Works

GENESIS 10. 5.

WHENAS after the great Deluge of waters the sons of Noah began to multiply upon the earth, it is said, That they came from the East into the land of Shinar, the pleasant plain of Shinar, where God at the beginning had placed the first Father of mankind, our Father Adam. But when they saw that their numbers were like to be great, and that so small a plot of ground would not contain them all; yet that they might continue within the Body of one Society, and have as it were a common right in this place of Paradise, they agreed to build them a City which should have been the Metropolis of an Universal Monarchy, and an exceeding high Tower, that they might be famous and renowned among posterity. But this vain purpose of man's imagination seemed evil in the eyes of God, and therefore it is said, That he came down from heaven to overthrow the counsel of the sons of men. And because they were so loath to break Society, it pleased God to cut from them the common Bond of one Society, and to make them speak with many languages. For as Speech is termed the Bond of Society, Oratio (saith the Philosopher) est Societatis vinculum; and as the Unity of one common Language had knit all mankind into one Community: so God in his wisdom saw that Plurality of Languages was the best means to force mankind into a Plurality of Societies. Thus therefore and by this means did Almighty God cast man the second time out of Paradise, and dispersed him over the face of the whole earth by this memorable Confusion of languages.

Now concerning the Order of this Dispersion and the Manner of this Confusion, he that is but a little conversant in the writings either of Historical or Theological Antiquaries, shall find not only one but varieties of Confusions, not of Tongues only, but of Opinions also; one saying this thing, another thinking that thing: so that some having essayed this Labyrinth, and finding neither safe getting in nor likelihood of getting out, have quite disclaimed any further search: And as Alexander, when he could not unloose the Gordian knot, drew his sword and cut it a-pieces; so they, meaning to make an easy dispatch of all difficulties, affirm, That Curiosity in this Argument is either frivolous or altogether needless.

But I would that these had remembered, That that knowledge ought not to be accounted needless, without which the Events and Complements of the Prophetical Blessings of the Patriarchs and the particular Predictions of the after-Prophets can never be understood.

For how shall we know How and When God was the Blessed God of Sem, and How and When God persuaded Japheth to dwell in the tents of Sem, if we know not Where were the tents of Sem, and Which were the Habitations of the sons of Japheth? How shall we tremble enough at the horrible Curse of impious Cham, and know that he was indeed a Servant of Servants and a slave to all his brethren, unless we know Where was the land of his abiding? Or how should we know What were those Ships of Chittim, whereof Balaam and Daniel prophesied, if we know not Where was the Inheritance of the posterity of Chittim? Lastly, How should we know who is that Tyrant Gog, of whom Ezekiel speaks, who comes out of the land of Magog, and is described to be the Prince of Meshech and Tubal, if we know not Where is the land of Magog, and which is the offspring of Meshech and Tubal?

As therefore S. Paul said in another case, so I think I may say in this, That God hath not left us without a witness, but hath given us certain Notes and Marks, if we were so diligent as to mark them, whereby we may easily point out the Original habitations of the first Colonies of Mankind.

And to omit other dispersed places in the Bible, I think that this Chapter contains the principal, and the grounds of the rest. Where because Moses begins first with the line of Japheth, (and The first in every kind is a Rule to that which cometh after) and because also that we the inhabitants of the Western parts of the world have greatest interest in the stock of Japheth; I have made special choice of this Verse which I now read, which contains A description both of the Place and Manner of the habitations of the Sons of Japheth. Of these (that is, Of the seven sons of Japheth before named) were divided the Isles of the Gentiles, &c.

Now therefore I will consider the words of this Text, First, Generally, as they contain A circumscription of the Place, and a description of the Manner and Order of the dwellings of Japheth; Secondly, Specially, from Grounds drawn out of this Scripture, and by the Remainders of ancient names, I will assign to everyone of his sons the particular lot of their inheritance.

The Territories of the sons of Japheth are here termed The Isles of the Gentiles; Of these were divided the Isles of the Gentiles in their lands, that is, the Isles of the Gentiles throughout their lands, or, the lands of the Isles of the Gentiles.

Thus we have the Name; but What part of the World was called by this Name, that we have not. The Hebrew is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which the Septuagint and Josephus turn 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Chaldee and other Interpreters, Islands of the Gentiles.

We usually call Islands Regions or Countries encircled by the Sea: But because there were not such Islands enough near the place of Division to contain the Families of the house of Japheth, there being but only Crete and Cyprus until we come unto the AEgean Sea; and because it is not likely that they would overpass the main land, to seat themselves in little Islands; or if they would so have done, yet was there not then such plenty of shipping to transport so great multitudes; and lastly, because we know assuredly that some of Japheth's posterity were originally seated upon the main Continent; It followeth hence that by Islands here cannot be meant those which we call Islands.

Perhaps then there may be some Trope in these words, and that by Isles of the Gentiles are not meant indeed properly Islands, but Countries having many Islands lying about them, so that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be expounded Terra insulosae Gentium: that is, Gentildome full of Islands. And this indeed sits very well those Countries where Japheth's sons are said to dwell; witness the many Islands in the Mediterranean, AEgean and Ionian seas. But because it is manifest out of Scripture, that there are some Countries called by this name, which are neither encompassed by the Sea, not have any Islands lying near them; this Interpretation also must be rejected.

Now there remaineth only one Exposition more; That the Hebrews called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Islands all Countries divided from them by Sea, or such as they could not come unto, or used not to go unto, but by Sea. So that their word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is larger than our Island: for we call an Island that which can no way be come unto but by Sea, and is every where divided from the Main; but they called also those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which were but secundùm quid Islands, which were at least by Sea divided from their main, or were in regard of themselves only not accessible but by Sea. In brief, They called Islands all beyond-sea countries, and all people Islanders which came to them and to the Egyptians by Sea. Neither did the Grecians use their word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 only for a place encompassed by the Sea; as we see by Peloponnesus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which joined unto the main land of Epirus; and so likewise were their Chersonesi.

And that this last Interpretation is undoubtedly true, we need no other Argument but this, That the Hebrews called all Countries which were divided from them by Sea; Islands, and e converso they called no other Islands but such as were divided from them by Sea; that is, All countries which lie above the Mediterranean Sea, from the mountain of Amanus and the Hyrcane Sea westward, were called by this name of Islands of the Gentiles, and no other were called by this name but these.

The truth of this may be seen in many places of the Bible, whereof I will quote the most pregnant. Isaiah 11. 10, 11. The Prophet showing the Calling of the Gentiles by an allusion of the restoring of the Jews from the places where they were dispersed, maketh an Induction of those places and countries wherein they were scattered, saying, The Lord shall recover the remnant of his people from Assyria, Egypt, Pathros, Cush, Elam, Shinar, Hamath, and from the Islands of the Gentiles. Here by the Islands of the Gentiles are meant distinct places from those before named; and places too where the Jews were scattered: but these can be no other but the countries of Armenia the less, which together with the rest that he names were under the Empire of the Assyrians, Medes and Persians. And because this Prophecy is to be understood of the Calling of the Gentiles, the Prophet in his Induction would not omit those places where he only labored who was surnamed The Apostle of the Gentiles, and which were from the beginning and are at this day the principal seat of Christian Churches. So that at this day there is no part of the world called by the name of Christendom but that which is divided from the Jews by Sea, even the blessed Japheth and the happy Islands of the Gentiles. And this was foreshowed by the Prophets, in that they never spake of the Calling of the Gentiles, but they harped upon the Islands of the Gentiles. The same Prophet Isaiah (ch. 40. 15.) to show God's Omnipotency and great power, speaketh after this manner, Behold, the Nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance; behold, he taketh up the Isles as a very little thing. Where if by Isles we mean those which we call Islands, the comparison of disparity will not hang together; because those which we call Islands are indeed very little things. It remains therefore that by Islands here are meant those huge Countries which were beyond the Sea in regard of Egypt and Palestine. Again in ch. 42. he saith, The Isles shall wait for the Law of God. What is here meant by Isles, you may easily guess by that I said before; and that which followeth in the same Chapter will help you, Sing unto the Lord a new song,—ye that go down to the Sea, that is, ye which dwell low to the Sea-ward: and if ye ask who these are, the very next words will tell you, namely, the Isles and the inhabitants thereof. Where is plainly expounded who are meant by the inhabitants of the Isles, namely those that dwell downward to the Sea-ward. Moreover Jeremiah 2. 10. we find, Pass over to the Isles of Chittim; but the Island of Chittim was no Island or place encircled by the Sea, unless Macedonia be an Island; for Alexander is said in (1 Maccab. 1. 1.) to have come forth of the land of Chettim; and in Ch. 8. 5. Perseus King of Macedonia is called King of the Citims. In Ezek. 27. 3. Tyrus is called a merchant of people for many Islands, because unto Tyrus came many people from beyond the Sea for merchandise. And lastly in 1 Maccab. 14. 5. (which I hope will be a sufficient testimony to show what the Jews called by the name of Isles of the Gentiles ) among the Commendations of Simon, one of the worthy Maccabees, it is said, That he took Joppa for an haven and for an entrance to the Isles of the Sea: where it is more than manifest that by the Isles of the Sea the Jews meant those Nations which came to them by Sea.

Now if this be so, That the Jews called those Countries the Isles of the Gentiles which were divided from them by Sea, we may see how true that opinion is (though commonly received) which affirmeth that the posterity of Madai, one of the Sons of Japheth, are those Medes who were compartners with the Persians in the Second Monarchy. For he that hath any skill in Geography knows that this Media is not divided from the Jews by Sea, and therefore cannot be one of the Islands of the Gentiles, unless Mesopotamia and Assyria be also Islands of the Gentiles. And yet my Text says, That Of these (namely of the seven Sons of Japheth, whereof Madai is one) were divided the Islands of the Gentiles. The occasion of this Error (for so I take it to be) was the mistaking of Josephus, who says that of Madai came those people which the Greeks call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But first, I doubt whether the Greeks called those Medes so famous in the Scripture 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or not rather 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Again, if by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Josephus means those Medes which had title in the Second Monarchy, he can no ways agree with himself; for a little before he said that the posterity of Japheth had their seat from the mountain Amanus Westward; but these Medes lie above the Persians from the mountain Amanus Eastward. But if any man ask where then was the original seat of the Sons of Madai, I will defer mine answer till I come to assign to the several Sons of Japheth their several habitations.

