Commentary on the Old Testament Volume 1

CHAP. X.

IN this Chapter it is shown, how God's blessing upon Noah and his sons took effect to make them exceeding fruitful to replenish the whole world, which is thought from these three, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, to have been of old divided into three parts, Europe, Asia and Africa. In setting down their offspring he first beginneth with Japheth.

The sons of Japheth, Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras.

It may be demanded here, why Japheth and his sons are first spoken of? To this some answer, that he was the eldest, but the same hold Ham to have been the youngest, why then is not he spoken last of, but middlemost? Moreover, that not Japheth, but Shem was the eldest hath been already proved. Some, that Iaphets posterity was greatest, and inhabited parts more remote from the Hebrews, to whom Moses wrote, and therefore he doth first cursorily pass him with his over, as being not so much known to the Hebrews, dwelling longer upon Ham and his posterity, as with whom the Hebrews were more familiarly acquainted, Some, that Japheth was last spoken of in the former Chapter, and therefore his history is here first proceeded in. But the reason of Augustine is best, it is usual with Moses to begin with the youngest, and so to go on to the eldest to speak first of those, concerning whom he meaneth to say little, as not being of the City of God, and then of those that belong to this City, as upon whose History he meaneth chiefly to dwell, and for whose sake he writeth. Now in setting down the sons of Japheth, we are not to conceive, as Calvin saith, that all are named that came of him, or of his sons in the next generation, for the children of two of them only are named, viz. of Gomer and Javan, whereas it is not to be doubted, but the other five had children also. But so many only are named, viz. seven of Iaphets sons, and seven of his sons sons, because these were most famous, and of more excellent parts, and so ruling over the rest, and such as from whom Countries had their denominations. These fourteen then possessed fourteen Countries, and of them, and such, as lived under them, were they peopled. And here by the way be it noted, that although the whole world was divided into three parts according to the number of Noah's three sons, yet that division made in Noah's time hath since been altered. For Japheth had not only that part, which is called Europe, but that part of Asia also, which we call Asia, with the North extending to the Mediterranean Sea, and coming up to Palestine. He was spoken of as one that should be enlarged, and hereby it appears, how he was enlarged indeed, being made more populous in his posterity, then any of his brethren. So that all this was then counted for one part. And the rest of Asia inhabited by Shem’s posterity was another part, and Africa replenished with Hams offspring; So Luther. But how the children of these three were dispersed over the World, will appear better, when we come to speak of them in particular.

As Japheth is here spoken of, so amongst the Heathen Poets, one Iapetus is much celebrated, borne of the Heaven and the Earth, who made war with Jupiter, being the father of Prometheus, and grandfather to Deucaleon, whereby it appeareth, that they were not altogether unacquainted with the History of Moses. Gomer the first of Japheth sons here named, is said by Josephus to have been the father of the Galatians, or Gallogrecians, and of his posterity we read, Ezech. 38. Gomer and all his troops, the house of Togarma, the sides of the North, and all their strength, &c. Magog the second was the father of the Goths according to some, as Jerome saith, but he rather holdeth that the Getes, and Massagetes, and Scythians came of him: so also Isephus, and of the Scythians came the Tartars and Turks of Gog and Magog Ezekiel speaketh, as the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal. Madai the third was by the consent of all, the Father of the Medes famous once for their Empire.

The fourth Javan, was the father of those Greeks called Joves, and therefore the word Javan by the Septuagint is rendered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Grecian. Of Javan we may read more, Isaiah 66. Ezech. 27. Joel. 3.

Tubal the fifth is said by Josephus to have been the father of the Iberians, who were since called Spaniards, the Hebrews say, that he was father of the Italians before called Hesperians. See more of Tubal, Ezech. 17. 39. and how he is joined with Mosoch, the sixth, who is thought to have been the father of the Muscovites by some, but Josephus saith, that the Cappadoceans came of him, and that this is made the more probable by the name of a chief city amongst them called Masecha. And indeed the word is not Mosoch in the Hebrew, but Meshech, by the Septuagint rendered Mosoch, whence the name Moschi was thought to come. The Psalmist speaketh of Meshech, as near to Chedar. Thiras the seventh, was the father of the Thracians, Thracians quasi Theraceans. Yet Isodorus saith, although this be the right denomination, the Gentiles called them so from their fierceness, because they would offer men in sacrifice being taken captive to their gods, and drink man's blood in the skulls of men's heads, the flesh and hair being plucked off.

The sons of Gomer were Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah. Of all the sons of Japheth two only are spoken of again, as having sons, Gomer and Javan. Not because the other five wanted, but because none amongst them founded anew any country, but lived in their fathers countries, contenting themselves with the possessions left by them. Ashkenaz was the father of a country not far from the Medians, for when Jeremiah reckoneth up those, that should together with the Medes overthrow Babylon, he nameth Ashkenaz amongst the rest. But Josephus will have the Rhegians to come of him, the Moderne Jews the Germans, others the Goaths. Riphat, some say, was the father of the Paphlagonians. Thogormah is afterwards spoken of as an assistant of Magog against the Hebrews, by Ezech. 38. and therefore his offspring were inhabitants of Asia, as is most probable. Some will have them Phrygians, some Turks, some Cappadocians, and some Germans.

The sons of Javan Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim. By these were the Isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands, everyone after his tongue, &c.

Elishah the first was, as Josephus saith, father of the Greeks called Aeolians. But the vulgar Latin, where Elisah is spoken of, Ezech. 27. rendereth it Italia. There are also certain Fortunate Islands called Elisian Islands, happily from this man, hence the Elisian fields were so much spoken of amongst the Heathen Poets.

Of the second Tarsish it is held, that the Cilicians came, because of their City Tarsus so famous throughout the world, yet the Sea is also sometime called Tarsus, because the Cilicians were Masters of a great part thereof, and the Countries adjoining thereunto. Of Tarsus see more, Acts 22. 3.

Of the third Kittim it is thought, that divers people's came which dwell from the Hebrews beyond the Seas, both in the firm land and in Islands, wherefore it is a word of the plural number. But chiefly Cyprus was inhabited by them, the chief City whereof is called Citium, as Josephus saith, next Italy, for hereby is this word Translated in the Latin, Numb. 24. and by the Romans, Dan. 11. Lastly, Macedonia in Grecia: for Alexander, who came out of Macedonia, is said to have come out of Cethim, 1 Machab. 1. 1. and so did Philip his father, ver. 8.

Of the fourth Dodanim came the inhabitants of the Rhodes, as some think, D being turned into R and so Rhodanim being made, and thus the Septuagint interpet it, 1 Chron. 1. Such alterations have been in the world, since the time of these men, that much cannot be said certainly of the Countries in particular, to which they dispersed themselves. But of these four last, that came of Javan we are here assured, that the Islands of the Centiles were possessed, that is, these of Europe, and Jerome speaking of the Greeks, that came of him, saith, if we look into the Books of Varro, and of other learned Writers, we shall find, that almost all the Islands and Shores of the World near to Grecia were possessed by the Greeks from the Mountain Amanus and Taurus to the British Ocean. Touching the tongues here spoken of, this is by way of Anticipation, for till the confounding of tongues, all were of one Language, and then first they were divided into many.

And the sons of Ham, Cush, Misraim, Phut and Canaan. Hams posterity, as Josephus saith, inhabited Syria, cleaving to the Mount Amanus and Libanus, and extending to the Ocean Cush, his eldest son is generally held to be the Father of the Ethiopians: whereas it may seem otherwise, that Arabia was rather their Country then Ethiopia, because Arabia was near Egypt and Palestine, as the Cusaean Country is described to be, Numb. 12. where the wife of Moses is called a Cusean, who was a Madianite, and the Midianites dwelt mixed with the Arabians, and 2 Chron. 14. where Zara the King of the Cuseans is said to bring against the Jews an Army of 1000000, which could not have been done, if he had been of Ethiopia for the far distance thereof being under the torrid Zone. It is answered, that amongst Geographers there are two Countries spoken of called by the name of Ethiopia, one in the East, and the other in the West, one of which was near to Egypt, the other far of, being divided from it by the Persian Gulf. Thus Atrabo and Pliny, who say, that the Ethiopians had a most large Empire sometime, ruling even unto Egypt, from which some parts thereabouts still retained the name of Ethiopia, as well as that Country so far off. Mizraim the second son of Ham was Father of the Egyptians, wherefore Mizraim in Hebrew is always translated Egypt, or Egyptians. Yet that Country was not called Egypt, till the time of Aegyptus, who, as Manethon in Josephus contra Appion. saith, having put down his Brother Danaus, reigned over that Country alone, which was 390 years after the Hebrews departure out of Egypt by the conduct of Moses, which was a 1000 years from Noah's flood. So that this Kingdom is most ancient, but the boasts of the Egyptians themselves, who affirm their Kingdom to have stood 13000 years do far outstrip the truth.

The third son of Ham, Phut was the Father of the Lybians, as Josephus saith, and after him Jerome, being first called after him Phutians, and Greek Writers speak of a Region near Libya called Phuta. But this Country was called Libya afterwards from one of the sons of Mizraim, whose name was Lybis, it lieth in Africa. In Ezech. 30. where Phut is named amongst others, it is translated, the Lydians, as Cush there named is Ethiopia. The fourth son of Ham, Canaan is sufficiently known to be the Father of the Canaanites, whom the Israelites expelled out of their Country, and brought into servitude.

And the sons of Cush, Seba and Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, Sabtecah, and the sons of Raamah, Shebah and Dedan.

Seba the first here was Father of the Sabaeans inhabiting Arabia Felix, so called for the abundance of sweet odors and spices, which that Country yielded, Strabo saith, that this is a very great Country, bearing Myrrh, Cinnamon and Frankincense, and it is extended, saith Pliny, from Sea to Sea, that is, from the Persian to the Arabic, but in this tract of ground dwelt not only the Sabaeans coming of Seba, but the Shebeans also, who came of Raamah, and therefore the Psalmist speaketh of them, as dwelling near together, the Kings of Sheba and Saba shall bring presents. For of Raaniah came Shebah the Father of the Shebeans, who dwelt in part of this Arabia Felix, having plenty of spices, and sweet odors, and Gold also, and yet being given much to robbing.

The second son of Cush, Havilah seemeth to have been Father of the Canlateans, or Canilateans spoken of by Strabo, as dwelling also in part of Arabia near to the Ishmaelites, of whom I have spoken before, Gen. 2. 11. yet Josephus and Jerome after him will have them to be the Getuli dwelling in a desert of the furthest part of Africa.

The third Sabtah, was Father of the Sabbatheans, who, as may be gathered from Ptolemy, dwelt also in Arabia, because he speaketh of a certain chief City there called Sabatha, Josephus saith, the same people were called Astabari.

The fourth Raamah, and the fifth Sabtecah, Jerome saith, that no man hath remembered in what parts they inhabited, and therefore I can say nothing of them. Touching the first son of Raamah Sheba, enough hath been said already. Dedan his other son was Father of the Dedaneans, of whom Ezekiel speaketh, as next neighbors to the Idumeans, threatening them, that they should be cut off together, so likewise Jeremiah.

Moreover Cush begat Nimrod, he began to be mighty in the earth, he was a mighty hunter before the Lord, &c.

