterwards to other cities beyond the land of Shinar into the land of Ashur.

Nineveh was a city that lay on the river Tigris, somewhat above the mouth of the river Lycus, where it runs into the Tigris.

Rehoboth is a word in the Hebrew tongue that signifies streets; and there being a city or town called Birtha by Ptolemy, and the said name denoting in the Chaldee tongue the same as Rehoboth does in the Hebrew, hence it is thought to be the same city, and it is not to be doubted but the Birtha mentioned by Ptolemy is the same which Ammianus Marcellinus calls Virta. It was seated on the river Tigris about the mouth of the river Lycus.

As for Calah, or Calach, since we find in Strabo a country about the head of the river Lycus called Calachene, it is very probable the said country took this name from Calach which was once its capital city. Ptolemy also mentions a country called Calacine in those parts; and whereas Pliny mentions a people called Classita, through whose country the Lycus runs, it is likely that Classita is a corruption for Chalachita. To this city and country in all probability it was that Salmanezer translated some of the ten tribes, 2 Kings xvii. 6. He placed them in Chalach, as it is in the original.

Resen, the other city mentioned by Moses, is supposed to be the same with a city mentioned by Xenophon under the name of Larissa, lying on the Tigris, and being as Moses says between Nineveh and Calah, and was also said by Xenophon to have been strong and great, (but then in ruins,) being two parasangs, that is, eight miles, in compass, and its walls a hundred feet high and twenty-five feet broad, which agrees with what Moses says of Resen, “The same was a great city.” Larissa was a Greek name, we find a city so called in Thessaly. There was another which the Greeks called by the same name in Syria, which the Syrians themselves called Sizora. It is therefore easy to suppose that the Greeks might change Resen into Larissa. It is likely that the Greeks asking, What city those were the ruins of? the Assyrians might answer, Laresen, i. e. of Resen, which word Xenophon expressed by Larissa, like the names of several Greek cities.

We proceed now to Mizraim, who by Moses is named second among the sons of Ham. And where he at first settled himself, we need not doubt, since the Hebrew text generally denotes Egypt by the name of the land of Mizraim, or simply Mizraim. I proceed therefore to the descendants of Mizraim. The names whereby these are denoted by Moses, are plurals. They are thus enumerated by Moses: “Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, and Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (out of whom came Philistim,) and Caphtorim.

To begin with Ludim, whereby are denoted the Ethiopians in Africa, and who alone are commonly so called both in ancient and modern writers. That these Ethiopians are denoted in Scripture by the name of Ludim, and their country Ethiopia by the name of Lud, the learned Bochart has proved at large, by no fewer than ten distinct arguments: I shall mention only those that are drawn from the sacred Scriptures, as from Isa. lxvi. 19. and Jer. xlvi. 9. where Lud or Ludim are said to be very skilful in drawing their bow, which agrees punctually with the character given of the Ethiopians by many ancient writers.

As to Anamim, Bochart thinks the inhabitants of the country about Jupiter Ammon’s temple might be denoted from this Anamim. The same learned person thinks the Nasamones took their rise and name, as also the Amantes, and Garamantes, and Hammomantes, mentioned by old writers, on the adjacent parts.

The Lehabim came next both in the text and in situation; for it is very probable that Lehabim and Lubim are one, and that from hence was derived originally the name of Libya, which, though at length extended to the whole African continent, yet at first belonged only to the country Cyrenaica. Now this country lying next over against Greece, hence the name of Lehab, or Lub, originally belonging to this tract only, was moulded into Libya, and given to the whole continent over against them on the other side of the Mediterranean sea, just as the name of Africa, properly pertaining only to that part of this continent which lies over against Italy, was therefore by the Latins extended to all the continent; or, to come to our own times, much after the same manner as we extend the name of Holland to all the Dutch provinces, and the name of Flanders to all the Spanish provinces, in the Netherlands, whereas they properly denote only the two particular provinces in the Spanish and Dutch Netherlands that lie next over against the island of Great Britain.

The Naphtuhim are probably enough placed by Bochart in the country adjoining to Cyrenaica, or Libya, properly so called, towards Egypt, viz. in Marmorica; for here we find in Ptolemy some remainder of the name in a place called Aptuchi Fanum. And in the heathen fables, Aptuchus, or Aphtuchus, or Autuchus, is said to be the son of Cyrene, from whom the city and country of Cyrene took its name.

The Pathrusim, or descendants of Pathros, are mentioned next by Moses, whereby are to be understood the inhabitants of the Upper Egypt, or Thebais, where Ptolemy places Pathyris, an inland town not far from Thebes; and agreeably hereto, the Septuagint translation renders the Hebrew Pathros by the Greek Pathyris.

The Casluhim are thought to have first settled in the country on the other side of Egypt, called Casioti, where is a mountain called Casius; and this situation of them is confirmed by what Moses says concerning them, viz. that from them sprang the Philistines, who in process of time made themselves masters of the adjoining tract of the land of Canaan.