HAVING found out that part of the Earth which was divided among the posterity of our Father Japheth; I come now to the Second part of my General consideration, to make another search Concerning the manner of this Division, and the Order of their dwelling and neighbourhood one with another. And here my Text answers, That they were sorted everyone according to his Language, according to his Family, and according to his Nation.

Whence (before we come to particular examination of every word) we may observe, That this great Division of the Earth was performed orderly, and that they are much deceived who dream of a confused and irregular Dispersion, wherein everyone went whither he listed, and seated himself where he liked best.

For besides that these latter words of my Text imply the clean contrary, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 also, which we translate divided, will bear the force of an Argument to this purpose; in that it signifies not a scattering or a confusion, but a most distinct partition.

Or if there were no such insinuation in my Text, yet there may be many Reasons drawn from the Circumstances of this Division which will enforce the same Verity.

• 1. As first, The Custom, and as it were the property, of Almighty God in all those Actions wherein he hath a special hand and directs by a special providence; according to that saying, God is not the Author of Confusion, but of Order. And if in any other, surely in this God's Providence was seen most especially, it being so principal an action, and as it were the ground and foundation of the Second propagation of Mankind.
• 2. Another Argument lieth in the End why God multiplied the Languages of these builders, which was (as it seems) lest dwelling altogether they should confound their families, and mingle together their generations, which God in his Wisdom would have severed and kept distinct for divers purposes. And that this should be the End or one of the Ends, it followeth naturally out of the proper Effect of Pluralities of Tongues, which is to sort men into Pluralities of Societies, as the Unity of one common language before had knit them into one Community. Now if this were the purpose of Almighty God, then it needs must be that for the prosecution of this End each Family should dwell by itself, and each Nation by itself, that so there might be an orderly Division.
• 3. Another Reason may be drawn from the Wisdom of the Patriarchs, who were all alive at this Division, and were as Kings in their generations. Seeing therefore that there is great difference in the parts of the Earth, for the goodness of the soil and temperateness of the Air; it was their parts to prevent the danger of contention among their Sons, who should have the better parts of the Earth: which could be done no otherwise but by instituting an orderly Division; and that either by casting of lots, or choosing according to the order of their birthright, after some survey taken, of a sufficient portion of the Earth, and portions border'd out according to the number of their Nations, than of their Families, &c. For otherwise Magog would not have gone so far into the North, not Arphaxad have been suffered to enjoy the pleasant land of Shinar.

But I leave these Generalities, and come to the Parts of this Order. Where for conveniency sake I will begin with that first which is last in the order of the words, to wit their sorting after their Families and after their Nations, or (as the words are in my Text) after their Families in their Nations.

Where first we must know what is meant by these two words in their proper use; for though elsewhere they may be promiscuously used, yet here being compared and conjoined, they must needs have a distinct signification. Now what that is, the particle [ in ] doth insinuate. For in these words [ after their Families, in their Nations,] Families are plainly subordined to Nations, as Parts to a Whole, or Specials to a more General. Families therefore are Parts of a Nation, and a Nation is an Off-spring that containeth many Families. As therefore the Logicians say of their Genus, that it is either Generalissimum or Subalternum: so we also may say of our Gens or Nation, that it is sometime Absolute, when there is no greater Off-spring in regard whereof it may be called a Family; or Respective, when though it be Gens in regard of those Families it comprehends, yet itself also is a Family in a greater generation. Now these Gentes or Nations are called sometimes by a more special name Tribes For those which the Scripture in the Off-spring of Jacob calls Tribes, in the generations of Ishmael are called Nations, as we may learn, Gen. 25. 16. These (that is, these twelve which he named) are the Sons of Ishmael, and these are their names by their Towns, and by their Castles; twelve Princes according to their Nations. Now these Tribes of Israel or Nations of Ishmael, though being compared with their own Families they were Gentes; yet in regard to the generations of Arphaxad they were but Families of the eighth or ninth order. But as for Nations and their differing ranks, the Scripture hath found two words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gens and Tribus; so the parts of these, which be of many Orders, are not always called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Families, but sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Housholds. So for the deprehending of Achan and election of Saul by lot, Israel first came out by their Tribes, then by their Families; where we must understand also their Sub-families; as it is easily gathered in the story of Achan, where these Sub-families are called sometimes Families, and sometimes Housholds.

And thus we know what are Nations and what are Families, and what are the Kinds of both. Now let us see what Nations and what Families Moses here meaneth. I answer, that Moses here meaneth those which are absolutely Nations, not secundùm quid Gentes or Sub-Nations; and absolute Families, not Housholds or Sub-families. My reason is, Because Moses here speaketh of that division which was made when Peleg was born, which was within an hundred years after the flood: But by this time there were no Families so much increased that they could be called Tribes or Nations; for the name of Family in Genealogies remains until the third Generation, that is, so long as the Founder of a Family may truly say,

And therefore when God in the second Commandment says, That he will visit the sins of Fathers upon their children to the third and fourth generation, the meaning is, that he will afflict the whole family for the sins of the Head of their Family. And when we say, De male quaesitis non gaudet tertius haeres, we might as well say, That goods ill gotten, the same Family shall lose them which got them. Now that this Division was made before the third generation, it is sufficiently proved in that Eber, who was the Father of Peleg, and not then the Head of any house, was but the Second from Arphaxad, one of the founders of those Nations which were of the Off-spring of Sem.

The words and sense of the words being thus cleared, we see a Twofold order in this Division. First, they were ranged according to their Nations; and then secondly, Every Nation was ranked by his Families: So that every Nation dwelt and had his lot by himself, and in every Nation the Families also dwelt and had their lots by themselves. And thus much the words of Moses do imply: For in that the words stand thus [ after their Families in their Nations, ] it is as much as if it were said, That every Family was ranked and had his dwelling in his own Nation; which could not be unless the Division were also made to everyone according to his Nation.

The Number of Nations which were of the Off-spring of Japheth we may easily find to wit seven, according to the number of his Sons, who were all several Founders of several Nations. But the number of Families in these seven Nations we cannot so easily learn; for Moses nameth the Families only of two, Gomer and Javan, three of Gomer and four of Javan; and that because that these Nations were those that the Jews should have greatest knowledge of and most dealing with, because of their neighbourhood with the land of Canaan: and for the same end in the generations of Cham are named only the families of Canaan, Cush and Mizraim; and in Sem the families only of Aram and Ioktan.

Now out of this which hath been spoken we may pick Five Rules to guide us in the finding out the original habitations of the Off-spring of Japheth.

First, We must seek for them in the Islands of the Gentiles and in Countries divided [unspec 1] from the Jews by Sea; because by them were divided the Islands of the Gentiles.

Secondly, We must seek them within a reasonable Compass of the Earth, and not [unspec 2] all the world over. For when this Division was made in the days of Peleg, the number of mankind was small; for besides women and children, their number in all could not be above seven thousand, as may be gathered out of this Chapter; so that it is not like they took the whole world before them.

Thirdly, Those Nations whose Families are named by Moses are to be sought for [unspec 3] in places neighbouring to the Jews: for therefore did Moses name their Families, because they dwelt near unto the Jews, or dwelt so that the Jews might readily come at them.

Fourthly, Where we find the Nation, there also we must look for the Families of [unspec 4] that Nation; because the Families were ranged in their Nations.

Fifthly, And therefore for the same reason, where we find any one of the Families, [unspec 5] there we must look for the rest and for the whole Nation. But the practice of these Rules I must defer till hereafter.

Now I come to that which yet remains in my Text, viz. Languages: for Moses saith they were divided also [ according to their languages. ] Wherein we may see the very finger of God, who so caused them to speak with diverse tongues, that their tongues also were ordered after their Families and after their Nations. Which leaves no place at all for their opinion who suppose this Confusion of tongues to have been a privation of all language, and that they were fain to gather together by companies, and • o impose new names upon things by common consent: Nor yet for their opinion who think that this Confusion was a kind of depravation of the Original tongue; so that when the builders called for brick, they brought them mortar; and when they called for mortar, they brought them brick or something else. For this last the Event confutes, in that the Confusion of tongues does not consist in using the same words diversely, but in using diverse words. And the former cannot be true, for then should God have [ made ] mankind mute; the contrary whereto may be gathered out of God's own words where he saith, Let us go down and confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech: he does not say, that they might not speak at all. It must needs be then that God himself inspired them with diverse tongues, else how could their tongues have been ordered according to their families and according to their nations? So that the tongues of the same generation, though diverse, yet have a greater cognation amongst themselves than with the tongues of another offspring: As for Example, The languages of Sem in the East agree more one with another than with the tongues of Japheth in the West.

But because that some out of this Chapter would pick out the certain number of Languages, let us a little also consider of this. The number of Languages cannot be fewer than there were Nations, nor more than there were Families. If there were no more than there were Nations or Heads of Nations, then the number is easily counted; seven in Japheth, four in Cham, and five in Sem. But if they were as many as were Families at the Confusion, their number cannot be known, because Moses does not make a recension of all the Families or Heads of families.

The common Opinion hath been, That their number was according to the number of Families; and this Moses seems to infinuate, because he joins throughout this Chapter Families and Tongues together. But this is denied by Junius, because the Families of Canaan the first-born of Cham spake all one language at that time when the Jews cast them out. But this Reason compels not, because the Canaanites at that time spake a perfect Hebrew, as Joseph Scaliger affirms. Nay Plautus brings in a Carthaginian speaking almost pure Hebrew: but the Carthaginians were of Tyre, and of the offspring of Canaan. But without doubt the Canaanites spake not Hebrew from the beginning, this language being left only to Arphaxad the eldest son of Sem, of whom came Eber, Abram and the Jews. It must needs then be brought in by some Nimrodian conquest; for the offspring of Cham seemed to envy God's favor to Arphaxad, even as Cain envied Abel, and therefore Nimrod of the house of Cush made himself Lord of Mesopotamia, which was the lot of Arphaxad, and (as should seem) endeavored to make this language common to others through a spite he had to the House of Arphaxad. And hence it came to pass that all those nations where Nimrod ruled spake Hebrew, or a dialect of the Hebrew, as the Assyrians, the Syrians or Aramites, the Canaanites, the Arabians and the AEthiopians. But I doubt I have waded too far in this Argument, and therefore here I will end.