Nimrod being such a man, as that Moses had more to say of him, then of any of the other sons of Cush, for that greatness, unto which he grew, speaketh not of him amongst the rest, but here a part by himself, yet some think, that he is thus spoken of, because begotten of an Harlot, as Marlorat saith, or because after those two children of Raamah, the son of Cush, which is one reason rendered by Augustine, but he preferreth the first in respect of his greatness, calling him therefore a Giant, according to the Greek Translations, wherein for mighty a Giant is put. This Nimrod was the first Tyrant in the World, others, who had some rule amongst men, exercising their authority rather to govern civilly, then to domineer by force, as Calvin teacheth out of Justin, who saith, that the most ancient manner of Government was that, whereby through reverence to the person set up men were voluntarily ruled. So Noah who yet lived, and Shem, and other chief men ruled, but Nimrod by his ambition troubleth the state of the World, and subdueth all that he could by force unto him. Josephus saith, that Nimrod an audacious man and valiant stirred up men to the contempt of God, saying, that they did [Note.] owe their present felicity not to God, but to their own virtue, thus drawing them unto him, and offering himself to them, as a Captain. Here we may see, what was the first beginning of proud Kings, who ambitiously lift up themselves above other men, forcing them to obey their wills, and not ruling, as is necessary, according to equity and right, that none may suffer wrong, but all have justice done to them. Such came originally from cursed Cham, the worst of Noah's sons, and so whatsoever worldly Glory they attain unto, they are still but base and vile. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord, upon these words there are divers expositions. Some, as Artopoeus saith, understand them, as spoken in his commendation, touching his hunting and destroying of wicked men and notorious offenders, having the Lord before his eyes, as at whom he looked in thus doing, but this is too favorable, and contrary to that which could be expected from Chams brood, and Babels builder. Some say, that his hunting of wild beasts is properly meant, and that when he had taken them, he offered them in sacrifice to the Lord, thus Ibn-Ezra: but this is improbable for the reasons before rendered, and because such as honor God with sacrifices are wont to be commended in plain words therefore. Some for before the Lord, will have against the Lord, understood, as Augustine, because the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here used by the Septuagint's signifieth as well against, as before, he then saith, Augustine was an hunter, that is, a deceiver, oppressor, and extinguisher of earthly creatures, erecting with his people through his pride a Tower against the Lord.

Others will have the speech altogether Metaphoricall, thus he was cruel, and bloody, pursuing men to the death, that he might make a prey of them, as hunters pursue wild beasts, to take and to get them to feed upon. And in this sense Tyrants are often called hunters, as Ps. 91. 3. 124. 7. Ezech. 32. 30. Lament. 3. 52. The other words, before the Lord, they expound, either under Heaven, he was the most mighty and valiant under the whole cope of Heaven, or through pride aspiring to make himself as a God, and above the condition of men, as Vatablus, or else knowing that the Lord beheld his tyranny, and contemning him, or pretending the fear of God in his actions which were vile, as Cajetan: Or he was verily and indeed a most mighty hunter, because that which is so before the Lord, is so indeed. Of all these that exposition pleaseth me best, which referreth this to Nimrods greatness and superiority above all other men, as if it had been said, he was the most potent and full of valor, and by force and tyranny obtained the greatest dominion next under God; and happily his audacious tyrannizing also is pointed at, that he exercised all manner of cruelty and violence to magnify himself, openly, and as it were daring the Lord, who is the revenger of all wrongs, because he seemed not herein to regard him, but as Pharaoh sometime said in his heart, Who is the Lord, that I should for him refreine from doing that, whereby I may make myself great? And because he was so notorious for this, it grew into a Proverb, when any man of might grew tyrannical and cruel, as Nimrod, the mighty hunter before the Lord; Lo, such another Tyrant, so without all fear exercising violence, and ambitiously seeking dominion, as Nimrod did. And the beginning of his Kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Acchad, and Calneh in the Land of Shinar. This is generally held to be spoken by way of anticipation, this Babel here spoken of not being yet built, but the building, thereof set forth in the next Chapter, which building was made in the days of Phaleg, for upon occasion of the confounding of Tongues at that time, which was whilst Babel was building, Phaleg had his name from division, and this was 101 years after the flood, as may easily be gathered, Gen. 11. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. And this Nimrod who was the chief in building the City and Tower of Babel, was also called Belus by other Writers, the Father of Ninus, to whose Widow Semiramis reigning after him is referred the building of Babel, but this is to be understood, not in respect o • her first laying of the foundation thereof, which was done by Nimrod long before, but because being small in comparison, and ruinous, till her time, she built and enlarged it so, that it might seem rather a Province, then a City. Hence we may gather, why amongst the Babylonians an Idol called Bel or Belus was so highly honored and adored, and why so many God's of the Heathen were called from this name, as Baal-zebub, Baal-peor, &c. This Nimrod or Belus was the first author of this Idolatry, drawing his Subjects from the fear and service of God, to respect and adore him, whilst he lived, as their only chief, and after his death, when he had reigned 65 years, or as some say 55, they made Images of him, and worshipped them. Some say, that Nimrod was not Belus, but the son of Belus, who might yet be said to be begotten of Cush, because by Belus his son. But this is both against the current of this History, and against all that write of the Kings of Babylon, for they make Belus the first, and Ninus the second. Others will have Ninus to be meant by Nimrod, because he began his Kingdom first in Chaldea, but Diodorus saith; that he made Nineveh the seat of his Kingdom, and all the famous Doctors of the Church are for Belus, as the Father or Grandfather of Ninus. The beginning of Nimrods Kingdom is said to have been Babel, &c. because he first reigned over these four cities, afterwards extending his Dominion further; Erech is expounded by Jerome to be Edessa, Acchad Nisibis, Calne, Seleucia or Ctesiphon. Shinar was the Land of Babylon, and therefore the Chaldee Paraphrast readeth it for in the Land of Shinar, in the Land of Babylon, being happily first called Shinar, and afterwards upon the building of Babel, Babylon, hereby also this Babel is distinguished from that in Egypt, so Vatablus.

From that land went Ashur, and built Nineveh, and the City Rehoboth, and Calah. ver. 12. And Resen between them. A great question is moved here, who is meant by Ashur? Many say, that he was the second son of Shem, mentioned ver. 22. who dwelling near to Nimrod in Babylonia, when he applied himself so to subdue all neighbouring places unto him, was expelled thence, and went and built Nineveh in Assyria. Thus Josephus, who saith, that after this Ashur, the Subjects of that Kingom were called Assyrians, and after him Augustine, and Jerome saith the same, and Musculus mentioneth this▪ as followed by many. But against this opinion maketh that, which was said before touching Ninus the son of Nimrod, or Belus, who is by all Historians celebrated, as the builder of Nineveh, and therefore Ashur, who came of Shem, could not be the founder thereof. Moreover it were a strange anticipation, before that Ashur is once spoken of, as begotten into the world, that his building of a City should be related. Others, therefore by Ashur understand the Nations of the Assyrians, of whom Nimrod was the head, who went out of their own bounds and to enlarge their Empire built Nineveh also. But all the names hitherto used are so plainly the names of particular men, that this name Ashur must needs be understood in like manner also, not of a Nation, but of a particular man. They therefore who by Ashur understand him, that in profane Histories is called otherwise Ninus, the son of Nimrod, speak most probably. And so that which is here said, is of a thing done long after, which notwithstanding it seemed good to Moses in speaking of Nimrods gestes, to add in this place, that at once we might have a view of the Babylonian greatness first in the father, and then in the son, who not contenting himself with his fathers Dominions, went into Assyria and there built Nineveh, calling it after his own name. And happily he had the name Ashur afterwards, and not at his first going out, but when he had subdued Assyria, the seat of Ashur the son of Shem, as afterwards Scipio had the name Africanus from the subduing of Carthage, and so all Africa. The next words, the City Rehoboth, are not understood by Jerome, as setting forth another City, but according to the signification of the word, Rohoboth streets, the streets of that City, which is added, to show the greatness of Nineveh, and that this Ashur brought it to perfection, of Calah and Resen I read nothing amongst Expositors, but Nineveh is further spoken of in the end of v. 12. this was a great city, for all hold this to be spoken of Nineveh, not of Resen, or Calah. For Nineveh is reported by Historians to be greater then Babylon, 480 furlongs in circuit, the walls 100 foot high, and so broad, that three Carts might go together upon the top of them. In the time of Jonah it was three days journey, and by the proportion of little children, 120000 could not contain less then 600000 inhabitants, from Ninus the founder here otherwise called Ashur it took the name.

And Mizraim begat Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, Pathrusim, and Casluhim, out of whom came Philistim and Caphtorim. This Mizraim, the second son of Ham was father of the Egyptians, but touching his seven sons here named, and the Philistines coming out of one of them, which is the eighth, there is no light given either in the holy Scriptures or other Writers, saith Jerome, whereby we may understand what people's they were, but only of Ludim, Philistim, and Caphtorim, the rest being overthrown in the Ethiopian war, their names perished together with them. Of Ludim Jeremiah speaketh, saying: Go up to horse, ascend your chariots, and let the valiant men of Ethiopia and Libya come forth, who hold the shield, and the Lydians shooting arrows, this is spoken in Prophesying against Pharaoh the King of Egypt, these Natitions being assistant in the war unto him, and therefore they were not the Lydians in Asia, who came of another Ludim named afterwards, but in Africa near to Egypt. Of Philistim, it is often spoken inhabiting in a part of the land of Canaan. The Septuagint call these Allophyli, because they came from another country, and were not Natives of that place: for they came, as here is said, out from the Casluhim, and seated themselves here, this country belonging first to the posterity of Canaan. And so when the Philistines country was given for a possession to the children of Israel, the country only of the Canaanites was given unto them, as was by Noah Prophesied, because the place, where the Philistines dwelt, was anciently their country. Of Caphtorim Amos writeth, as if the Philistines came from them. Have not I brought Israel out of Egypt, the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir? so likewise in Deuteronomy the Caphtorim are said to have expelled the Hivites which dwelt in Hazarim even to Gaza. The vulgar Latin translateth Caphtorim Cappadocians, and so they are taken to be. Of some of these then, and of the Casleuhim came the Philistines. Touching one other name Pathrusim, from thence it may seem that Pathros came, which is spoken of Esa. 11. 11.

But Canaan begat Sidon his first born, and Heth, and the Jebusite, the Emorite, and the Girgashite, &c.

Sidon gave the name to the Sidonians, inhabiting a City in Phoenicia; called Sidon, and their Country in part fell to the lot of Ashur, terminating the land of Canaan. Saidi signifieth fishes, as Justine noteth, and therefore he saith, the name Sidon, by the vulgar still called Saidi came from fishes, or fishermen; whereof great store inhabited there. Sidon, as Isaiah saith, was the Mother of Tyrus, another famous City near unto it. Of Heth the second came the Hittites, otherwise called the children of Heth, who dwelt about Hebron, where Abraham bought of them a burying place. The Jebusites inhabited Jerusalem, and after their name it was of old called Jebus. The Emorites or Amorites dwelt for the most part on this side Jordan, having Og for their King, but they were also dispersed into all the parts of Canaan, being of huge and strong bodies, and so able to oppress others, and to possess themselves of their Territories, as may be gathered, Amos 2. where it is said, I have driven out the Amorite, whose height was as the Cedars, and his strength, as the strength of an Oak. And therefore all the inhabitants of Canaan are sometime called by the name of Amorites, as Gen. 15. The sins of the Amorites are notyet full: from whence also it may be gathered, that they were rather more wicked and vile than the rest. Of the Girgashites I find nothing in particular, but that they were one of the seven sorts of people expelled out of Canaan afterwards.

The Hivites dwelt at the foot of Mount Hermon in Massah, Jos. 11. from Hermon or Baalhermon to the entering of Hemath, Judge. 3. The Archites, as Jerome saith, built a Town at the foot of Libanus, over against Tripolis, which was not long after destroyed by war. Of the Sinites I find no mention in any Author, but that there was a City called Sin, which it is likely, was built by them, not far from the Town of the Archites, as the same Jerome saith. The Arnadites inhabited an Island separated from the shore of Phoenicia by a narrow sea, of these together with the inhabitants of Zidon it is spoken, Ezech. 17. The Zemarites are by some thought to have given the name to Samaria. The Hamathites built the City Haemath or Hemath mentioned, Numb. 34. 8. as the North boundary of the Land of Canaan, and part of the possession of the tribe of Naphtali, Ios 19. 35. Now it is to be understood, that in other places, where the several people's are spoken of, which the posterity of Abraham should possess, all these eleven here mentioned are not named, as Gen. 15. 20. but only four of them, the Hittites, Amorites, Girgashites, and Jebusites. But instead of the other seven, six other names are set down, Kenites, Kenizites, Kadmonites, Perizites, Rephaims and Canaanites. Touching the last of which, it is to be thought, that they were a peculiar people of that Country, who would be called after the name of their father Canaan, and not robbing him of that honor, after the name of any other Progenitour of latter times. For the rest, these people being such as were accursed to servitude, & accordingly being brought under by the Caphtorim or Cappadocians before spoken of, of whom came the Philistines, did in all likelihood lose their former names, for that they were wasted with wars, and there did not many of them remain, but after this increasing again they took upon them other names, as any family grew to be of any note again, and were called after the father thereof. Thus then at the first they bare the names here set down, but afterwards, some of these being extinct, other names, as their nearer forefathers were called. Of the Canaanites and Perizites mention is made Gen. 13. as being in the land when Abraham and Lot increased so greatly in substance, Exod. 3. 8. the Lord telling Moses to the country of what people's he should bring the children of Israel, nameth only six, amongst whom the Hivites are one, not spoken of, Gen. 15. but yet here mentioned; so that it is to be thought, that they being put down recovered their name and fame again, Numb. 13. 29. the spies, who were sent to search the Land, speak at their return but of five, four of which were named before, and one not before spoken of, viz. the Amalekites, but that was a place so to be destroyed, as not to be inhabited anymore, yet at the time of their coming into possess the land, seven people's are reckoned up, which the Lord delivered into their hands, the Canaanite, Hivite, Perizzite, Hittite, Girgashite, Amorite and Jebusite, so that into how many sorts soever they were distinguished before, yet now they were but seven, saving that under some of these there were other distinctions of families, as into Anakims, and Giblites, &c. All these were brought under and destroyed by the children of Israel.

And the border of the Canaanites was Zidon, as one goeth to Gerar, even to Hazzah, till he entereth into Sodoma, &c. All the people's before spoken of go here under the name of Canaanites: for in the end of the former Verse it is said, Afterwards were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad, that is, of all those that came of Canaan before named, who possessed large Territories, the borders whereof were Sidon on one side, and Gaza or Azza on the other, that is, Northward and Southward, for Gerar in the way to which Gaza stood, was Southward, saith Jerome, 25 miles from Eleutheropolis, and Sidon was Northward. But Lasa put for another boundary was Eastward towards Sodom, &c. being now called Calliroe, as Jerome saith, for the hot waters, that flow from thence into the dead Sea. And describing the Country, Moses is so exact, because the children of Israel were now about to go to possess it.

Unto Shem also the father of all the children of Eber, the elder brother of Japheth, unto him were children borne. In our new translation it is, the brother of Japheth the elder; whereupon a question ariseth, whether Shem or Japheth were the elder brother? The Hebrews answer, that Japheth was eldest, and Shem youngest, yet some, that Ham was youngest, and this is followed by Lyranus, and Genebrardus thinketh it most probable. Their reason is, because Shem is said to be 100 years old 2 years after the Flood, but Noah is said to have begotten Shem, Ham, & Japheth, when he was 500 years old, that is, to have begun to beget them, Japheth then must be begotten anno 500 of his age, Ham, an. 501. Shem 502. But this is no firm reason, for it is not said in that very year, when Noah was 500 years old, he begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth; bht Noah was 500 years old, and begat them, that is, after this age, happily all at once, the second year after he had finished 500 years. This reason then being of so little force, and there being none other for Japhets majority, I rather hold with Augustine and others, as I have already said upon chap. 5. that Shem was the eldest, and so both the Greek and the Latin translation render these words, Shem the elder brother of Japheth. I grant that the Hebrew tongue having no cases, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 translated elder, may be put either in the Genitive, as having reference to Japheth the Substantive, or in the Nominative, as to Shem. But because Shem is always placed first, it were absurd, unless there were better reason for it, to join it to Japheth & not to Shem, as by all the foregoing history we are rather directed. But why is he said to be the elder brother of Japheth, & not of Ham also? To this Calvin answereth, that Ham for his wickedness was cut off frō this fraternity, but Japheth although for a time he was to separate in his posterity, yet afterwards he was to be joined to Shem again But why doth Moses use so many words in speaking of Shem, describing him by Japheth, & by the children of Heber, when as in speaking of Japheth & Ham with their issue before, he maketh no such description of them? To this Musculus answers, that this is done for honors sake, because the holy seed came of Shem, & the children of Heber are spoken of in particular, & any other sons of his, because the blessing, which was upon Japheth, rested chiefly upon them. Touching Heber, some as Artopoeus saith, think it a Preposition, signifying beyond, & that the children of Heber were not the children of any man so called, but a people coming from beyond the River Euphrates, from which place Abraham came. But it is plain that Eber was a man's name, who came of Shem, v. 24. and from him the Hebrews had their name. And if it be demanded, why they should rather be named from Eber then from Arphaxad, or Selah his Progenitours? It is most probable, that the division of tongues happening in the days of Peleg the son of Heber, that the first language which was spoken, remaining with his posterity only, they began then to be noted, as a singular people, and so were called after the name of Eber, which for the language was still retained throughout many generations.

The sons of Shem were Elam, and Assur, Arphacsad, Lud and Aram. Of Elam came the Elamites, of whom were the Persians, Medes, Parthians, Bactrians, Sogdians and Aramites, saith Artopoeus. That the Persians were of Elam appeareth by that, which is said in Daniel, In Susan in the Country of Elam. And Jerome saith, that the Princes of the Persians were Elamites, and that the posterity of Shem held part of Asia from the River Euphrates to the Indian Ocean. Of Assur came the Assyrians, who, as I partly touched before, were in time subdued by Ainus called therefore Ashur, v. 11. Of Arphacshad came the Chaldeans, as Josephus saith, being in the Hebrew tongue called Chasdim, a name that seemeth to be taken from part thereof. Of Lud came the Lydians of Asia the lesser, as of another Ludim mentioned before the Lydians of Africa. Of Aram the Aramites or Syrians came, of Aram-Naharaim, and Padan-Aram, we read sometimes, which were all one, and this was Aram of Mesopotamia, as Naharaim, of Rivers, signifieth, but besides it, there was another Syria in Phoenicia, so Luther.

The sons of Aram, Hus, Hull, Gether and Mas. Having named five sons of Shem, Moses saith nothing of their sons, but only of Arams here and of Arphachsads v. 24. Elam, Assur, and Lud being left with the bare naming of them, happily, because none of their sons did give a name to any Nation, but their posterities were called only after them Elamites, Assyrians, and Lydians. And Aram is spoken of first with his Genealogy, and then Arphachshad, that his offspring being briefly touched upon, as less worthy, the offspring of Arphachshad, as more worthy might be prosecuted at large. Hus the first son of Aram gave the name to the country of Hus, of which Job was, and in Hus Edom is said to have dwelt towards Chaldea and Sabea, Hieronymus saith, that Hus was the founder of the Country Traconitis and Damascus. Of Hus came the Armenians: of Gether the Acarnanians or Carians, as Jerome saith, yet Josephus maketh him the Father of the Bactrians. Of Mas the Messanian Province otherwise called Arax took the name, according to Artopoeus. Arphachsad begat Selah, and Selah begat Heber.

The Septuagint put Cainan between Arphachshad and Selah, and Luke likewise, whereby it appeareth, that he followed that Translation, and not the Hebrew, wherein Selah is the next to Arphachshad.

And unto Heber were two sons borne, Peleg, in whose days the earth was divided, and Joktan.

Phaleg signifieth division, and Heber called his son so, for the division of Tongues happening in those days, whereupon occasion was given for men to disperse themselves, and to inhabit all parts of the Earth, but whether this happened at his birth, whereupon he was so named for a memorial of the thing, or afterwards, and this name were given him Prophetically by Heber foreseeing this to come, is a question amongst Expositors. The Hebrews say that Heber was a Prophet, and gave this name by a Prophetical spirit, as foreshowing hereby the division of Tongues to come in the days of this Peleg, and that this division indeed happened at the end of his time, viz. 310 years after the flood, for he was born 101 after the flood, and lived 209. And to this Jerome subscribeth, and Chrysostom, and Lyranus, &c. But Josephus contrariwise saith, that at the birth of Peleg the division of Tongues happened, and thereupon he had this name given unto him, as a memorial of the thing. And Augustine saith, that at his birth it must needs be, that the division of Tongues happened, because, if afterwards at the end of his days, the tongue, which all commonly spake before, should have been called after him, and not after Heber his Father Hebrew, if Heber had been dead and gone before this. I hold with Josephus and Augustine, because Languages were divided in the days of Nimrod, when he with his people were building Babel, that these words, Because in his days the earth was divided, cannot be referred to the end of his days, but to the beginning thereof. For 300 years after the flood, which was about the end of Phalegs days, was by the consent of all Historians long after the death of Ninus the son of Nimrod: and again when a name is given Prophetically, the reason is not given in the Pretertense, as here, but in the Future, as Lamech called his sons name Noah, because, said he, he shall comfort us in respect of our work, &c. But Peleg is so called, because in his days, that is, about the time of his birth the Earth was divided.

Joctan begat Almodab, Seleh, Hasarmaneth, Jarah, Hadoram, Usat, Diclah, Obal, Abimael, Seba, Ophir, Havilah, Jobab.

Moses having named two sons of Heber, according to his manner leaving the first Peleg for a while, of whom he purposed to say most, he first setteth down the offspring of the second Joctan. Concerning whose sons I find little in particular, but only in general Expositors agree, that they inhabited India, where two places famous for Gold, Ophir and Havilah took their names from them. The bounds of their Country here named, their dwelling was from Masa unto Sephar a Mountain of the East, make it plain, that they inhabited India, for both Masa or Messa was a Country in India, and Sephar a Mountain there, according to Jerome.

CHAP. XI.

ANd all the earth was of one language, and of one speech. In the Hebrew it is, of one lip, and of the same words. And this was most agreeable to nature, and diversity of Languages is a thing monstrous in nature, for men endued with the like reason, and having the like Organs of speech to differ so much in speech one from another. The identity of the Language also is a great means to preserve unity amongst divers Nations, they hereby seeming to be all one, howsoever diversely dispersed. Wherefore the confusion of tongues, which Moses setteth forth in this Chapter, was a great judgment of God upon mankind for sin. The only question here is, what tongue was then used? To this most answer, that it was the Hebrew tongue, and the very names given at the creation Adam and Eve being Hebrew evince no less. Moreover the name Noah is an Hebrew name signifying rest, and Peleg so called at this very time is an Hebrew name also. Philo contendeth, that the Chaldee tongue was the first, but he is opposed by Jerome herein, and in truth there is so near affinity betwixt the Hebrew and the Chaldee tongues, that happily they were then both one, but the difference of dialects grew in time, as in divers other languages also, so Musculus. And it is the more probable because the Chaldees and the Hebrews came both of Arphacshad, as hath been already shown.

And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the East, they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and dwelt there. Some make a question, whether this be to be understood of all people of all parts without exception, or of some of them? Answering, that the meaning is nothing else, but that when all were of one language, such of them, as went Eastward, came to this plain in Shinar. But others say the Text is plain for the going of them all; for v. 1. it is said, The whole earth was of one language, and here, It came to pass, as they journeyed, that is, altogether. Calvin expoundeth this of those that went, of Nimrod and his company, & if all must necessarily be here understood, then the next verse must be understood of all without exception also, viz. when they consult about the building of a tower, which was so displeasing to the Lord, & then it will follow, that Noah and Shem, and other godly persons were of this conspiracy, which certainly could not be. And therefore I rather hold with those, who think, that not all the people of the earth without exception of any are meant, when it is said, that they went from the East to Shinar, but only that there went a company, and most probably, under the conduct of Nimrod, the best still remaining behind, and so when God being offended confounded the Languages of the builders, these retained still that old Tongue spoken from the beginning. They are said to go from the East, because Armenia, in which it is likely, that they dwelt till this time, being the country, where Noah's Ark rested, was Eastward from Babylon, but now they increasing to a greater company then those parts could contain, and partly, as it is to be thought, not so well pleased with those rough and mountainous places, went in great numbers to seek new abodes, which might be more pleasant and commodious for them. And hereby it appeareth again, that it could not be three hundred years, as the Hebrews would have it, betwixt the flood and this; for certainly mankind would by that time have been so multiplied that one Country could not possibly have contained them, and therefore it is to be held rather that a 100 years were the most. The Plain in Shinar or Babylonia was a most delightful and fruitful place indeed, so that they might well resolve to settle themselves, and to build there.

And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, &c. ver. 4. And let us build a City and Tower, whose top may reach to Heaven.