GENESIS 10. 5.

WHAT was the sum and sense of these words we shown heretofore, namely, That they contain a Chorographical Description of the dwellings of the Sons of Japheth after that great dispersion from the Tower of Babel, together with the manner according to which they were seated in their several habitations. From whence we picked Five Rules to be as Guides and Lights unto us in finding out their several Countries.

• 1. That we must seek them in the Islands of the Gentiles, that is, in Countries divided by Sea from Egypt and Palestine.
• 2. We must seek them all within some reasonable compass of the Earth, and not all the world over: Because that when this Division was made, the number of Mankind was very small; as we proved by weighing Sem's generations unto the days of Peleg, at whose birth it is said that the Earth was divided. Gen. 10. 25.
• 3. Those Nations whose Families are named by Moses are to be sought for in places most accessible and neighbouring to the Jews. For this I proved to be the reason why Moses did name their Families or Heads of Families, because the Jews were to have most dealing and commerce with them, by reason of their nearness and easiness of coming at them.
• 4. Where we find the Nation, there also we must look for the Families of that Nation.
• 5. Where we find any of the Families, there we must also look for the rest and for the whole Nation. This is very expressly contained in my Text: By these were divided the Isles of the Gentiles in their lands, everyone after his tongue, after their families, in their nations. That other, which is the Third in order, I confirmed by the like in the Genealogies of Sem and Cham, in both which the Fathers of Nations neighbouring upon the Jews are reckoned up particularly, the other but generally.

These Rules then I will take for sure Grounds, and use them as a Land-compass in the discovery I now intend. But before I begin, I will add Five more, of less weight than the former, yet such as I hope will afford the like use that Cyphers have among Numbers, I mean, being joined with the former will help us to a greater certainty.

The First then of these weaker Helps is from the use of the Prophets in naming [unspec 1] two or more of these Nations together; which is a likely argument that they were seated both together, and were neighbouring one to the other. As we see of Meshech and Tubal, which commonly go together clean through the Prophets. And this Help Junius seems to have used.

The Second Help is the fulfilling of Prophecies by Nations foretold under the [unspec 2] Names of their Founders, the Sons of Japheth. And

Thirdly, Because it is likely that in this Division there was a regard had by the [unspec 3] wise Fathers for their future Colonies, we are to think that they ordered their partition so, that when they were to vent their Numbers and send forth new Colonies, they should not be forced to encroach on one another's inheritance, or one to pass through the lot of another, but that they had either the Sea or empty land everyone upon some of his borders. And this he that will mark shall see observed in the Original dwellings of the Sons of Sem, which are better known and more agreed upon than those of Japheth.

The Fourth Help shall be the Testimony of the Ancients, especially of the Jews [unspec 4] themselves.

The Fifth and last are the Remainders of ancient Names, which is the ordinary [unspec 5] Help that everyone follows. And thus we have increased our Criteria to the number of Ten. Now that which shall be found agreeable to all or the greater part of these, if it will not be approved for Truth, I am sure there is no other means left to warrant a more likely conjecture or a greater certainty.

Let us come then to the Practice of our Rules: and First let us seek them in the Isles of the Gentiles, that is, (as I proved heretofore) in Countries divided by Sea from Palestine and Egypt; especially from Egypt, because when Moses wrote this Book he was not yet come into Palestine, and therefore used only such Names as the Jews were acquainted with in the land of Goshen. The Isles then of the Gentiles are all regions from the mountain Amanus and the Hircane Sea Westward.

Secondly, We must lay out some reasonable portion of the Earth to seek them in; and that we will define after this manner. 1. Our Eastern border shall be the land of Aram, that is Syria and Armenia the great, which was so called of Aram the Son of Sem: or, to speak more plainly, our Eastern border shall be from the mountain Amanus by the springs of Euphrates up to the West part of the Hircane Sea. 2. Our Southern border is without all doubt the Mediterranean Sea. 3. The Western border compasseth by the Ionian Sea and back of Macedonia up into the confines of Illyricum. 4. The North border is the river Danubius, the North part of Pontus Euxinus to the Caspian Sea.

Our Eastern border is confirmed by Moses in this Chapter, where he saith; That the posterity of Sem dwelled from Mesha Eastward. This Mesha is the mountain Masius which is part of the mountain Amanus; and this was the Western limit of Sem's posterity, and therefore must needs be the East border of Japheth. Again in the 2 of Judith, 25. we read that Olofernes took the borders of the upper Silicia, and came even to the borders of Japheth which are toward the South over against Arabia, that is, he came to the South-East borders of Japheth in the lower Silicia where is this mountain Amanus we speak of. Thirdly, Josephus and the rest of the Ancients do all affirm thus much. And lastly, if we should go any further toward the East, it could no longer be called the Isles of the Gentiles in regard either of Egypt or Palestine.

Our Southern border needs no proof at all.

Our Western border stands upon two Reasons. 1. It is not like that they went beyond them, because there is a great Sea between them and the next land. Now 2. that they went so far, we prove from the Seat of Tiras, whom all agree to be the Father of the Thracians, which are in the North-west part of this our plot, and so point out both how far they went toward the West and up into the North.

The rest of our Northern border, as also our whole plot, may be confirmed by comparison with the Original portion of the Sons of Sem, to which it hath almost a just and equal scantling. For the farthest of the Semites toward the East is Elam the father of the Persians; now Persia lies as far from Amanus and Masius into the East as Macedonia and the Confines of Illyricum lie into the West. The breadth between North and South is from the Caspian Sea unto Phoenicia or to the Persian gulf, which is also proportionable to ours. So that within this compass we hope to find the ancient and first Seats of all the Sons of Japheth, who are seven in number, named in the second Verse of this Chapter, Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras. And to these we must divide our plot into seven portions as equal as we can guess; for it is not like there was any great difference of quantity.

And here we must observe our Third Rule, To place those whose Sons are named by Moses in places accessible and neighbouring to the Jews. Now Moses names the Sons only of two of these seven, viz. of Gomer and Javan. The Sons of Gomer are Askenaz, Riphath and Togarmah: And the Sons of Javan are four, Elishah, Tarshish, Cittim and Dodanim. The places accessible and fit for the Jews commerce are those that lie upon the Mediterranean and the AEgean Seas, of the coasts of Asia.

Now in which of these we should seek for the Seats of the Sons of IAVAN, is a matter of no great difficulty; because there is nothing more certain than that Javan was the Father of the Grecians, whose Countries lie along upon the Mediterranean Sea. And because we must there seek the whole Nation where we find any of the Families, and we know that the house of Tarshish dwelt in Silicia; we may be assured that all the Countries lying upon the Sea belong unto the lot of Japheth, even from the Issicus sinus unto the end of Epirus, which was part of our Western border. This portion then we must divide into four parts, much of a scantling, for the four Sons of Javan.

The First part contains all Silicia, and this was the dwelling of Tarshish; witness the City Tarsus, where S. Paul was born, which in Hebrew is called Tarshish, and it is that which Jonah was bound for when he fled from the face of the Lord: witness likewise the often naming of Tarshish in all Prophecies concerning Tyre, to whom it was a near neighbor: witness also the whole Sea upon that coast called Tarshish, because the Sons of Tarshish were Lord's of that Sea. For Lucan and others report the Cilicians were great pirats, and domineer'd in all the Sea near them, whom afterward Pompey subdued and brought to better order; so that of that Victory he saith,

Lastly, for thus placing of Tarshish we have the consent of Josephus and other ancients. As for the Septuagint, who often translate Tarshish the Carthaginians, they keep never a one of our Ten Rules, and therefore we must needs reject them; especially if they mean of the original Seat of Tarshish. But as for their Colonies, we will see afterwards.

The Second portion contains Caria, Lycia and part of Pamphilia; and this fell to Cittim or to the Cittaeans; for it is a name of the plural number, and so a name of a People; the singular would be Ceth or Citti, who is like to have been their founder. Reasons for placing the Cittaeans here are, 1. from Cetis a country in this tract spoken of by Ptolemy: 2. a people called Cetii by Homer in Odyss.δ. who thinks they were so called of a river Cetius in the same quarter: 3. because there can be no other place assigned them in all the portion of Javan, as we shall see: and lastly, because their often naming in the Scripture argues they were not far from Palestine.

The Third part of this division contains Achaia and part of Peloponnesus; and this was the lot of Elishah. Witness a great part of this tract called Ellas, the river Elissus or Ilissus, the Elysii campi, Eleusis a city near to Attica, wherein was worshipped the Goddess Ceres, and hereof named Ceres Eleusina; witness likewise Elissus a city of Arcadia, Eli’s a city in Peloponnesus, and AEoles a colony of Achaia; all of them so named of Elishah: and to this in some agrees Josephus and the other ancients, though some of them restrain our Elishah to the AEoles, who it is certain were but a colony from Achaia.

There remains the Fourth portion for the Fourth son of Javan, which contains all Epirus and part of Peloponnesus; and here we must place the Dodanim or the Dodanites. For this also is a name of the plural number. Now to place this people here, we have two special Reasons. 1. Because they are never spoken of after in any place of the Bible; whereby it seems they dwelt far off from Palestine and out of the Jews walk and knowledge: now the other Three are all spoken of, Tarshish and Cittim very often, because they were very near; Elishah but once in Ezekiel, because he was farther off; but Dodanim never, because he was little known and farthest off. So that the common [ opinion ] which places him in Rhodes, incurs many unlikelihoods. For Rhodes is an Island, whereas it is certain the Main was inhabited before the Islands. Again, Rhodes is a very small Isle, nothing answerable to the portions of the rest. And lastly, Rhodes is near and obvious to Judea, and yet this people we never here once named among the Prophets. But the occasion of this Error grew from the changing of Daleth for Resh in the first Book of Chronicles, where is read Rodanim, ch. 1. 7. as also for our Riphath there is read Diphath in v. 6. which out of doubt was the Scribe's fault at the first, and never after amended. The other Reason for placing this people here is the Remainder of the very name in a City called Dodona, and the famous Oracle of Jupiter Dodonaeus, who was no other but this Fourth son of Javan who was the Saturn of the Grecians, and all his sons the Ioves of their several families.

This was the Inheritance of Javan, whom his sons the Grecians for his wisdom and providence called Prometheus, who (as Hesiod says) was— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Iapetus his good Son.

THE other whose sons are named by Moses, is Gomer; and to him therefore we must allot the next Regions, most accessible and fit to have commerce and traffick with Palestine. And these will be those parts of Asia which lie upon the AEgean Sea and Hellespont Northward. And this agrees well with Ezekiel, who terms Gomer and Togarmah inhabitants of the sides of the North 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And it is manifest that the Jews called the lesser Asia the North, and the Kings thereof in Daniel the Kings of the North. We may therefore assign to these Gomerians all the North-East part of this Asia, containing Phrygia, Pontus, Bithynia, and a great part of Galatia; and this will be a portion answerable to that of Javan. And this Josephus will not deny us, who affirms the Galatians to have been called Gomeraei; and Herodotus will tell us that a people called Cimmerii dwelt in this tract, who sent a Colony to Palus Maeotis, and gave name to Cimmerius Bosphorus. And Pliny speaks of a town in Troas, a part of Phrygia, called Cimmeris. Which all have their name from this Gomer.

This tract then we must divide into three parts between the Three sons of Gomer, viz. Askenaz, Riphath and Togarmah.

The First shall be Phrygia major and some part of Galatia; which, following the opinion of Josephus and others, we assign to Togarmah, of whom the Phrygians (saith Josephus ) were called Tygrammenes. As for the opinion of Junius, who places Togarmah in Armenia minor, because of their Kings called Tygranes, and their Cities Tygranokartae; this cannot stand, because Armenia minor is too far out of our tract, and therefore he breaks our Fourth Rule, in placing the Son of Gomer out of the lot of Gomer, and rending him from the house of his father. And that Togarmah should be the Author of the Turks, is a Jewish toy lately devised. But it pleaseth Jonathan the Chaldee Paraphrast by likeness of the name to turn Thogarmah 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Germania; and some go farther, and would have Thogarmah to be quasi Thegarmens or The germans. But this opinion breaks the most and chiefest of our Rules, and therefore cannot be approved, unless they mean of after-Colonies; of which we will see afterward.

The Second shall be Troas or Phrygia minor, wherein was the renowned City of Troy; and this we allot to Askenaz, because of the river Ascanius, and part of the tract called Ascania, and the name Ascanius used in those parts: witness Homer in his 2. Iliad.

that is, Phorcys led the Phrygians, and divine Ascanius who came from Ascania. And it is as like the Greeks should turn Askenaz to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Coresh to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Darjavesh to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so that for the termination [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ,] no man need doubt. Josephus would have Askenaz to be father to a people called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Rheginenses, who were inhabitants of a City called Rhegium on the Sea-coasts of Italy over against Sicilia: but this is too far out of our walk, and breaks our Fourth Rule amain, by rending Askenaz quite from the house of his father, and placing him so far from his brethren: and it is against Josephus his own testimony, who saith that the Gomeraei were inhabitants of Asia, and I am sure Gomer could be founder of no Nations but those his Sons were fathers of. But if I might be bold with Josephus, I would for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and understand the Rhaetii or Rhaetians a German people; and so he should agree with the opinion of the modern Jews, who call the Germans Askenazim from Askenaz: but this must be understood of some ensuing Colonies, not of this Original Seat.

The third and last portion is Pontus and Bithynia, which remains for the Third Son, Riphath: witness Josephus, who affirms that the Paphlagones who dwelt in these parts were called Riphathaei; and the Histories of Heathen men place here their Riphaei and Arimphaei; and Junius thinks that the Amazones who were called AEorpatae were a Colony from these quarters; and besides there is a river in these parts called Parthenius, corruptly as it should seem for Riphathenius. And this portion lies only open to the Euxine Sea, in ancient time called Pontus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because it was unfrequented by the Greek Nations: which opportunely shows the reason why of those Three only Riphath is never spoken of afterward, because it lay out of the walk either of Jews, Tyrians, or Egyptians. And thus much for Gomer.

THAT which remains of Asia we must divide between Meshech, Tubal and Magog: For it is certain out of Ezekiel that Magog was seated in the North, because it is said that Gog of the land of Magog shall come out of his Northern quarters; and out of the same Chapter we gather that Tubal and Meshech were his neighbors, in that he is called chief Prince of Meshech and Tubal; and these two Meshech and Tubal are both here and elsewhere always joined together.

To Meshech therefore, following the received opinion, we allot Cappadocia, the inhabitants whereof were once called Meschini, Moschi, Mossyni and Mosynoeci; witness Josephus, Epiphanius, Pliny and Carmen Argonauticum. Also the chief City of Cappadocia was called Mazaca even to Tiberius his time, who called it Cesarea, and it was afterward the Episcopal See of the learned Basilius Magnus.

Now for Thubal, because he is neighbor to Meshech, we must allot that which lies on the South-East of the Euxine Sea, which contained the people Albani, Chalybes, and Iberi, who ( Josephus saith) were anciently called Thebeli; and Ptolemy places here a City called Thabilaca. And some think that Chalybes is a name corrupted from Thabyles, by losing the first letter, and after supplying • instead thereof: for in Homer's time they were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , when he saith that the Halizones came

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from Alybe, where are mines of silver: and from this Alybe I suppose came the name Albania. And all this is agreeable to the opinion of most Writers, but that some having mistaken the name Iberi in Josephus, will have the Spaniards to be of Thubal: but we can yield them no more than this, that perhaps the Spanish Iberi were a Colony of the Iberians of Asia. And so we come to Magog;

Whom with the consent of all men we place North of Thubal, and make him the father of those Seythians that dwelt on the East and North-East of the Euxine Sea: and besides we have this argument from the report of Pliny, in that Scythopolis and Hierapolis, which these Scythians took when they overcame Syria, were ever after by the Syrians called Magog. And hence we may soon learn who is that tyrant Gog whereof Ezekiel prophesied, namely the Scythian Ottoman of the East, who at this day usurps a great part of Israel, of our Israel of the Gentiles. This is that Gog of the land of Magog, chief Prince of Meshech and Thubal. As for the name Gog, it signifies the very same with Magog, for Mem is but an Hemantick letter; and it pleased the Spirit of God to take away this first syllable, to distinguish between the people and the land of the people, calling the people Gog, and the land the land of Magog. And it is to be marked that he doth not call this Gog Prince of Magog, but rather Gog of the land of Magog (for so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be turned) and chief Prince of Meshech and Thubal. For those who have done us all this evil were no Princes in the land of Magog, but mere Vagabonds and mercenaries, whom their Country spewed out because they could not live at home. And yet these Savages at the first coming out made themselves Lord's of Meshech and Thubal, of Cappadocia and Iberia: and here they contained themselves long before they attempted the conquest of the rest of Asia; witness those who write the History of their beginning. I would to God we might live to see that joyful time which the same Ezekiel speaketh of, when the Lord shall make him fall upon the mountains of Israel, and smite the bow out of his left hand, and cause his arrows to fall out of his right hand: when he shall send a fire upon Magog, and among them that dwell carelessly in the Isles; that they might know that he is the Lord our God, even the Holy one of Israel.

There remain yet of the sons of Japheth, Madai and Tiras, and of the plot we first laid out, Thracia and Macedonia. If then the Thracians be of Tyras (as it is agreed they are, both because the name Thrax is little changed, and because they worshipped one Odrysus, who was no other than this Tiras ) then it must needs follow that Macedonia is left for Madai, or else we must leave it empty, because we can assign it to none of the rest without great inequality of portions, nor yet find any other place for Madai.

Let therefore Macedonia be the lot of Madai; witness the ancient name AEmathia, as Lucan sings,

If any man question how AE came in, I could ask him likewise how Eu came into Euphrates, which the Hebrews and those of Mesopotamia call Perath; or how AE into AEgyptus, which themselves and their neighbors the Arabians call Cuphti; or how AE into Ethiopia, which some think to be so called of Theops or Theophi. It may be that of the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying regio the Greeks formed their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 terra, and so Aimathia is as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Madai, the land of Madai; and AEgyptus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cuphti, the land of Cuphti; and AEthiopia 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Theophi, the land of Theophi, But howsoever it be, it is no unusual thing in the changing of a name out of one [ language ] into another, to prefix a Vowel or Diphthong. But besides this name AEmathia, we read of a people in this tract called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or (as some will) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aristotle in his Book of Strange reports speaks of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the borders of Paeonia; and hereabouts was that Praefectura Medica we hear of in the Roman stories. Lastly, Isocrates in one of his Orations names one 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for King of these quarters, before (as he saith) they come to be a Greek nation.

It is the common opinion, I confess, that Madai was the Father of the Medes in Asia: but this I think will scarcely agree with Moses, to remove Madai so far from the rest of his brethren, and how can that be any part of the Isles of the Gentiles, which lies beyond Armenia the great and part of Assyria? Or what should any of the sons of Japheth do among the sons of Sem? Indeed Josephus saith that Madai was progenitour of that people which the Greeks called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but I am sure they called the Medes of Asia 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And what though the Hebrews called them Madai? this proves no more that there was the Original seat of Madai the son of Japheth, than that Tarshish, whither Solomon's ships went once in three years to fetch gold and silver, was the first dwelling of Tarshish the son of Javan. It may be their names were occasioned by these, either through Colonies, (which is the more unlikely,) or by the affinity of name, which the Jews corrupted to a name they were best acquainted with; which is an usual dealing of Nations of a diverse language with the names of their neighbors.