Although it be most probable, as hath been said, that Nimrod was the first ring-leader to this work, yet it being propounded took so amongst the whole multitude, that they encouraged one another to the work, and so it was not the fault of some few, but of them all. And it is to be noted, how stiffly they were bent to do it, in that wanting stone and mortar, they resolved to burn brick instead of stone, and to take slime for mortar, that is, a kind of cleaving matter like pitch, a brimstony substance, which Pliny saith, is moist in those parts. Men will refuse no labor to fulfill their own wills, how wicked and sinful soever they be, as Calvin noteth hereupon, and this aggravated much their sin. Audax omnia perpeti, gens humana ruit per vetitum nefas, and again, Coelum ipsum petimus stultitiâ. For the city and tower, which they went about to build, it is not to be thought, saith Calvin, that they could be so foolish to imagine, that they could build up to heaven, or do anything against God, as Heathen Poets have written of Giants, that set Mountain upon Mountain to ascend and fight against the gods. But that which is here spoken of the top reaching up to heaven, is hyperbolical, as the cities of the Anakims are afterwards said to have been walled so high that they reached up to heaven, that is, of an exceeding great height. For the conceit of some, that they attempted this work to escape drowning, if another great flood should come, it is rejected by the same Calvin, as an idle conceit, because they themselves express the reason of their building, viz. to get them a name, and as well may that be rejected of others, that they had some fore-knowledge of the destruction of the World by fire, as a preservative against which they made this vast building. Doubtless they had none other end, but as the Text speaketh, by setting up some famous Monument, to make it memorable to all posterities, that there had once such brave-minded men, and so mighty lived in World, from whom all others diversely dispersed had their original. For they add this, as a reason, to get us a name, lest we be scattered over the face of the earth. And this kind of building truly was fit for the purpose, because bricks made of a chalky substance, saith Pliny, and well burnt, do endure to Eternity. Touching the slime taken for mortar, Theodoret saith, that he had diligently searched, and so had found, that in those parts there were fountains, which cast up this kind of stuff continually with water. And Philo saith, that upon the bricks they wrote their names. But how came they to imagine a future dispersion? To this some answer, that Noah yet living threatened them herewith for their sins, others, that by a divine instinct they were moved to fear it, but these are conjectures, the true reason is, that when they should be more increased, they knew, that they could not possibly dwell altogether in one place, but must be dispersed into other parts. Yet Josephus saith, that being warned by God, when they were greatly increased, to disperse themselves into the divers parts of the uarth, to replenish it, they wickedly refused so to do, interpreting this Mandate of the Lord, which was for their good, as tending to a course to weaken and to overthrow them, and to keep them the more firmly together, attempted this presumptuous work, and that by the persuasion of Nimrod. The vulgar Latin rendereth it, before we be dispersed, as if they expected a dispersion, although they were unwilling. But the other reading is according to the Hebrew, Lest we be dispersed.

And the Lord came down to see the City and Tower, which the children of men built, &c.

By that, which is here related, it seemeth, that God was angry at this attempt, of building, a question therefore may be made, what did so greatly displease him, that he for this laid such a judgment upon man, as to confound their Languages? Tostatus will by no means yield, that God was hereby offended, and therefore he holdeth that their Language was confounded, only lest, if they should have finished the intended City and Tower, they would the more slowly have dispersed themselves into other parts: for to build a City and Tower is a thing lawful, saith he, in itself, and by lawful means to seek fame is no sin: But Chrysostom and Augustine and all other Expositors are against him herein, and by the Text it is plain, that they sinned greatly by pride and vain glory. For although fame and a good name be a good thing, when it is rightly attained unto, yet to do anything not for God's glory, but for a man's own, is a wicked ambition, and highly displeasing to God, and it is just with God to bring shame and confusion, instead of glory upon such. Augustine saith therefore, that Nimrods impious pride was signified hereby. And Chrysostom saith, as the builders of Babel, so are the vain-glorious nowadays, who build sumptuous Houses, Galleries, Bathes, and Walkes, that they may be magnified hereby: but as the men of Babel, so these are rewarded with shame: For what are men wont to say of them, when they behold their cost, but lo, the building of such a covetous wretch, of such an oppressor, or spoiler of Widows and Orphans? The right way therefore, saith he, is to give to the poor, and to be full of almsdeeds. Moreover, that which followeth of the Lord's coming down to see this work, argueth, the wickedness of the workmen to have been exceeding great, because this phrase is never wont to be used, but when some horrible sin hath been committed, as when Sodom was so full of sin, and the Egyptians did so grievously oppress the Hebrews, when the Lord is said to come down to see, we must not conceive, that being in Heaven he cannot see things done upon earth, for he filleth all places with his presence, and it is impiety, as Philo speaketh, to think, that he moveth from one place to another. He is then said to come down, first, for the certain notice which he took of the thing done, that men might learn hereby, not to judge of things by hearsay, but first to go and see, as the same Philo speaketh.

A second reason may be that which is yielded by Augustine, God is said to come down, because by a wonderful work wrought there by him in confounding Languages, he made it appear, that his providence extended thither to punish their great pride and ambition, and by his Angels he descended to hinder them in their work. A third and last reason may be that of Chrysostom, this is spoken to show the longsuffering and patience of the Lord, and he also yieldeth for another the reason of Philo before-going.

And the Lord said, They are all one people, and have one language, and this they begin to do, and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined. In these words is contained an Irony, whereby they that labored so earnestly in this building, are derided, for the Lord knew well enough that he could easily confound this their machination: wherefore it is to be understood, as spoken according to their conceit; for being an innumerable company, and through the unity of their idiom all as one, they thought doubtless in the pride of their hearts, that nothing could possibly hinder them from bringing their intended work to perfection. But we may see how vain men are in their greatest strength, and in their most earnest attempts, one blast of God's mouth [Note.] is able to overthrow them. Again, see how he suffereth long the wicked in their evil courses, so that they begin to think themselves secure, but even then, when they fear least, he is ready to take vengeance upon them.

Go to, let us go down, and confound their language, &c. Julian the Apostate abused this place to prove a multitude of gods, but it is spoken here, as Gen. 1. about the making of man, Let us make man after our own image: and therefore how a triplicity of persons is intimated in this saying, see there, their language, in the Hebrew it is as verse 1. their lip, and that they may not understand one another's lip. This, as Luther noteth, was no small punishment, the seeds of future discords and contentions being sown hereby, but it was afterwards at the coming down of the Holy Ghost taken away again, because although all Nations under the Gospel speak not one and the same language again, yet in divers languages they speak the same things, as Calvin observeth. But the dissention made by the Lord through the confusion of language, was not hurtful, but profitable for them, because, if their language had continued one still, they had gone on in their sin, but being divided, they break off, and were without doubt confounded in themselves. In setting forth the hurt of the unity amongst these men, and the God of their division, Cassianus speaketh excellently thus: The confusion of tongues arising suddenly appeased the sacrilegious and wicked attempts of men: for there had remained an evil consent of men against God, unless the diversity of language making them at variance one with another, by divine dispensation had compelled them to come to a better condition, and a good and profitable discord had called them back to their salvation, whom a pernicious consent had animated to their destruction, &c. And a most apt punishment was this for their sin, because the domination of him that commandeth, lieth in the tongue, and therefore the pride of these men who desired superiority was punished herein, that he might be no more understood, that commanded men, who would not understand to obey God commanding him, as Saint Augustine speaketh. And thus this conspiracy was dissolved, whilst every man went from him, whom he could not understand, and joined himself only to such as he understood. For we are not so to conceive, when it is said, that one could not understand the language of another, as if there had now been so many languages spoken, as there were particular persons: for then there could have been no societies amongst men, but there were certain companies, that spake some languages, and others again that spake other languages, who accordingly divided themselves into several countries, and therefore it is said, in concluding the Genealogies of the sons of Noah, These are the sons of Shem after their families, after their tongues in their lands, intimating divers languages, not of particular persons, but of several families. It is worth the noting here, that wicked men are disappointed of their ends, the contrary to that, which they intend and propound to themselves still coming upon them: for these men propounded to confirm their unity by building, but this turned to their dissipation: they aimed at glory, but reaped perpetual [Note.] shame. The effect of pride is contrary to that of humility, as Gregory hereupon observeth, they that attempted to build a Tower against God, lost hereby the communion of one tongue, but the Disciples which humbly feared God, had in them all tongues again united. How these men came to be scattered abroad by this judgment hath been already touched, they could not certainly at the first but take great indignation one at another, when one spake in one tongue to another, and he answered him again in nothing that he could understand, as who might well suppose himself to be mocked herein. But after a while they were doubtless amazed and confounded in themselves at this thing, and so departed asunder, leaving for an ever enduring memorial of this their confusion the name of Babel, that is, confusion, to this their vainglorious building. But that which now happened, should seem rather a division of one tongue into many, then a confusion of tongues, wherefore Philo saith, that Moses is not to be understood, as speaking historically, but tropologically, as if when the Lord is brought in saying, Let us confound their language, he had said, Let us make all their vices dumb and deaf, that neither by speaking nor by consenting together, they may be able to do hurt, &c. But Moses certainly, as in all other things, so in this speaketh historically, and the language is truly said to be confounded, when men by the diversity of tongues which they understood not, were confounded. How many the languages then were made, cannot certainly be known, but by the consent of the ancient Fathers and other Writers it is most probable, that they were 72 because so many families descended of Shem, Ham, and Japheth at that time. Thus Epiphanius, who saith also, that they were called Meropes, for their divided tongues, and Jerome in Matth. 26. and Augustine de Civit. lib. 16. c. 3. and Prosper lib. 2. de vocat. Gent. c. 4. And Arnobius more particularly saith, that of these three came 100 Generations, of Shem 406 distinguished by 27 tongues, inhabiting Persia, and far into India, and even to the Rhinocorurae: of Ham 394. distinguished by 22 tongues, inhabiting from Rhicorurae to Gadara: of Japheth 200 divided by 23 tongues, inhabiting along by the River Tigris, where by Generations he meaneth Countries possessed by them, divers of them using one and the same language. But since the languages of the World are many more, happily derived out of these. The ground of this conjecture of 72 tongues is, the 72 families reckoned, Gen. 10. But to make up this number, they which are named unto Peleg, at whose birth this division happened, are not enough, they which came of Japheth being numbered but 14. and of Ham 32, and of Shem 12, together 58; wherefore Augustine addeth also Iochtan and his sons, contending, that he was elder than Peleg by much, and had at this time so many Sons, Fathers of Families, which is unprobable. This therefore touching the number of languages must rest uncertain, notwithstanding this ground, because as they might be so many, so they might be more or fewer, for ought that we know. Mystically by the builders of Babel, Heretics are set forth, who build up to heaven, by teaching justification by man's own righteousness, but they build not upon the rock Christ, but in a plain, with the brick and slime of their own inventions, and are confounded by being divided into many sects amongst themselves. Ferus.

Shem was 100 years old, and begat Arphacshad two years after the Flood, &c. Moses having briefly touched the Genealogy of Shem, chap. 10. as of the other sons of Noah, here to make a perfect Chronology by this line for honors sake, as Luther saith, because it was the holy line, as in any Nation the years are computed by the Kings reign, he returneth to this Genealogy again. Neither is it a light thing, or unworthy a sacred Historian thus to set down, how long such a man lived, and then begat such a son, and so touching a second and a third, &c. for hereby both we are the more confirmed, that the world had a beginning, because by the years of these Generations we know, how long ago it was since the world was made, and some prophecies, which have reference to time, are the more confirmed, and also we may see, what a proportion of time hath been held betwixt the creation and the giving of the Law, and the time thereof, and the Gospel, and so both, what a long time passed after the promise of the seed of the woman, and his coming into the world, that we be nothing doubtful of his second coming, although it be hitherto deferred. Touching Shem’s age of 100 years two years after the flood, I have spoken already. Noah was not just 500 years old, and then begat Shem, Ham and Japheth, but he was of this age, and soon after he began to have this issue.