Thus then at length we have found the first Seats of the Sons of Japheth, agreeable to the Rules we first laid down; and their Portions also are so laid out, that every one hath some part of his borders lying open to the Sea or toward empty land, that so they might vent their Colonies without disturbing their brethren.

NOW let us say something of their Colonies. And we'll begin with Tarshish, who lies open only to the Mediterranean Sea, and therefore is like to have sent his first Colonies that way; but whither it is hard to say: but, if I may guess, it is likely unto the first land Westward he found unpeopled, and that may be the South part of Italy, where dwelt the Elrusci, a name coming something near to Etarshishi. But howsoever it is certain that the Hetrurians came from Asia the less, and that they were a Greek Nation, and spake the Greek language. There is a Spaniard that hath lately written a Description of Old Spain, and will have Tarshish, whither Solomon's ships went with the Ships of Hiram king of Tyre, to be Tartesses in the South of Spain near to Hercules Pillars; and indeed Aristotle in his Strange reports says that when the Phoenicians came first thither, they found so much Silver, that they were not able to carry it away, but were fain to make their Anchors and their Ship-furniture all of Silver. But if this Tartessus be that Tarshish, it seems the Phoenicians so called it, because it lay unto Carthage their new Tyre as old Tarshish in Silicia lay to old Tyre, that is North-westward: or else they called it Tarshish, because they went to it by the Sea of Tarshish. The Septuagint, who often turn Tarshish the Carthaginians, seem to allude to the name, as though Carthago were Cartarshish a City of Tarshish: but Carthage was no Colony of Cicilia, but of Phoenicia.

But it should seem of all these or some of these the whole Mediterranean Sea was called Tarshish, for the Chaldee Paraphrast almost always turns Tarshish 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, the Sea; whom Tremellius follows.

The Cittaeans lie open both to the AEgean and to the Mediterranean Seas, and therefore might send Colonies both ways. And first it is likely that they peopled Crete and the Isles at the mouth of the AEgean Sea. But because the Prophecy of Daniel, concerning the ships of Chittim that should come against Antiochus magnus, was fulfilled by the Romans; we must grant Italy also a Colony of our Cittaeans, which seems to be the East part thereof which lies toward Syria, and was anciently called Magna Greece: and yet I suppose that these Cittaei went as high as Tiber unto the borders of their brethren the Hetrusci, and were those which were called Aborigines and Latini; and that part called Magna Greece was filled with other Greek Colonies afterward and of more late time, because they spake the same Greek that other Greek nations did; but those Aborigines or Latini spake the ancient Ionian tongue, as Varro affirmeth: and it should seem besides that they were a Colony of the ancienter Ionians or Greeks because they kept their Father Javan's name amongst them, calling him Ianus, whom the other Grecians seem to have by some mischance forgotten: even as the ancient Germans once worshipped Terra mater, as Tacitus says, called Erthus, and yet now they have no such name in all their language; whereas we, one of their Colonies, have still the name Earth. Munster and some others would have Ianus to be Noah, with a far-fetched reason from • Vinum, because Noah planted a Vineyard and was drunken with the wine thereof. But this hath no likelihood at all, that the Greek nation alone should worship the Father of all mankind, whereas others remember only the Father of their own nations; as the Thracians Odrysus, the Arabians Sabin, Assabinus. And that name Ianus is so plain for Iavanus, that I wonder how they could miss it: And it may be that same Oenotrius, of whom Italy was called Oenotria; for both signify Vinosus, and besides that Oenotrius was one of the Surnames of Ianus. Furthermore, that the Romans were Iavanites or Grecians, methinks I could prove out of Rom. 10. 12. where S. Paul speaking particularly to the Romans, says after this manner, There is no difference between the Jew and the Greek; for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him; where he seems to comprehend the Romans under the Grecians. But if any man will think otherwise, he shall have my leave.

But to return to that we are somewhat digressed from; Junius expounding this Prophecy of the ships of Chittim, would have the Romans ships called the ships of Cittim, because they came immediately from the coast of Cittim, that is Crilicia, in the havens whereof they used to lie. But Cittim is a name of the plural number, and therefore not the name of a Country, but of a People; how then could the Romans ships be called the ships of the Cittaeans, unless they had a privilege that whatsoever ships come to their shores should be theirs? And again Silicia, where the Roman navy used to lie, was the lot of Tarshish, not of Cittim; for Strabo says the Cetii or Cetians lay West from Silicia, where we placed them.

Another Colony of Cittim Balaam will tell us of in Numb. 24. 24. where he says that ships shall come from the coasts of Chittim, and shall afflict the Assyrians, and shall afflict the Hebrews: which is meant of Alexander King of Macedonia; whereby it seems that the Macedonians were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from the mixture of the sons of Madai and Cittim, as it were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , even as for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 we say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and so Macedonia is called from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, Maccetims, for an, en & in are terminations plural in diverse languages. And that ye may fully believe that a Colony of Cittim went into Macedonia, ye shall read in 1 Maccab. 8. 5. Perseus king of Macedonia expressly called King of Cittim; which reading Junius would fain change, if he had any authority, to make his opinion good, that those ships also are called ships from the coasts of Cittim, because they came out of the havens of Silicia. And thus much of the Colonies of the Cittaeans.

Now to speak a word or two of the Colonies of the rest. Of the offspring of Gomer, who were of him called Cimmerii, and had a City in their lot called Cimmeris of these Cimmerians or Gomerians, Thogarmah lies only open by the AEgean Sea to the Mediterranean, and therefore sent his ancient Colonies that way, and gave original to the old Gauls whom the Grecians called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and contractly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cimbri: and of these Gauls proves Cambden came our ancient Britons, who yet retain the name of their Grandfire Gomer, and call themselves Cumrah.

Askenaz, another family of these Cimmerians, lies open to the North-west, and therefore sent his Colonies that way, and gave name to Cimmerius Bosphorus; and going along by Danubius, gave beginning to the Germans, whom Diodorus Sic • lus affirms to have their Original from the Cimmerians; and the Jews to this day call them Askenazim of Askenaz; and themselves retain the name of their Grandsire Gomer both in Cimbri, and calling themselves Germen, that is Gomeraeans: as the Syrians call the Aramaeans Armin, of which the Greeks form their Armenia; so of Gemren or Germen the Latins formed Germania; for en is a German plural, and it is no harder thing to form of Gomer Gemren, than of Brother Brethren; for we English are the Germans brethren, and therefore also the sons of Askenaz.

Riphath lies only open to the Euxine Sea Northward, and West to Askenaz, and therefore sent his Colonies something Westward, but North of Askenaz; and so he gave beginning first to those Riphaei above the Euxine Sea, and after to the Rutheni and Prutheni, both which found of Riphath; for Pruthen is that but contractly for Riphathen, that is, Riphathaeans; for en (as I said) is a termination plural. We call them Prussians and Russians, and their language is the Polonian tongue or a dialect thereof, not the Askenazim or Dutch.

Meshech also lies only open Northward, and therefore sent his Colonies beyond Palus Maeotis, who are of him called Muskovians.

Tubal lies on the North-west of the Euxine Sea, and therefore sent his ancient Colonies by it; but whither it is hard to say, but it is like Northward upon the East of the Muskovite.

Magog lies open to the North, and hath scope enough, and might go, if he would, he and Tubal both, even as high as Nova Zembla.

There remain Tiras and our Iaphetian Madai: and Madai lies open both to the Adriatic Sea and to the confines of Illyricum and Moesia; but it is not like he went by Sea so long as he might by land, and therefore I think he gave beginning to the Illyrians and to the Moesians, for so Pliny calls them, which methinks comes near to Maethians; for • and • are changeable one for the other, as we see in Rutheni and Prutheni, whom we call Russians and Prussians, and Russia and Prussia for Ruthia and Pruthia.

Tiras lies open both to the North and the West; but I think he went no further Northward than a River on the edge of Russia, which of him is called Tyras: his other Colonies went more Westward, and gave beginning to the Dacians, and Ge • ae, and their offspring.

And thus we have seen the First Seats of the Off-spring of Japheth, and also whither they have been since scattered over the face of this Western world. And now we have occasion to consider the Blessing of Japheth, That God would enlarge him into the tents of Sem, and that Cham should be his servant: For there hath never yet been a son of Cham that hath shaken a scepter over the head of Japheth. Sem hath subdued Japheth, and Japheth subdued Sem; but Cham never subdued either. And this Fate was it that made Hannibal, a child of Canaan, cry out with the amazement of his soul, Agnosco fatum Carthaginis. (See Livy in l. 27. in fine. ) The Saracens indeed once spoiled us, but they were no Chamites, but Arabians of the seed of Ishmael; and yet because a great number of their kind were after of the Moors and Chamish Arabians, we see they were in a moment shaken off by Japheth, and made to keep themselves within their African limits.

And we may see likewise how God hath enlarged Japheth into the tents of Sem, and how he that was once the God of Sem is now the Blessed God of Japheth: For almost only the Off-spring of Japheth, yea and all the Off-spring of Japheth, are at this day Christians, only Magog except; whom he seems to have reserved, as he did some of the Canaanites in the land of Israel, to prove and punish us withal. But let us desire him That he would at length deliver us from this Belial, and that he would daily enlarge us more and more into the tents of Sem, that he would remember the Blessing, and never forget his Promises so often made to the Isles of the Gentiles. Hear, O Lord, the groanings of those who are in bondage, and let their cry come up unto thy Holy Seat. Why should the Heathen any longer rage, and gather themselves together against thy Christ? How long, Lord, how long wilt thou be angry with them forever? It is enough, Lord, it is enough; Arise and send them an Ezra, send them now an Helper, and make thine Holy Name known in the midst of thy people.

PSALM 50. 14.