Arphaxad lived 35 years and begat Salah, &c,

In the Septuagint's Translation, as I also partly touched before, Cainan is put between Arphacshad and Salah, and likewise by Saint Luke, ch. 3. 36. whereupon Expositors have been greatly troubled: for if that of the Septuagint be right, the computation of Moses in the Hebrew is erroneous, and if the Hebrew be right, Luke erred to follow the Greek exposition rather then the Hebrew original. To this it must not be answered, that both the Septuagint and Luke also erred herein: for if Luke being a Penman of the holy Scripture erred in one thing, why might he not also in another, and if he, why not other holy Writers, and why not in other things also? and so there shall be no certainty of divine History. Neither may we say, that the Hebrew copy was corrupted in this, for there can no reason be imagined, why the Jews should deal thus herein, this being a matter no way concerning them in their Tenets against Christ. Some therefore answer, that Cainan [ 1] was put into the Septuagint's Translation erroneously, there never being any such betwixt Arphacsad and Salah, and that Luke notwithstanding followed them, because at that time the Septuagint's Translation was commonly followed by all men, and if he should have differed therefrom, it would have been a means to make men distaste his Gospel. Others, that Cainan and Salah were not two men, but one and the same, and [ 2] therefore that it should be read, which was the son of Salah who was Cainan. Others, that Cainan was indeed between Arphaxad and Salah, but purposely omitted by Moses, that he might make a just Decad of generations [ 3] from Noah to Abraham, as he had done from Adam to Noah, but the Septuagintr knowing by tradition that he was indeed the next to Arphacshad, set him down also. And to make it the more probable, they say that Matthew in setting down the Genealogy of Christ omitted divers, to make just three fourteens in his line. Lastly, others say, that Cainan was put in by some Scribe in the Septuagint's translation, and because it was set down so there, into Saint [ 4] Luke's Gospel also, which they say, is the more probable, because Jerome in his Book of Hebrew traditions upon Genesis maketh no question about it, so that it was not certainly in the Septuagint's copy, which he then had: And Josephus, who followeth the Septuagint, maketh no mention of Cainan, nor Epiphanius, who likewise computeth the years after the Septuagint, so that hitherto Cainan was not in the Septuagint's Translation. Of all these resolutions the first pleaseth me best: for although Luke would not certainly by following it countenance any error in any Translation, which might be any way dangerous, yet he might well follow a common received Translation, as he found it, in a mere name redundant, not to trouble the reader, who might stumble at an alteration, if he had made it, and to hinder him from passing on to things more profitable. For that Luke was not corrupted herein, but that he wrote it so from the beginning is plain, because no copy is to be found, wherein Cainan is not, and therefore the fourth resolution cannot stand. That this name was put in more then should be in this place in some copies of the Septuagint's Translation, is the more probable, because, 1 Chron. 1. even according to the Septuagint, it is omitted. There is a Cainan in the line before the flood, Gen. 5. and from thence happily it might by chance in writing it out creep in here also. For the second resolution, that Cainan and Salah should be all one, cannot be admitted without granting an error in all copies of Luke; & it were strange, that one should be set forth by two names more then any other in all these Genealogies. For the third, it cannot stand for the number of years reckoned to everyone, so that if there were a Cainan omitted by Moses, his years must be omitted also, and so not the full but an imperfect Chronology was made by Moses. Wherefore I for my part rest in the first, knowing no other way, but that I must needs with Beda be confounded to think upon it, that Luke following the Greek rather then the Hebrew should make 11 Generations between Noah and Abraham, when as Moses in the Hebrew maketh but 10.

But that the Septuagint's Translation is corrupted, appeareth moreover by the difference of years both before they are said to have begotten, and after when the years of their surviving are set down: for before to eight of them are added 100 years more then are in the Hebrew. Arphaxad is said to have been 135 when he begat Cainan, Cainan 130 when he begat Salah, Salah 130, Heber 134, Phaleg 130, Reu 132, Serug 130, Nahor 179. And after whereas in the Hebrew Arphaxad is said to have lived so long, as that his whole time maketh 438, the Septuagint have but 435, and for 433 of Salah 460, for 464, of Heber 404, for 239 of Phaleg 339, for 239 of Reu 337, for 230 of Serug 330 for 148 of Nahor 304. And lastly, to everyone is added more then in the Hebrew, he died, doubtless in imitation of that of chap. 5. If the reason of this great difference of years be demanded, of 100 years still placed before the lesser number by the Septuagint; this may seem to be a reason, they would not set forth any, as begetting at 30, or 35, because happily they thought it would not be so well credited, that in those days, when they lived so long, they were grown to any perfection to beget children at so few years, so also Musculus. For the other differences, no reason can be yielded, but that in copying out the Septuagint's Translation there have many corruptions creptin. And Terah lived 70 years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Of Terah and others the Progenitours of Abram it is spoken again, Jos. 24. 2. that they served other God's, so that before Abraham's time we may gather, what great corruption there was in the World: for if the holy line so much respected by the Lord, turned after Idols, how can we think, but all the rest of the World was degenerated from the true Religion much more? There were yet some few ancients, who doubtless served the only true God, as Noah, who lived 58 years, after that Abram was borne: for between the flood and Abram were 292 years, and Noah lived after the flood 350 years. And Shem, who lived 150 years longer then Noah, and Arphacshad, and Salah, and Heber, from whom the Hebrews took their name. Touching the rest, Peleg, Ren, Serug, and Nahor; happily most of them might hold the true Religion also: and by the care of Noah, Shem, and others of them, it is not to be doubted, but some others were kept from Idolatry in those days: yet for Terah, Abraham's Father, it is plain, that he turned Idolater; wherefore there being such a general declining, & the Church thus being in danger to be extinct, God provideth an Abram to repair the decaying state thereof. So that hence we may both gather, how headily men are carried to error & superstition, [Note.] when the reverence of so grave and holy ancestors, yet living could not contain them of those times; and also that God's Providence is such over his Church, that henever suffereth it utterly to fail, but when corruption is grown to the highest, even then he layeth a foundation for the reflourishing of the truth, that finding it so hard to keep out Idolatry and Superstition, we may never give any way unto it, but withstand it to the uttermost of our power; & considering God's Providence over his Church, we may never despair, but when things are most desperate, be erected in our minds through hope of a timely restauration. But why doth Moses mention three sons of Terah [Quest.] together here, and not Abram only, whose History he specially intendeth? To this Calvin and Musculus answer well, that Haran is mentioned, because of Lot his son, of whom he was afterwards to speak, and Nahor, because of Rebecca, who sprang from him, and was afterwards Wife unto Isaac. But here is a greater question touching the age of Terah, when he is said [Quest.] to have begotten Abram, how he could be said to be but 70 years old, when as his whole age was 205 years, and after his death Abram's age being spoken of is set forth to be but 75 years, which being added to the age of Terah when he begat Abram, make only 145. For that Terah died before this going of Abram into Canaan at 75 years of age is further confirmed, Act. 7. 4? The answer of Calvin to this, before whom Theodoret answered likewise, and Lyranus, is, that although by the order of naming him, Abraham may seem to be eldest, yet indeed he was not, but the youngest son of Terah, only he is named first for honors sake, but Haran the Father of Lot and Sarai was the first, Nahor the second, and afterwards Abraham, not when Terah was 70, but 130 years old. And Calvin will not so much as yield, that Terah begat any of them at just 70, but only that he was thus old, and then begat. Moreover, he saith, that this is a strong argument, that Abram was a younger Brother, because Aarai his Wife was but 10 years younger then he, which could not possibly be if she were Daughter to his younger Brother. This argument, I confess, is so strong, as that I cannot see, how it may be answered by any means, if by Haran Terah’s son, Brother to Abram be understood: for to say, that she was Harans adopted Daughter or Daughter in Law, is but a Cavil, as Calvin reasoneth: yet how it may be yielded, that Abram was not begotten, til 130 years of Terah’s age, I can less see, forsomuch, as by this line a Chronology of the World is made, wherein it cannot be avoided, but there must needs be a great imperfection, if this be yielded to. For whereas in all other Genealogies Moses is most exact, setting down the age of the Father, when he begat that son whose begetting of another, and his age then is next respected, &c. to find the just time from the beginning of the World, till then, in Terah’s age, when he begat Abraham contrary to his course only there shall be a fail, and we shall be put to find it out by comparing other places together, which is most improbable, especially in Abraham, who, we must think, being of so great fame was more respected, then ordinary, and therefore he would not fail, but set down his Fathers age precisely, when he was begotten. But how then shall this doubt be cleared? For the argument taken from Sarai being but ten years younger then Abraham, proving that Haran her Father must needs be Abram's elder Brother, it may be answered thus. Haran the Father of Sarai was not one of the three Brothers named together, but some other man: for Haran one of the three was the Father of Lot, and by him only he is described, but this Haran by Milcah and Iscah his Daughters. For Haran, who was one of the three, hath his whole History set down together, v. 27, 28. Haran begat Lot, and Haran died before his Father in the Land of his Nativity. And then Abram's and Nahors taking them Wives is set down, v. 29. Abram took Sarai, and Nahor Milcah, neither is Sarai said to be Harans Daughter but Milcah only, & that Haran is further described thus, the Father of Milcah, and of Iscah. Whereas if Haran one of the three mentioned before were meant Moses needed not to have said anymore, but Milcah the Daughter of Haran. As for the other argument to prove, that Abraham could not be borne till Anno 130 of his Father Terah, viz. because after Terah’s death, he having lived 205 years, Abram is said to have been but 75. This cannot be well proved out of the History: for although Terah’s death be first set down, and then the coming of Abraham into Canaan, this might be done, as S. Augustine noteth, because Moses intending to set forth the full History of Abram by it self, would first finish all that he had to say touching Terah his Father, and so he briefly runneth through his coming to Charran or Haran, and his dying there, and then returning to Abram, chap. 12. beginneth with God's first calling of him, which could not be after, but before his Fathers death many years, as appeareth by comparing the years of his age then with the time of his birth, as hath been done already. But Saint Stevens relation indeed seemeth to be plain, that God's calling of Abram mentioned, chap. 12. was after Terah’s death: for he saith, Then he came out of the land of Chaldea, and dwelt in Charran; and from thence, when his Father was dead, he removed him into this land. Touching the names Haran, and Charran, and Charras, all Historians agree, that they were all one, viz. a City in the borders of Mesopotamia. To that out of Stevens narration, I answer, that Abram indeed was not removed to Canaan with his Wife and all his substance, &c. as is specified, Gen. 12. 5. till after his Fathers death, but he with his Nephew Lot departed out of Haran, when they were first come thither with Terah, to see this Land, and returned sometimes again to see their aged Father for his comfort going and coming until his death, but then, which was 60 years after, they with Sarai, & all that they had, went to Canaan to settle themselves. For both a departing first seemeth to me to be plainly intimated, Chap. 12. v. 4. where Abraham is said to have departed only with Lot, and another remove v. 5. where not only Abram and Lot go to Canaan, but Sarai, and their substance, and all the souls, which they had gotten in Haran, are carried with them. And of this last remove Saint Steven speaketh, and Moses, when he setteth down his age, of the first, Chap. 12. v. 4. And that Abram was spoken to about this Land of Canaan, whilst Terah lived, appeareth, because, Gen. 12. 1. he is bidden not only to go from his Country and kindred, but also from his Fathers house, to a Land, that God would show him, and that he made a long stay in Haran, before his last remove, is as plain, because he and Lot had gotten much during the time of their abode in that place. If this solution shall seem improbable, because it is not likely, that Abraham would delay so long for any friends sake in the World, to do, as God commanded him; I answer, he did not delay to go thither to see the Country, according to the Lord's direction; Go to a Land, that I will show thee, but only he waited, after that he had been there, the Lord doubtless giving him leave, till a fit opportunity to remove with all his family, which was the time of his Fathers death, who living and being unwilling, had command over him, as a Father, and so could cause him to stay, neither ought he out of filial duty to refuse so to do, unless the Lord had expressly charged him to remove with all his presently, which it is likely he would not do, because he would have Abram a pattern, as in other things, so in duty and obedience to his Father growing now very aged, and so standing in need of him and Lot, whom only he took out of Chaldea with him. Thus that, which seemeth to make against Terah’s age of 70, when Abram was borne, being resolved, we see, how it may be maintained, that he was borne then, and yet but 75 at his departing from Haran to Canaan, and so that the Chronology made by him and others of that line is perfect and plain. Others resolve this question otherwise, as the Hebrews, whose resolution Jerome mentioneth, and followeth. They say, that Abram is said to be but 75 when he went to dwell in Canaan, because from the time of God's preserving him miraculously out of the fire, into which he was cast in Chaldea, his life is reckoned by Moses, and not from the time of his birth. For they had an old tradition, that Ur of the Chaldees, out of which he came, was the fire of the Chaldees, according to the signification of the word Ur, into which he was put, because he opposed their Idolatry committed with the fire. They then held, that Abram at his going into Canaan was 135 from his birth, but 75 only from this time, when he had his life the second time given him. But first the ground of this is uncertain, Ur not setting forth any such fire, into which he was cast, according to the opinion of many grave Authors, for then Terah also and Lot must have been in the same fire, and Sarai, who all came together from Ur of the Chaldees, but a City at this day called Orchae, as Petrus Appianus saith, 624 miles distant from Jerusalem Eastward; and again, if Moses had reckoned the age of Abram by this at 75, why may he not be thought to have reckoned some others likewise? and what certainty then can we have in this Chronology. And no better to be liked is that answer of Andreas Masius, who saith, that Stephen speaking of Terah’s death, meant not his natural, but his spiritual death in idolatry. If any can find a better solution, then that, which I have before set down, let him friendly impart it, for because of the histories following, I am nothing satisfied touching this question. Yet happily Abram besides his once going, went and came again and again, till that finally coming to Haran, and burying his father, he went to Canaan to dwell, never to return anymore, his being there till this, being a kind of peregtination rather then an habitation, at which Stephen pointeth, when he saith after his fathers death, God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , made him a stable inhabitant there, as Saint Augustine interpreteth it, and the word signifieth. And in the time of Abram's going and coming before this his final removing, many things happened, which are set down after, verse 5. of chap. 12. all which happened according to this account, before that his last going thither. To conclude, seeing all those things, both chap. 12. & 13. &c. following after chap. 12. 5. when Sarai went with Abram, were done when they dwelt together in Canaan, and Isaac was born before Terah’s death 35 years, the best resolution is that of Augustine, if we do but add that Stephen respected only the course of the history, and examined not exactly the just time of his remove. It is then to be conceived, that he came first to Canaan with Lot at 75, chap. 12. 4. and certain years after with the substance that he stayed to gather.