THE Book of Psalms is a Book of Prophecies; witness the frequent citing of them by our Lord and his Apostles; witness the Surname of King David, who being the penman of no other but this Book is styled the Prophet David. I say the Psalms are Prophecies, and that both Concerning Christ himself, and also the Church which should be after him. Concerning Christ himself it needs must be; Saith he in the Gospel, ( Luke 24. 24.) These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, That all things must be fulfilled which were written of me in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the PSALMS: and more especially concerning his Beginning, S. Paul quotes the words of the Psalm speaking in the Person of God, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee; and again concerning his Office, Thou art a Priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek. Now for the Church of the Gospel and calling of the Gentiles, as many parts of many Psalms do foretell thereof, so is this whole Psalm a description of the same; 1. What manner of one it should be; 2. What worship God would establish therein. For the first, it should be Catholic and gathered out of all Nations, The God of God's (saith the beginning of the Psalm v. 1, 2.) even the Lord hath spoken, and called the Earth from the rising of the Sun to the going down thereof. Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, hath God shined: Agreeable to the words of the Gospel itself, That it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his Name among all Nations, beginning at Jerusalem: and that it did begin at Jerusalem where Christ himself began, where the Holy Ghost came down in cloven tongues: So out of Zion God shined, our God came and kept not silence; for a fire came before him, and a tempest moved round about him.

Now for the Worship and service which Christ would establish in his new reformed Church, it concerns either the First or the Second Table. For the First Table, it tells us What Offerings God would abolish, namely, all Typical Offerings or all the Offerings of fire; and then What Offerings he would accept, to wit, the Offerings of Praise and Prayer; Offer unto God Praise, and pay thy Vows unto the most High. For the Second Table, it commands a right and upright conversation, from the 16. verse unto the last; and the last is the Sum or a brief summary of both Tables, He that offereth Praise, shall glorify me; and to him that disposeth his way aright, will I show the Salvation of the Lord.

But to return again to the reformation of the First Table, whereof my Text is the Affirmative part: where (as I said) we are told both What Offerings God will not have offered, and What Offerings he requireth. He will no longer have any Typical Offerings, any Offerings of, fire, or bloody Sacrifices: For I will not (saith he) reprove thee for thy Sacrifices or thy burnt-offerings; I will take no bullock out of thine house, nor goats out of thy folds; For all the beasts of the forests are mine, and the beasts on a thousand hills. If I were hungry, I would not tell thee; for the world is mine and all that therein is. Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Nevertheless he still requireth Offerings of Thanksgiving, and a Present when we come to pray unto him: so faith my Text, Offer unto God Praise, &c. And so here is an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as S. Paul saith in a like case, He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

But as in Typical Speeches it often comes to pass that the things which are spoken are true both in the Type and Antitype; as that in Hosea 11. 1. Out of Egypt have I called my Son, was in some sense true both of Christ and Israel; and that in Exod. 12. 46. Thou shalt not break a bone thereof, was true literally both of Christ and the Paschal lamb; and that in Psal. 22. 18. They parted my garments among them, was true figuratively in David, and literally in Christ: Even so it comes to pass in Prophecies, and namely in this, That it so foretells of things to come, that it concerned also the time present; it foretells the estate of the Church in the Gospel, and yet meant something that concerned the present Church of the Law. To which purpose we must frame the sense after this manner, That God even then did not so much regard the Offerings of fire and Expiatory sacrifices as he did the Offerings of Praise and Thanksgiving, because the first were Ceremonial, the other Moral; the first, their End was changeable, the other, everlasting. So that in respect of the Catholic Church the words of my Text are an Antithesis or Aphaeresis with the former, I will in no sort have any Typical and Bloody Offerings, but only Offerings of Praise and Prayer: But in respect of the Legal Church or the Church of the Law they are a Protimesis or Estimation, I require not so much any Typical offerings, as I do that you should offer unto me Praise, and pay your Vows unto the most High. For so when God saith elsewhere, I will have mercy and not sacrifice; it is no Antithesis, but a Protimesis, that I had rather have mercy than sacrifice. So again Matth. 6. 19. Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, but lay up for your selves treasures in heaven; this is no Antithesis or Aphaeresis, as though Christ would not have us at all provide for things of this life; but a Protimesis, he would not have us take so much care for this life as for the life to come.

The Scope therefore of my Text is, to show What kind of Offerings God did chiefly accept under the Law, and doth only require in the Gospel; to wit, two sorts of Offerings, Eucharistical, and Euctical or Votal. Eucharistical Offerings are such whose End is Thanksgiving to God for Benefits received, which are here termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Offerings of Praise. Euctical I call such as are made to God upon occasion of suit we have unto him, that is, when we come to pray before him, that he might accept our supplications and we find favor in his sight. And this is performed two manner of ways; either by promise if God shall hear us and grant our petition, which is called a Vow; or by actual exhibition at the time we do pray unto him. An example of the first kind is that of Jacob; If the Lord shall be with me and bring me back again, of all I have, the Tenth will I give unto him. The second was much used in the first times of the Christian Church, and of it in the Law we understand chiefly that Commandment, That no man should appear before the Lord empty; that is, Let no man that comes to pray before the Lord appear empty-handed. But because the first was very ordinary among the Jews, my Text by a Trope only names it instead of the whole kind of Euctical offerings. Pay thy Vows, that is, when in praying before me thou shalt vow a gift to me or mine, if I shall hear thee; or at thy prayer dost exhibit the same before me, that thou mightest find favor in my sight; such Offerings are well pleasing unto me, such Offerings will I accept at thine hands: Offer therefore unto me praise, and pay thy vows unto the most High.

This last word [ most High ] will serve us instead of a Reason why God should require this kind of service at our hands, Because he is the most High God: Offer unto God an Offering of Thanksgiving, because he is the most High God, that is, the chiefest and highest Cause of all that thou hast received: Offer unto God, when thou hast a suit unto him, because he is the most High God, that is, the Lord of Lord's, the highest Lord; and therefore it doth little beseem thee to appear before him without a present, when thou wouldest do it unto thine earthly Lord, if thou hadst a suit unto him.

Now also the Lord, as he is the most High God, so lie ever was and ever shall be the most High; and therefore this kind of Offering is due unto God naturally and perpetually. Therefore both Jew and Gentile must offer unto God Praise, and make and pay their Vows unto the most High. For these are Offerings made to God for a cause unchangeable, our Subjection and his Greatness; our receipt of daily benefits and his daily showers of blessings. These therefore even among the Jews and under the Law he did accept without any regard of Type, simply and for themselves; and these among the Gentiles he only accepts, when all the rest are quite abolished. Those other he rejects, because Christ, who was then to suffer and to be offered, is not now to be offered anymore: These he will still accept, because the most High God then is the most High God still and shall be evermore.

HAVING briefly shewn the scope and meaning of these words, and what these Offerings of Praise and Votal offerings are which God did chiefly accept in the Law, and will only admit in the Gospel; there remain yet in my purpose these things to be treated of.

• 1. To distinguish this Moral kind of Offerings from the rest in use under the Law, I will take a short Survey of all the Offerings then used.
• 2. I will give some infallible marks whereby we may know this kind of Offerings from those whose End was to figure and represent things to come.
• 3. I will bring some Reasons to prove, That the main End of those Offerings I call Eucharistical and Votal was not Ceremonial but Moral.
• 4. Lastly, I will show how far and in what sort these Eucharistical and Votal Offerings have been used in the first ages of the Church, specially about the holy Sacrament and at the celebration of the Lord's Supper: and how the blind ignorance of after-times turned them into • xpiatory Sacrifices, which were only a real Thanksgiving and a kind of real Praying unto God.

To begin therefore with the First. All the Offerings in the Law were either Oblationes Sanctae simply Holy, or Sanctae Sanctarum most Holy, or Holy of holies. This division is founded in the Scripture itself, and without this division it is impossible either to bring the multitude of Offerings into method, or to understand the End, Scope and Use of them aright. The Holy Offerings are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Terumoth, which we translate Heave-offerings; the Holy of holies or most Holy Offerings are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Corbanim. And the Scripture is so precise in these words, as I dare affirm though one of them be used sixty times, they are never confounded; but Terumoth is only given to Offerings simply Holy, and Corbanim only to those who were Sanctae Sanctarum or Holy of holies

Now for the reason of this difference of Holy and Holy of holies, it is this. The Heave-offering is called simply Holy, because it was only consecrate to God, and had no other Holiness but this. The Corban is called Holy of holies, because it was not only consecrate to God, as was the other; but was also a Shadow and Type of Holy things to come: and hence it had a privilege that whatsoever it should touch, that should be Holy also, as we may see Exod. 29. 37. & chap. 30. 29. Which was a Mystery of that Holy one who by the union of Faith should one day sanctify us and whatsoever is ours, as it is Heb. 10. verse 10, 14.

The Corban therefore, or the most Holy Offering I define, An Offering of fire, figuring the satisfaction which Christ was one day to perform to God for us. And therefore the faithful Jew was to present this Corban before God, and lay his hand upon it, as it were presenting unto God Christ who was to come, and apprehending him by the hand of Faith. But the Priest alone was to offer it, and to eat up whatsoever remained from the fire, and that in the Holy place; that so the Sacrifice itself being turned into the Sacrificer, might foreshow that our great Priest and great Sacrifice should be one and the same; that is, that Christ should offer himself for us to God his Father, and that he should do it in the Holy City whereon the name of God was called.

Now every Corban or most Holy Offering was of two parts or (if you will) two kinds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Zebach I define a Corban or a most Holy Offering, where by the slaughter and shedding of the blood of Beasts was figured the Expiation of sin to be wrought by the death and passion of Christ to come. For our Expiation could not be wrought but by death and the effusion of blood; and therefore God here made choice of Beasts for Types, because they were capable of death and shedding of blood. This Offering is by a special name called The bloody Sacrifice, and the LXX in Amos 5. 22. turn it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , both properly and alluding to the word Zebach: the Latins well call it Hostia and Victima.

Mincha was a Corban for the most part joined to a Zebach or Bloody Sacrifice, where by the burning and ascending of inanimate things, as Meats and Drinks, was shadowed the Obedience and Merits of Christ to come, which God would accept for our want of Obedience. By Obedience here I understand Christ's Active obedience, whereby he fulfilled the Law for us, not by his invaluable Death, but by a blameless Life; for which of you (saith he) convinceth me of sin? Here therefore was no need of Beasts for Types, but Meats and Drinks; for godly works are as it were Meat and Drink to preserve that life which is according to Godliness. This Corban we turn the Meat-and-Drink-offerings, others Munus; the Gentiles called it Libum. But I said, This Offering was commonly adjoined to the Zebach or Bloody Sacrifice; for sometimes it is separate from it. For to this Mincha I refer the holy Incense which was within the Temple, which figured that continual sweet favor and Incense of the Merits and Obedience which Christ presents unto his Father in a Temple not made with hands, that is, in Heaven.

Again, both Zebach and Mincha, the Bloody Sacrifice with its Meat-and-Drink-Offering, were of differing kinds, and for differing Ends. For either kind was Simple or Diverse. Simple I call that which all of it was most holy, and the whole was to shadow out the Satisfaction of Christ. And this was either for Internal sins, or for External. For Internal sins, that is, the sins of our Hearts, Thoughts and Affections was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Holocaust or Burnt-offering. For External sins or evil deeds were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Sin-offering and the Trespass-offering, as we call them: the one (if I am not deceived) for Sins against the First Table, to wit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or the Trespass-offering; the other for sins of the Second Table. But because our Internal sins or sins of Infirmity are peccata jugia, continual and daily sins, therefore the Holocaust or Burnt-offering was continual and daily offered; the Sin-offering and Trespass-offering were not so: and yet whensoever they were offered, they were offered with a Burnt-offering; to show that our Evil works cannot be expiated and made pure, unless the Heart, the fountain whence they spring, be also purged.

A Diverse Sacrifice or Varium Sacrificium I call that which was not wholly most Holy, neither was all of it to figure the Offering of Christ to come: So that it was partly holy, and partly most holy. Such a one was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or the Peace-offering, which I define A Corban, part whereof was burnt upon the Altar, as in other Sacrifices, but the remainder and greater part was eaten by the faithful people who brought it; that so their Sacrifice by being turned into their bodies nourishment, might be a Sign of their incorporation into Christ to come, who was the true Sacrifice for sin. Here that which was eaten by the People was not most Holy, for then had it belonged only to the Priest: but it was a Sacrament and a Communion of that Sacrifice which was offered, and signified Christ, whose Blood was to be shed and Body broken for their atonement. Rightly therefore was it called a Sacrifice of Peace, as being a Ceremony or Sacrament of Peace and Communion with Christ Jesus, and by him with God the Father.

The Greeks commonly call it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , an Eucharistical sacrifice, it being to be celebrated with both oral and real Thanksgiving to God; as for the same reason our Sacrament of Peace is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Eucharist, which our Savior Christ hath ordained instead of that Eucharistical Sacrifice under the Law. And of this kind were the ordinary Sacrifices of the Gentiles, of which the Christians were forbidden to eat, because they who in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper had communion with Christ already come, (as the Jews in the Peach-offerings had communion with Christ who was to come) might have no peace and communion with Devils, as the Greeks had in their sacrifice; as S. Paul (after he had compared these three together) concludes, 1 Cor. 10. 21. Ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord, and the Cup of Devils; ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's Table, and of the Table of Devils. Out of which place and the Epistle to the Hebrews you may gather all that I have said hitherto of the Use and Ends of the Corbanim or most Holy Offerings. This affinity of the Eucharistical sacrifice with the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper moved the ancient Christians to frame the Office of the Lord's Supper as near as could be unto the Office of the Eucharistical Sacrifice; as might be easily shewn in most particulars.

BUT now will I leave The most holy Offerings, and come to Those which had but a single holiness, which I said before were called Terumoth or Heave-offerings, more seldom 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tenuphoth or Wave-offerings; both from the manner of offering them, which was not by Fire, as in the most Holy, but by holding up or shaking them before the Lord.

A Terumah therefore or Heave-offering I define thus, An Offering made unto God of that we have received, in way of thankfulness or acknowledgement of his dominion over the whole earth; or thus more shortly, An Offering made only unto the praise and honor of God: and therefore it is Levite. 19. 24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sanctum laudationum, an holy thing of praise, or an offering of praise. And to this purpose are those words of David unto God, 1 Chron. 29. 11, 12, 13, 14. whenas himself and the Princes of Israel had offered an huge Terumah of Gold and Silver for the building of the Temple; Thine, O Lord, (saith he) is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and majesty: for all that is in heaven and in earth is thine. Thine is the Kingdom, O Lord, and thou art exalted as Head above all. Both riches and honor come of thee, and thou reignest over all—Now therefore, our God, we thank and praise (namely, by this Heave-offering) thy glorious Name—For all things come of thee, and of thine own hand we have given thee.

Now the Terumah or Heave-offering was either Definite or Indefinite. A Definite Heave-offering was the Tenth of all increase; and this alone was certain, both in regard of the things to be offered, and the measure according to which they were to be offered. The Indefinite Terumah was either Commanded, or Free. That which was Commanded was either General, as the First-fruits; or Special, as the Heave-offering of the breast and shoulder of the Peace-offerings, and of one loaf of the Meat-offering of the same; and these the Greeks call fitly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Freewill-offering or voluntary Heave-offering was either more, or less solemn. The most solemn and usual was that which the Hebrews call Terumah-gedola which indeed was ordinary, but I think nowhere absolutely commanded. Voluntary Heave-offerings less usual were the Offerings of Gold, Silver, Land, and whatsoever else they might give unto the use of the Lord, his Temple and Ministers.

AND thus have we seen all the Kinds of the Offerings in the Law, both holy and most holy; and I think there is no Offering to be found but it belongs to some of these I have named: either to the Corbanim, the most Holy; or to the Terumoth, which were simply holy.

Concerning this last, which we translate Heave-offerings, there remain two things to be treated of: 1. Their Morality; 2. The practice of this kind by the ancient Church in the Office of the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

Concerning their Morality or Moral condition I will show three things.

• 1. That they were not Typical.
• 2. That they were Offerings Eucharistical and Euctical, that is, addressed or used to Thanksgiving and Prayer, according to the meaning of my Text.
• 3. That this kind of Offering is required at the hands of Christians.

[unspec 1] For the First, That Heave-offerings were not Typical, I argue

• 1. From their distinction from the rest, as being always simply holy, never holy of holies. The force of this Argument I frame thus; If all the Oblationes ignitae or Fire-offerings are therefore called Sanctae sanctarum, Holy of holies, because they were not only consecrate to God, but further Signs and Types of holy things to come, and so had a double Holiness, one of Sanctification, another of Signification; then the Heave-offerings, which never are nor ought to be so called, were only simply holy, but no Types of Holy things to come: But the first is true, neither can other reason be given of this distinction: Therefore Heave-offerings were no Types of things to come.
• 2. My second Reason shall be from the differing usage of Terumoth from the most Holy offerings. For the most Holy Offerings were to be eaten only of Priests by condition, of Males by sex, and in no place but the Holy place; and that because Christ, whose Types they were, was to be a Priest, no ministering Levite; a Male, no Female; and was to offer and make his own Body a Sacrifice for sin in no other part of the world but the Holy city of Jerusalem: But as for Heave-offerings, not only Priests, but every Levite, Singer and Door-keeper; not only Males, but the Wives and Daughters of the Levites; not only Virgins, but even Widows and divorced women; not only free Israelites, but even their Slaves and Bondmen who were not of the Sons of Israel; and not only in the Holy place, but in every place, they ate them. The truth hereof is certain and obvious through all the Law of Moses, without any one little crossing it. I will not trouble you therefore with quotations, but frame my second Reason after this manner; If none may eat of the most Holy Offerings but only Priests, only Males, and only in the Holy place; because only Priests, only Males, and of all places only the Sanctuary or holy place were Types of Christ: then surely those Offerings which every under- Levite ate of, every Levite's wife and daughter, widows and divorced women, every Levite's slave and bondman, and that in every place, those Offerings doubtless cannot be Typical or Signs of Christ or anything proper to him; unless we affirm That every Levite, Levite's Wife, Daughter, Widow, divorced woman, yea Slaves and Bondmen, and every corner in the Land of Canaan, were Types of Christ.
• 3. To this we may add in the third place, That there is no one word to be found in the whole Scripture concerning the abolishment of Terumah or the Heave-offering: but of the most Holy in express terms it is said Dan. 9. 27. That the Messias 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should cause to cease the Zebach and Mincha, that is, all the Offerings of fire or Holy of holies. And S. Paul, Heb. 9. 9, 10. that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sacrifices and Gifts were ordained 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; until the time of reformation: he saith not so of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which word the LXX. use almost everywhere for the simply holy Terumah or Heave-offering; whereas by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they translate Corban, Zebach and Mincha, according to S. Paul's own quotation out of Psalm 40. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zebach and Mincha thou wouldest not, that is, no Offering of fire, no Corban or most Holy; and more specially of the several kinds, A burnt-offering and an offering for sin thou requiredst not.
• 4. And hence it is in the fourth place, That God nowhere rejects the Heave-offering or any one kind thereof; but Zebach and Mincha almost as often as they are named in the Prophets or Psalms: As in this 50. Psalm, ver. 8, 13. I will not reprove thee for thy Zebachim nor thy burnt-offerings: Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? And in Psalm 40. 6. which S. Paul before quoted for the abolishment of Typical Offerings, Zebach and Mincha thou wouldest not, a burnt-offering and an offering for sin thou requiredst not. And Ier. 7. 21, &c. Put your burnt-offerings unto your Zebachim— For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day I brought them out of the land of Egypt concerning Holocausts and Zebachim: But this I commanded them, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people; and walk ye in all the ways I commanded you, that it may be well with you. He that will, may look further in Psal. 51. 16. Isaiah 1. 11, &c. Ier. 6. 20. Hos. 6. 6. Amos 5. 22. where we may hear God still rejecting and disdaining Holocausts, Zebachim and Mincha, Sh • lamim or Peace-offerings, the whole rabble of Corbanim or most holy offerings; but no word of Terumah. What force of reason this may bear with those who consider that these appellations of Offerings are never confounded in the whole Law of Moses or History of Israel, and therefore not like to be in these places only, I know not; I am sure Terumah is about sixty times found in the Bible, and nowhere taken for an Offering of fire or most Holy: Nor can it anywhere be shewn that Zebach and Mincha are put for any other Offerings but Offerings of fire, whereof I have already shewn Zebach was one part and Mincha the other.