And Haran died before his father in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees. By this it plainly appeareth, that Chaldea was the Country where Terah dwelt from the beginning, and where Abram was born, so that originally Abram was a Chaldean, who were called Casdim or Chaldeans from Arphaxad, but he and his, and the line before him from Heber, Hebrews. Yet some contend, that Haran was Abram's native place, because, Gen. 24. 4. Abram calleth the City of Nahor in Mesopotamia, which was this Haran, his Country, when he sent his servant thither to fetch a Wife for his son Isaac. But he spake thus in respect of his long abode, not of his nativity there, for it is expressly said, that Terah took him with him, when he came first to Haran out of Chaldea, Touching these words, Haran died before his father in Ur of the Chaldees, the Hebrews have a strange exposition, as it is recorded by Jerome, viz. that the Chaldeans being great Idolaters, and Terah likewise, Abram would by no means be drawn to the worshipping of their Idols, whereupon his father complained of him to Nimrod or Belus the King, and he was condemned to be burnt in the fire, but being cast in, God preserved him miraculously, so that he came forth without hurt, which Haran his brother seeing, he was animated against their Idolatry also, and was adjudged to the fire in like manner, but being not so strong in the faith as Abram, he was burnt to ashes, his father Terah beholding it, and consenting, and that this is meant here when it is said, he died before his father in Ur, that is, the fire into which the Chaldees cast him. But this is certainly a fable, as Jerome also sometime calleth it, because Moses would not doubtless have omitted so great a miracle, and because in the next verse Terah, and Lot, and Sarai also are spoken of as coming out of Ur of the Chaldees, and here this Vr is said to be the land of Harans nativity. If that saying, Gen. 15. 7. I am the God that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, shall seem to intimate some great deliverance of Abram there, as when the bringing of the Hebrews out of Egypt is spoken of, which is urged by Burgensis, who is for this opinion; It is easily answered, that it was a great mercy of God to Abram to bring him from amongst those Idolaters, preserving him from that spiritual danger, and placing him, where he might freely serve God without any interruption by means of such miscreants, and therefore he might well mention this, as a singular favor.

For that which is here said of Abram's and Nahors wives, Milcha the wife of Nahor is said to be the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah and Iscah. Some hold, that this Iscah was Sarai, who had these two names, because they will needs have Sarai the daughter of Haran also, thus Jerome and Augustine and some others. But this seemeth to me to be but a mere conjecture. For neither is Sarai in any other place called by this name, neither doth Moses having named Sarai and Milcha, say in the plural number, the daghters of Haran, but as speaking of one of them only, viz. Milcha, in the singular number, the daughter of Haran, and whereas he is called the son of Haran, Terah’s son, ver. 31. Sarai is not called his daughter, but Terah’s daughter in law. Moreover in another place, viz. Gen. 20. 12. Abraham saith of Sarai, she is indeed my sister, for she is the daughter of my father, but not of my mother. Whereupon some have held, and it may well be gathered, that she was not the daughter of Haran, Terah’s son, but of Terah by another wife. There be many grave Authors, I confess, that will not have those words of Abraham so understood, but that Sarai is called Terah’s daughter, but not by the same mother, because amongst the Hebrews grandchildren were called sons and daughters to their grandfathers and grandmothers, and so amongst other Nations, and for marriages betwixt brethren and sisters, they deny it to have been in use in those days. But who seeth not, that Abram's words to Abimelech do plainly describe one coming of the same father, it being an improper speech touching a grandchild, she is the daughter of my father, but not of my mother? And for such marriages, there was yet no law to prohibit them, and for such, as would contain themselves in their own families, there was then often-times a necessity of marrying with a sister, werefore it is rather to be held, that Iscah was some other woman, but who, or married to whom, it is uncertain.

And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his sons son, and Sarai his daughter in law, and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees to go into the Land of Canaan, & they came to Haran, and dwelt there. For Ur of the Chaldees, the Hierosol. Targum hath the fiery furnace of the Chaldees, because Ur signifieth fire, and the Chaldees were worshippers of the fire, giving to this City, where they kept this fire continually burning, this name from fire, as is most probable. This journey undertaken by Terah and his company was very long, for from Ur to the City Haran are reckoned by Geographers 376 miles, and from Haran to Shechem in the land of Canaan 400 miles, there was a nearer way from, or to Canaan, but this was safest. A question here offereth it [Quest.] self first, what moved Terah to enter upon this long journey? To this Calvin and Musculus answer rightly, that God called Abram to this journey, as appeareth, Chap. 12. 1. and, Acts. 7. 2. and therefore it is most probable, that he declaring this his calling to his father, he was also willing for his great love to so good a son, to go along with him. Yet this going and taking Abram with him is referred to Terah, whom Abram followed as an obedient son, he having the honor of the chief in this voyage for his paternities sake. Whereas Moses saith, that God brought him from Ur of the Chaldees, it differeth not from this, that Terah took him with him, God was the author of this journey, and Terah the instrument to lead him forth. But it may seem strange, that Terah being an idolater, as is taught, Josh. 24. 2. should so readily go away with Abram, the cause of whose departure were the abominable idolatries of the Chaldeans, as is touched, Judith 5. 7. and not rather stay with his son Nahor there still. There are some indeed, that hold both Terah and Abram to have been idolaters before this, as the Jewish Rabbin's, two especially of great note, Johanan and Hanine, cited by Genebrardus in his Chronology. They say, that Terah was most earnest in that superstition, and a persecutor of oppugners, and that Abram lived therein, till Anno. 48. of his age, about the time of the division of Tongues, when abandoing all idolatry, he served the true God only, and Epiphanius saith, that Abram provoked Terah his father to follow him, herein, and Soudas saith, that Abram brake his fathers Images, and some of them he burnt with fire. And both Ephiphanius and Soudas note Serug to have been the first Idolater of that line, who would have worthy men to be worshipped after their death, and his son Nahor did likewise after him, but Terah devised the making of earthen Images to be worshipped, and therefore God punished him in taking away his son Haran by death before him, whereas never, till this time do we read of any, that died before their fathers. But of Abram do neither of both these Authors say, that he ever served other gods, but Soudas contrariwise saith, that, as the Chaldeans were much given to the contemplation of the Stars, so he being intent in looking up to them thought that there was one most glorious Creator of them all, who alone was to be worshipped, and therefore being but fourteeen years old, he reproved his fathers idolatry, & going on to serve the true God, he afterwards appeared unto him. And Josephus speaketh also to the same effect, how he argued from the moving and influence of the Stars, that there was one God, who giveth life and motion and virtue to all things, who alone ought to be worshipped. And Saint Augustine standeth not only for Abram's, but for Terah’s innocence also in this respect. For when he took Abram and Lot, &c. with him, he saith, that the reason, why he left Nahor behind, was because he was an Idolater, and would not be reclaimed herefrom, to flee which and the persecution stirred up against them therefore by the Chaldeans, he and Abram fled away. Why Terah should be excused from idolatry against the report of other Ancients, I can see no reason, especially they saying the same with Joshua? But Abram doubtless was always untainted, or else sometime he would have made mention of his conversion to the greater praise of God. And it is most probable, that Terah was turned by him, and so when God called him out of Chaldea, would go with him, but Nahor his other son not being moved to repent, stayed still behind. Yet afterwards he came to Haran also, and dwelt there, as appeareth in this History. But why did Terah [Quest.] stay at Haran in Mesopotamia, and not go through to Canaan? It is most probable, as all consent, that being an old man, and weary of this way, he would go no further, but settled his abode there, suffering his son Abram with Lot to travel and see it, and so to come again, till that he should be gathered to his fathers, wherein also they obeyed him. For the time of his abode in Haran before his death, it cannot possibly be so short, as Calvin imagineth, who saith, that Terah surely stayed but a little time in Haran, and then died, or else Abram would rather have obeyed God in hastening forward to Canaan, and not after threescore years more expired. For that they dwelt long in Haran is intimated, Chap. 12. ver. 5. where it is said, that Abram and Lot took with them all their substance, and all the souls that they had gotten in Haran, and went into the land of Canaan. If their abode had been but a little time in Haran, it would rather have been said, all their substance, they had gotten in Chaldea. But it is likely, that fleeing persecution they came empty to Haran, or with little, and there were greatly increased, for which they must necessarily dwell there many years, even threefore, as hath been shown before, at what time Terah died. As for the delay of so long a time, I doubt not, but it was made known to Abram, that it was with the good will of the Lord, he being satisfied for that time with Abram's travelling thither, and returning again to do his duty to his father.

CHAP. XII.

Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and fathers house, &c.

This is not to be understood, as spoken to Abram, after Terah’s death, as it may seem, but long before, when he was yet with his father in Chaldea, so Calvin. For if it had been spoken to him in Haran, he migbt have replied, I am already come out of my country, and the journey undertaken hitherto had been without warrant, wherereas without doubt this call of the Lord was the cause thereof, yet against this seemeth to make the relation of Steven, Acts 7. For he saith, that God apeared to Abram in Mesopotamia, that is, as Saint Augustine saith, between Ur of the Chaldees & Haran, as they were travelling. But this is easily answered, the word Mesopotamia is largely taken by Saint Stephen in that place, that whole tract of ground beyond the River Euphates, being meant hereby, which contained Mesopotamia, Chaldea, and Babylonia: for accordingly he addeth, Act. 7. 4. So he went out of Chaldea, and dwelt in Charran. And that Mesopotamia properly so called, was not the place, where God spake to Abram in this manner, is plain, because he biddeth him to go from his country, and from his fathers house, and if from thence, he was then in his country Chaldea, when he was bidden thus to do, and not upon his journey. If it be objected, this apparition was after Terah’s death, when Abram dwelt in Haran, for so it is related, and therefore in Haran and not in Chaldea, again, from Chaldea he was taken by his father, therefore not by this call of the Lord: lastly, he forsook not his kindred in going out of Chaldea, for Lot and Terah went with him: for hereupon some hold, that Abram was in Haran when God spake thus unto him, as Rupertus, Lyranus, Tostatus and Paulus Burgensis, This is all easily answered. First although it be set down after Terah’s death, yet it might be before, all touching Terah, being written together, chap. 11, and the history of Abram being begun here, and therefore this apparition, although had before, not related till now. Secondly, his father in taking him, was rather a companion with him, out of his love, then the first Author to him of this journey, as Chrysostom teacheth, and hath been before shown. Lastly, he might be called to leave his father and all, yet if he being converted would go with him, this was not against the will of the Lord. Tostatus to defend his opinion saith, that Abram was called twice, once in Chaldea, of which Stephen speaketh, and then in Haran, of which it is spoken here. But this is a new invention, and unknown to all ancient Expositors. Besides, the words set down by Moses, and used by Stephen, evince, that they both point at one and the same calling.

But why doth the Lord speak both of country, kindred, and his fathers house, and not of his country only, which includeth both the other? To [Quest.] this Ambrose answereth. It had been enough indeed to have bidden him go out of his country, for so he should have gone from his kindred and fathers house also, but therefore the Lord speaketh of them severally, that he might try his affection, lest peradventure he should seem either unwisely to have begun his journey, or some fraud had been prepared in the heavenly Commandments, &c. For a man's country is dear unto him, and when a man thinketh upon his kindred there, it maketh him yet more loath to leave it, but when he thinketh also upon his fathers house, his affection is yet more drawn. Wherefore the Lord would hereby set forth Abram, as admirably obedient, who could not be moved by all these to reluct against this divine vocation. And yet his obedience is the more to be extolled, in that he telleth him not, into what country he should go by name, but at large into a country, which he should show him, which is further thus set forth by the Apostle, he went out, not knowing whither he went. Yet some there are, who think, that Canaan was then named unto him. But no such thing, but the contrary can be gathered from the text, and therefore it is held by most, that at the first he was not told the name of the country, but having shown his obedience in beginning to go, it is likely, that the Lord named it unto him; wherefore when Terah with Abram, is said to have gone out of Ur, to go into Canaan, it is to be understood, that Moses setteth down the name by anticipation. But would the Lord have Abram to go so far, and to this country in particular? [Quest.] Answ. If the way had been short, his obedience had not been so great, and there was a prophesy of Noah, touching Canaan to be fulfilled, that he should be a servant to Shem, which was in Abram's posterity at length subduing the posterity of Canaan, destroying some of them and making servants of others, and to this doubtless the Lord had respect now in making Abram to see it and expect it. Philo and after him Ambrose allegorically hence teach, how every soul is called from his country, kindred and fathers house to supernal places, which God will show unto it at the last. And this country is the body, being terra, because taken out of terra, the kindred is the sense, because it hath near alliance to the soul, and the fathers house is reason, the father, as it were of our speeches and actions. From these we are called out, from the body, when we are called from defiling & making it filthy by sin, from the sense, when from following sensual lusts, which sway to these pollutions, & from the reason, when from exercising it about worldly things, that it may be lifted up to things heavenly. Now whosoever is a true child of Abram, then applieth himself readily with all his power to obey God herein, and to him, that doth so, God will show another Country far above, even the most glorious heavens to be possessed by him for evermore. It is noted here by Ferus, that God made this gracious promise to Abraham, no mention being before made of his works, to show, that of God's mercy, and not for man's merit his grace is extended unto him.

And I will make of thee a great Nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great, and thou shalt be a blessing, &c. Here is a sevenfold favor promised to Abram, to set forth all manner of favor: 1 The numerosity of children. 2 Abundance of riches, which God's blessing bringeth. 3 Glory of name. 4 Such happiness, as that he should be a blessing in the abstract. 5 Blessing upon such, as blessed him. 6 Cursing upon such, as cursed him. 7 A blessing upon all Nations through him. And hereby he should be abundantly recompensed, for departing from his Country, another should be shown him, which he should inherit, for leaving his kindred he should have an innumerable posterity, and for departing from his fathers house, so that he could not bless him anymore, he should lose his part in his goods, and so his name should be put out amongst his brethren, God would bless him, and bless those that bless him, and contrariwise curse those that curse him, and make him a blessing, and through him bless all other Nations, and through God's blessing he should be full of worldly wealth, & his name should be great. So whosoever in obedience to God loseth anything, he is a great gainer [Note.] thereby. God requireth no duty at our hands, but if we do, he propoundeth unto us an ample reward. For the first thing here promised, I will make of thee a great Nation. This was a wonderful mercy, Abraham having lived hitherto, and yet being childless, as Calvin noteth, a great Nation he promiseth to make of him, that is, both for the number of his children, and for the singularity of that people, it being sequestered from the rest of the world, as a peculiar people, and dealt so by, as never any other Nation was, Deut. 4. For the second, I will bless thee, that is, by my blessing it shall come to pass, that thou being thus old, yet shalt be so fruitfult, and I will send thee prosperity in all things, and greatly increase thy substance. For the third, I will make thy name great, that is, most famous, so that everywhere Abram's name shall be spoken of with honor, not only in his life, but after his death. Josephus telleth, how all Nations round about honored the name of Abram, and since the preaching of the Gospel in all Countries, the name of Abram is most famous in all places. God made his name great also by calling himself by his name, the God of Abram, the God of Isaac, and of Jacob. For the fourth, and thou shalt be a blessing. Hereby is meant, that his estate should be thought so happy, that when any man should wish happiness to themselves or others, they should say, God bless thee, and make thee like unto Abram, thus Calvin. But to be a blessing is rather to be such, as in whom others are blessed, so Abram was a blessing, because for his sake his children after him were blessed extraordinarily. I say, not and all Nations also, for that is another distinct thing after added. For the fifth, I will bless them that bless thee, and the sixth, and curse them that curse thee. Here is the greatest league that can be, as between Kings, that have common friends and common enemies, yet thus is God in league also with all the faithful, if any do them good, he will reward it, if wrong, he will be avenged therefore. Thus he blessed the Midwives of Egypt, and Rahab of Jericho, and Ebedmelech the Blackmore in Jeremiah, as Luther noteth, but he cursed Pharaoh, the Ammonites and Moabites, Balak & Sennacherib, and all the Monarchs of the World for vexing his Church. For the last, In thee shall all the Nations of the earth be blessed, what is meant by this, is plainly expressed, Gen. 22. 18. In thy seeed shall all the Nations of the earth be blessed, and this seed Saint Paul showeth was Christ, Gal. 3. 16. yet the Jews to elude this, say, that to be blessed in any man, is no more but to be prayed for, that God would bless, as he blessed him, so to be blessed in Abram is to become such as he was, and so to be blessed accordingly. Moreover they say, that the tribe of Levi, which came of Abram, was set to bless, Deut. 10. 8. Esa. 65. 16. and so all being blessed by them, are blessed in or by Abram. But this is a mere cavil, seeing Levi blessed not all Nations, but Israel only, and God expressly hath interpreted himself otherwise, as hath been said. Moreover, the event proveth this to be so, because, when this seed came, then God's blessing began first to be diffused amongst the Nations, they being turned from Idolatry, to serve the only true God and his Son Jesus Christ by the preaching of the Gospel. This place, as Luther noteth, showeth the expectation of the Jews to be vain, in looking for a Messiah, who should subdue and bring under them all other Nations, for God promiseth in Abram's seed a blessing upon all Nations, and threateneth not a subjection, bringing under, and violent subduing to any foreign Government, in respect of outward polity.

So Abram went, &c. This is not to be referred either to his going first out of Ur of the Chaldees, or to his last going out of Haran to Canaan to settle there, when he took all that he had with him, v. 5. but, as hath been already touched, to his going up from Haran to see Canaan, and to travel about it, whilst his father Terah was yet living, and stayed in Haran, from whence he continued going and coming till Terah’s death, and then removed with all that he had. For these words, The souls that he had gotten, the Chaldee hath, that he had subdued to the law, the Jerus. Targum the souls of Proselytes.

And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Shechem, to the plain of Moreh, and the Canaanite was then in the land. The Greeks, saith Musculus, read it, Abram went through the length thereof, even nigh to Mount Gerizim, where Shechem stood, so that being come into the land, the Lord did not yet show him a place to rest in, but after so long a journey, caused him still to pass on many miles more, thus further exercising his faith. Geographers describe this Town, as lying 36 miles from Jerusalem northward, and it pertained afterwards to Samaria. Joh. 4. Shechem signifieth a shoulder, and so had the name therefrom, because of the likeness, as Melancthon saith, yet at the first it was not so called, but Moreh, or the oak or valley of Moreh, as Vatablus saith: for the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 howsoever it signifieth an oak only, may be translated both ways: and it is likely, because it was a plain or valley, where this oak or thicket of oakes stood, by a figure, whereby the continent is put for the content, it was thus translated by Jerome, whom others do follow herein For the word Moreh it signifieth conspicuous or famous, or a shewer, and by this name it is most likely, that Abram called it, because God appeared there unto him, showing him for what cause he brought him thither, as v. 7. That of the Canaanites being in the land is added, that Abram might think his state no whit better here than in Chaldea, so wicked and impure a people inhabiting in these parts, and that being possessed already by them, he should never attain to the possession hereof, so that a great and strong faith must needs be in Abram to overcome these temptations,

And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land, and he built an Altar there, &c. It is observed by Chrysostom here, that this was the first appearing of the Lord to any man mentioned in the holy Scriptures. He spake indeed to Adam, to Cain, to Noah, and to Abram before, but it is not said that he appeared. So that upon this extraordinary fact of Abram's the Lord revealed himself unto him in an extraordinary manner. He having at the word of the Lord gone to a Country so far, to comfort him after this long travel, the Lord did not only speak, but appear unto him. But whether by vision, or by dream, or what other way, no man can tell. It is most probable, that he appeared by an Angel showing himself in some glorious likeness, and speaking thus, as the Lord's Deputy unto him in the daytime: because in divers other places, when the Lord is said to appear, it is certain, that it was by an Angel. As when Moses was with the Lord in the Mount giving him the law, this is said to have been done by the ministry of Angels, and Jacob, to whom God appeared sometimes, saving from him all dangers, when he speaketh hereof saith, The Angel that redeemed me from all evil, &c. For God himself Moses, that talked so familiarly with the Lord, never saw, for which cause, he once desired, that the Lord would show himself so unto him that he might know him. But this was denied; because, said the Lord, No man shall see me and live. But when the Lord appeared to Abram, what did he for him? He promised, that his seed should inherit that land, wherein the Canaanites then dwelt, and possessed it, for which cause also, that clause of the Canaanites being in the land, was put in before. At his first speaking to him he promised to show him a land, and no more, but here he promiseth the possession of it to his posterity. A poor comfort, a man may think, as Calvin noteth, after so tedious a journey to promise a thing, which should not be fulfilled till many years after, and to speak to one of his posterities inheriting it, who was old, and his wife also, and yet had no child, but Abram by faith transcended all human reason, and because he did steadfastly believe this▪ in way of thankfulness he built an Altar there to the Lord. Of Altars building see before, chap. 8. 20.

And he removed thence to a mountain on the East of Bethel, and he pitched his tent, having Bethel on the West, and Ai on the East, and there he built an Altar, &c. Wherefore Abram removed from the foresaid valley to this mountain is not expressed: but Expositors conjecture, that for the diversity of his religion he was envied by the Canaanites, and this gave him occasion, when he had been a while in one place, to remove to another. But what mountain this was, is controverted. Mercator and Tostatus say, that it was that mountain, whereupon stood Mount Gerizim, and Ebal, being both tops of one mountain, where the blessings and the cursings were rehearsed, Jos. 8. as was appointed, Deut. 11. 29. and more particularly upon Mount Ebal, where Joshua afterwards built his Altar, Jos. 8. 3. But others say, it was some other mountain, because these stood in Shechem, as Josephus saith, and Brocardus. And there is one Henry Bunting, who in writing of the travels of Abram, saith that this mountain was mount Ephraim, 28 miles from Shechem. And indeed the situation of mount Gerizim, and Ebal being such, as hath been said, viz. near to Shechem, and by the plain of Moreh, as is also set forth, Deut. 11. 30. it cannot be, that this should be here meant, for to remove so little a way, had not been worthy the name of a remove, and therefore it is to be thought, that it was rather a mountain further off. For the name Bethel, that place was not then so called, but Luz, having this name given it afterwards by Jacob Gen. 28. but here spoken of by anticipation. He pitched his tent, as Chrysostom saith, after the manner of soldiers, that with the less trouble he might remove again, and whereas Sarai his wife being with him is not spoken of, as being discontented at this tumultuous kind of living, he admireth her faith as much herein, as the faith of Abram.