And therefore I dare conclude, That Heave-offerings, called Terumoth and simply holy, howsoever many of them might be Ecclesiastical or Judicial sacred in regard of some circumstance, yet in their proper nature and principal end they were no Types of things to come.

AND so I come to the Second thing I propounded, to show That these Offerings [unspec 2] were Eucharistical and Euctical, that is, their formalis ratio and essence consisted in Thanksgiving and Prayer. For an Offering is then Eucharistical, when we give something unto the Lord's use in way of Thankfulness for Blessings received; an Offering is then Euctical, when we give something to the Lord's use, to the end that he seeing our Obedience and Thankfulness in honoring him, might grant us a further Blessing we sue for: And this is either de praesenti, or de futuro: De praesenti, when our Offering is presently exhibited; De futuro, when we bind ourselves then to do it when we obtain our suit: And this is called a Vow, differing from the other not in nature but in time: and this special kind, because usual, my Text puts for the whole kind, Pay thy vows, &c. Further, here is to be noted, that as Thanksgiving is joined with Prayer, so is the Gift for Thanksgiving joined with a Gift for Prayer; Or the same Gift is first applied to Thanksgiving, and then to Prayer; that so as Thanksgiving is a mean to obtain by Prayer, so a Present of Thanksgiving for a former Benefit is a mean to obtain of God a favor.

Herein then consists the Nature of an Offering addressed to Prayer, not to merit the thing we ask, but to be an argument before God that he would hear us, because he hath promised in Christ to hear them who honor him. This is not then orare satisfactory, as the Papists do in their Mass, but only oblatorie. To pray satisfactory or meritorie, is to offer a price worth the thing we ask for; To pray only oblatorie, is to offer a motive or condition in regard of God's promise in Christ to obtain our suit; that is, to make as it were a visible or real Prayer. And such a Prayer were the Alms of Cornelius, Acts 10. of whom it is said, v. 4. That his Prayers and Alms were come up for a memorial before God.

Now before this Offering Euctical or Eucharistical can be complete, it must consist of three degrees or parts, Cordis, Oris, Operis, the Offering of the Heart, of the Mouth, and of the Hand. The Offering of the Heart is a Sursum Corda, the lifting up of our Hearts to God either to praise him, or to pray unto him. The Offering of our Mouth is to express the same with our tongues, and is called The Calves of our lips. The Offering of our Hand (which is properly called an Offering ) is a Testimony of what our Heart conceives or Tongue can express, by honoring God with a Present of our substance. The first of these is the formalis ratio or that whereby the two last are sanctified; without it they are no Offerings, no Thanksgiving, no Prayer: But the last is hallowed by the two former; for a Sursum corda, the lifting up of our Hearts, and the profession of our Mouths, is that which makes our Gift an Offering, which without this Consecration is no Offering at all.

Hence it is that this kind of Offerings in regard of other Offerings is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not (as some have thought) from the thing offered, as though nothing were offered but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rations or orationes; but from the manner of hallowing it, which was (as Justin Martyr speaks) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by way of Prayer and Thanksgiving. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not (as some have thought) opposed to a material offering, but to an offering earthly and terrenely sanctified, as were the Typical Sacrifices of the Law by Fire and Blood; but this Offering is offered by no other Fire but the Fire of the Spirit, by no other Blood than the precious drops of Prayer and Thanksgiving. In brief, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is an Offering spiritually offered, not an offering only of the Spirit; it is opposed to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not to a material and real offering: as it is easily to be seen in Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and the ancient Liturgies, who call the material offering of Bread and Wine for the Sacrament 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a reasonable and unbloody Sacrifice. As the most Holy offerings were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Fiery offerings, not because they offered only fire, but because that which was offered was done by fire: so are all these Heave-offerings called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because they were offered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , meaning the manner, not the matter of the offering.

To come therefore to a conclusion. That the Heave-offerings were such Offerings as I have now described, it appears plainly in three principal sorts of them, First-fruits, Tithes, and Voluntary Heave-offerings. In First-fruits it appears by the Confession which everyone was to make who offered them, Deut. 26. 6, &c. When the Egyptians evil entreated us and afflicted us—and when we cried unto the Lord God of our fathers, the Lord heard our voice—and brought us forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand and out-stretched arm—and he hath brought us into this place, and hath given us this land, even a land that floweth with milk and honey. And now behold, I have brought the First-fruits of the Land which thou, O Lord, hast given me. And (so saith the Text) thou shalt set them before the Lord thy God, and worship before the Lord thy God. Whither tend all these words but to a thankful acknowledgment and remembrance of the Blessings they had received from God in giving them so good a Land, and doing so great things for them?

And for Tithes, you may see in the same place what he was to say that offered them, namely, I have brought away the hallowed things out of mine house, and also have given them unto the Levite, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, according to all thy Commandments which thou hast commanded me—Look down (therefore) from thy holy habitation, from heaven, and bless thy people Israel, and the Land which thou hast given us, as thou swarest to our fathers, a Land that floweth with milk and honey. Here is an Euctical offering, an offering applied to Prayer; as if they had said, We honor thee, O Lord, with this part of our substance; that thou seeing our Obedience, mightest in mercy vouchsafe to look down from thy holy habitation, and bless us thy people, and the Land which thou hast given us.

I come now to the voluntary Heave-offering, of which we have a noble Pattern in that great Terumah of Gold and Silver which David and his Princes offered for the building of the Temple, in 1 Chron. 29. Where we shall find first Praise or Thanksgiving, that is, an acknowledgment of God's Dominion, Power and Goodness, from which comes all the good we have; Thine, O Lord, (saith David ver. 11.) is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the Majesty; for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine —ver. 12. Both riches and honor come of thee, and thou reignest over all —ver. 13. Now therefore, our God, we thank thee, and praise thy glorious name. And afterwards he comes to Prayer (ver. 18, 19.) O Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel our fathers,—Give unto Solomon my son a perfect heart to keep thy Commandments, thy Testimonies and Statutes. I will add for a conclusion that of Nehemiah 13. 14. who being the Head and Ruler of his brethren when he commanded them to give the Heave-offering or portions of the Levites, it was as it were an Offering of his own, and therefore he applieth it Euctically, saying, Remember me, O my God, concerning this, and wipe not out my good deeds that I have done for the house of my God, and for the offices thereof.

AND now I come unto the third thing I propounded, That this kind of Offering [unspec 3] or Terumah (the essence and formalis ratio whereof consisted in Prayer and Thanksgiving) was still required at the hands of Christians; and then afterward shall speak of the Practice of the ancient Church.

That these Offerings (as I may so speak) of visible Prayer and Thanksgiving are required at the hands of Christians, I prove

• 1. Because the inward worship of the Heart is still due, and therefore also the outward so far as it was to be a Sign thereof: For what reason can be given why we should be still bound to honor God with the Praise and Prayer of our Hearts, yea and Mouth too, and should not be bound to do the same also by our Works and Deeds? Without doubt he that commands us to honor him with our whole Heart, with all our Mind, with all our Soul, and with all our Strength, would have us honor him in all the degrees of honor, with the honor of the Heart, of the Mouth and of the Hand; and howsoever the first of these be required simply, yet the other two are at least conveniently.
• 2. We know it is the Law of God, That no man should appear before him empty: And this is so natural, that we never almost come before a man, if we have a suit or would show ourselves thankful, but we think fit to honor him with a present, that we might find him the more favorable: Why should not God much more expect some fruits of our Obedience when we come into his presence; seeing he gives all things as Lord of all, not as a Steward to another; yea and of his free goodness, not as bound to give us anything more than seems fit to his good will and pleasure? And that this Law was to have place in the Gospel as well as in the Law, it appears by S. Paul 's decree concerning the Lord's day, which being the day wherein every Soul was publicly to present himself before the Lord to make his prayers and to give thanks unto his name; that this might not be done with empty hands, S. Paul gives order to all the Churches of Galatia and Corinth, That upon the first day of the week everyone should lay by him in store, as God had prospered him, that is, he should give for pious uses according to his ability. Thrice in the year (saith the Law, Deut. 16. 16.) shall every male appear before the Lord, and no man shall appear empty. Once in a week (saith the New Testament) shall every Soul appear before the Lord, and no man shall appear empty. Deus non indiget eorum quae à nobis sunt, sed nos indigemus offerre aliquid Deo;—à nobis propter nos fieri vult, ne simus infructuosi; God stands not in need of anything that is ours, but it is needful for us to present God with some Oblation of our own—And it is not for any advantage to himself, that God would have this to be done by us; but for our own good and behoof, that we may not be in the number of unprofitable servants, saith Irenaeus, one of the most ancient Fathers, whose argument this is which I have brought; urged also by M. Bucer in his censure of our Liturgy.
• 3. My third Argument is something like unto the former. God is a King, and therefore to be honored like a King. The proper honor of a King as a King is Tribute, whereby his Subjects acknowledge his Supremacy and Dominion. God is a King, a King of Kings, as well now in the Gospel as ever in the Law; and therefore now as well as then to be honored with a Tributary Offering. This reasoning is good, seeing God himself so reasoneth with his people; If I am a Father, (saith he) where is mine honor? if I am a Lord, where is my fear? Why may we not add in the same force of reason, If God be a King, where is his Tribute, the proper honor of a King? yea so proper to a King, that they are terms convertible in the Scripture, To be a King, and To receive Tribute or Presents of his Subjects; To acknowledge to be a King, and To bring Presents. For those sons of Belial (1 Sam. 10. 27.) which did not acknowledge Saul to be their King, are said to have brought him no Presents. And 2 Chron. 17. 5. the Holy Ghost useth no other words to signify that Jehoshaphat was acknowledged and confirmed King of Judah but these, That