And Abram journeyed, going on still towards the South. To what place is not expressed, but Calvin conjectureth, that it was Hebron, a City afterwards of Priests, but then a place, where the Kings of the Canaanites dwelt. It is likely, that he was now guided that way which was towards Egypt, that he might the more easily remove thither in the time of the famine, of which mention is made in the next verse. The coming of Abram into this Country was to see it in all the parts thereof, and therefore in this respect he was not to continue long in any one place.

And there was a famine in the land, & Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there, &c. It is strange to see what crosses befell Abram, to whom such ample promises were made. Unto all his former necessitated removes, here is added a great famine, so that he was compelled now out of that promised land to seek for food for him and his in some other Country. Neither could he be securely there, but in danger of his life, or of having his wives chastity violated, or of both. But God, by whose providence all things are ordered, did thus dispose of things. In fine, to confirm him more of his fatherly care in all places over him, and he being still exercised with such great crosses was made a more illustrious example of faith and patience, that we might learn from him as from Job, never to despair, but in greatest calamities to put our trust in God, and so patiently to bear all events. Philo in speaking of this famine saith, when they labored a long time with the penury of the fruits of the earth, partly through unwonted squalours, partly through over-frequent showers, the Cities of Syria being oppressed with famine were left by their inhabitants, some shifting for themselves in one place, and some in another, Abram hearing of the fertility of Egypt, removed thither. But to what part of Egypt is not set down, yet Henry Bunting in the travels of the Patriarchs saith, it was Tanis, in Hebrew called Zoan, the chief City of Egypt, where King Pharaoh kept his Court, and near to which the Hebrews afterwards dwelt, working and building for Pharaoh, Pithon and Raameses. And therefore Goshen, where they dwelt, is spoken of, as being in the field Zoan, and most fruitful. This Tanis also was near to Nile, in that part which lieth towards Palestine, and so fittest for Abram to come unto from Canaan, and this journey, as the same Author saith, was 240 miles. Egypt was lower than Canaan, and therefore, when he goeth thither, he is said to descend, when he returneth again, to ascend. Touching the famine, which caused this flight Calvin noteth, that Canaan was a plentiful country, and therefore it is probable, that it had not been formerly oppressed with famines, but now Abram coming thither, a famine followeth, so in Isaac's time, and in Jacob's and Josephs. This was to show, that piety is full of scandals, if they be not overcome by faith. For here was occasion given to the Canaanites to blame Abram and his company with their religion, as the cause hereof. And Musculus maketh a question, whether Abram sinned not in fleeing into Egypt now, and whether he ought not rather to have stayed by it, relying upon God's providence? To which he answereth, saying, that Rab. Moses Gerund. held, that Abram sinned in thus doing, because the Lord had brought him thither, and therefore till he had been called from thence again, he ought not to have removed, and because of this, his posterity was punished, by being kept in Egypt in servitude 200 years. But Musculus is of a contrary opinion, that Abram sinned not herein, because the Lord did not prohibit him, as he did Isaac afterwards, Gen. 26. 2. and not having any revelation, that he should be miraculously preserved there, he could do no less, when food failed, as he would not tempt the Lord, but remove where food might be had. Neither did he go away, but with a mind to return again, and therefore it is said, that he went to sojourn in Egypt. There was certainly a providence, as Chrysostom noteth, in this his remove, as in the rest, God carried Abram thus about, as a Doctor of virtue and piety to the people of both Nations, and he made this famine his Serjeant as it were to take Abram into Egypt, that his fame might be spread there, and notice might be taken, how gracious he was with the Lord, as was before promised, that his name should be made great: in Chaldea he did not thus carry him about, because a Prophet is not without honor, but in his own country. Abram being towards Egypt, fearing that the Egyptians would kill him for Sarai so fair a woman, desireth her to say, that she was his sister. Here a question offereth it self, first, why Abram feared violence at the Egyptians hands for [Quest.] his wives cause more then at the Canaanites? It seemeth, that the Egyptians were more notorious for their inordinate lusts, then the very Canaanites, and therefore there was now more cause to fear; and moreover, their women were black, and sanny, in which respect Sarai did far exceed all them in beauty, whereby it was probable that they would be the more tempted. We may see here, what a troublesome thing it is for a man to have a very beautiful woman to his wife, at sundry times he is in much fear by reason of [Note.] her, as Ambrose noteth, and therefore adviseth, not to look much after beauty in marrying, but virtue, which giveth to a man the most certain content. But why did Abram think, that they would kill him, if they knew her to be his wife, could not they being without all fear of God, take and abuse her as well, [Quest.] he being alive, as dead? I answer, it appeareth hereby, that being such, as they were, they abhorred from adultery, but their blindness appeared in this, that they abhorred not, but were ready to commit a greater sin, even the sin of murder.

But the greatest question is still behind, whether did not Abram sin in causing Sarai thus to dissemble: For although she told no lie in saying, she [Quest.] was his sister, yet in saying thus to the end, that they might not think her his wife, that some other man might take her to wife, how could it be without fault? And Abram seemeth herein the more blame-worthy, because God had so extraordinarily revealed himself unto him, and made him such gracious promises, that he needed not to doubt of his protection wheresoever? To this Chrysostom saith not directly, that Abram sinned herein, but that he consented to his wives adultery to save his own life, in so great fear was he of being slain. Jerome saith, it was foeda necessitas, whereby Abram was brought to do thus. And Origen for the foulness of the thing, will not have it understood literally, but allegorically. Calvin also and others of our new Writers hold this act of Abraham inexcusable from all fault. That he provided for the safety of his own life indeed is excusable, saith Calvin, and a fruit of his faith, because, according to God's promise he expected to be a father of a great Nation, and that through him a blessing should come to all nations, about which he did well to be solicitous in this time of danger, and in this respect, not to set by his wives chastity in respect of his own life being of so exceeding great consequence, although he loved her most dearly, and had rather otherwise to have endured death, then to have lived, to see her abused. Yet in that he devised this oblique way of saving himself, he saith, doth not seem excusable. His end was good, but through incogitancy he erred in the way, by using unlawful means. As therefore they re rash judges, that condemn this fact of Abram, so no man can deny a fall here in Abram, because he should have relied upon God's providence, referring the success to him. But on the other side, Augustine defendeth Abram, as free from all fault herein. For if Abram, saith he, had confessed her to be his wife, he had committed two things unto God to be defended, his own life and the chastity of his wife. Both these he could not find a means to defend, but one, viz. his life he could, he did then what he could, that he might not tempt God, what he could not, he committed unto God, he committed his wife to God, that she might not be polluted. And to the same effect speaketh Rupertus, saying, he committed his wives chastity to God, knowing assuredly that God, who brought him out of Ur of the Chaldees, could save her from the Ur, or Fire, that is, the lust of the Egyptians. But thou wilt say, why had he not the same confidence then, that God could preserve his life? I answer, he feared the Lord, and therefore would not tempt him. For he tempteth the Lord, who being in danger doth not exempt himself from as great part of the danger, as he can, but therein requireth a miracle, wherein human reason may afford some help, wherefore he concludeth, that Abram did wisely herein, and that the sequel approved his fact. And to this do I subscribe, it being ever far from me to impute sin to any of God's faithful servants, in anything, which they did, in which they have not been charged by the Lord with sin, neither can it be directly proved. Sarai was Abram's sister indeed, as he afterwards telleth Pharaoh, wherefore he put no more into her mouth, then the truth, and it is not to be thought, but that he was without doubt of her continency, although she were taken to Pharaohs house, and that whilst Pharaoh prepared to marry with her, God would provide for her deliverance. If he should at the first have confessed her to be his wife, there would have been danger of death unto him, and she should have remained the more exposed to the will of a barbarous people. I cannot see then, but that Abram's providence is to be applauded, in preventing one danger, which he could, by policy, and committing the deliverance of his wife, which he could not, to God's miraculous working. Neither was his expectation frustrated, as is here further dedeclared, for as he said, Sarai being beheld by the Egyptians was commended to Pharaoh, and taken into his house, and he was entreated well for her sake, and he had sheep, and oxen, and he-asses, and men-servants, and maid-servants, she-asses, and camels. This is added for explication, to show, what benefits Pharaoh bestowed upon Abram for his supposed sisters sake.

But God plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues, because of Sarai Abram's wife. What the judgment was, which now befell Pharaoh, Moses relateth not, but Philo saith, that Sarai being now in great danger to have her chastity violated, sought to the Lord for help, when her husband could afford her none, then he laid grievous torments upon the King, both in body and mind, so that he thought now upon nothing tending to lust, but how he might be exempt from this malady again, which vexed him day and night. And the same judgment was also upon the whole Court, and that justly, because no man resisted, but assented unto, and sought to satisfy the Kings lust. Josephus saith, that God smote the Court of Pharaoh with the pestilence, and that a sedition was raised amongst the people. The Rabbin's of the Jews say, that Sarai had an Angel to guard her, to whom when she spake against the King, or any man, that attempted to violate her chastity, he presently smote him, that he neither could nor would come near to her. Some think, that the judgment inflicted was the shutting up of wombs, as afterwards it is said of Abimelech and his people. But the the Text saith, great plagues and therefore I think rather with Philo, that some bodily diseases were laid upon them, whereby their minds were wholly averted from nuptial matters, and altogether made intent to their pangs, to think, how to be eased of them again. The relation of the Rabbin's smelleth, as many other things of theirs, of a fable, and to make good their report, they alter the words, because of Sarai Abram's wife, into these, at the word of Sarai. That of Josephus is improbable, for then many should have died. For another question arising here, how the punishing of Pharaohs whole house can be justified for his only fault. It hath been already answered [Quest.] by Philo, with whom Chrysostom speaketh the same. Yet Musculus thinketh not this a sufficient answer, because not only they, that told Pharaoh, and promoted this libidinous business, but all others of his house were punished also. Wherefore he answereth, that they had other sins, and that God took this occasion to punish them together therefore. But neither is this answer full enough, unless we add, this was done to make it apappear, how odious adulteries and rapes are before the Lord.

But Calvin maketh another question here yet, how God's plaguing of [Quest.] Pharaoh may be justified, seeing he knew not Sarai to be Abram's Wife, neither could he learn, but that she was free for him to marry withal? and answereth, that although there seemed to be no fault in Pharaoh, yet God saw a fault in him, viz. unbridled licentiousness, forsomuch as he was a King, and no man durst control him. Wherefore Kings are to be admonished from this example, to think always of another superior to them, and to use their power modestly. By former experiments surely Abram had learned, how Pharaoh was addicted, which made him so to fear. The cruelty of him and his it is likely was such, that if anything stood in their way to hinder them of their filthy Lusts, they would not stick to shed blood to remove it, and therefore although no actual sin was now committed, yet God, that looketh at the heart, saw that to be ill bent, and so punisheth most justly, which I thought good to add to Calvin's answer to make it more full. Saint Ambrose [Note.] hence taketh occasion to teach God to be protector of conjugal chastity, and the revenger of the same violated. For this place, saith he, yieldeth a great document and testimony of chastity, that no man affect the bed of another, or commit adultery with another man's Wife with hope of lying hid, or of impunity when he doth so, or be provoked unto it by the ignorance or foolishness of the Husband, or by his longer absence. The president of marriage, God is at hand, from whom nothing can be hidden, and whom none can escape, none elude: He defendeth the turn of the Husband being absent, he keepeth watch and ward, yea without watching he takes the guilty, before he doth the deed, for which he prepareth. Although (thou Adulterer) deceivest the Husband, yet thou canst not deceive God, and if thou escapest the Husband, and eludest the Judge of the Court, thou canst not yet escape the Judge of the whole World. Let such, as not ignorantly with Pharaoh here, but wittingly out of a filthy affection take to them other men's Wives, consider of these plagues upon Pharaoh, and be abashed at so great insolencies: for if the taking of another man's Wife, not known to be such, in way of marriage was punished with great plagues, how great shall the plagues of common Adulterers and Whore-mongers be?

And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What is this, that thou hast done to me? why didst thou not tell me, that she was thy Wife? A question is here moved by Chrysostom, how Pharaoh knew, that she was Abram's Wife? and answereth,