A Pisgah-Sight of Palestine

I Admire you have altogether omitted the River Eleutherus in this Tribe (much mentioned in Maccabees, and which Adrichomius makes to fall into the Mediterranean in the mid-way betwixt Zidon and Tyre. Yea, M. George Sandys in his travels, going from Sarepta to Tyre, crossed a little valley divided by the River Eleutherus, called Casmire at this day by the inhabitants thereabouts.

By what name, or title soever, the water, he there went over, is known at this day, sure I am, it cannot be the ancient Eleutherus, which by Ptolemy, Strabo, and general consent of all Authors, falls above sixty miles more northward, into the Mediterranean. And therefore the error of Adrichomius and others herein, is briefly taxed by judicious Sir Walter Ralegh.

You make Asher to border on Zidon, contrary to the description of Wolsegangus Wiseburgius, and learned Tostatus, who set Zebulun in the same place, as the most north-west of all the Tribes, and allege Jacob's words to avouch the same, prophesying, that Zebuluns borders shall be unto Zidon.

God's Word, the coast of the Country, and all good authors justify our description, those two only excepted which you allege, being both deceived, by taking Zidon restrictively in Jacob's prophecy, for the City so called, whereas the whole Country thereby is intended (as Sarepta is called a City of Zidon ) and the name of Zidonians adequate to Phoenicians, in which sense Zebulun confined on the Country, though Asher only on the City of Zidon.

You peremptorily place the defeat of Ben • adad, and fall of Apheks wall on his flying Army, in this Tribe, not remembering the while, that there is another Aphek in Issachar, (nearer to Samaria ) which puts in with more probability to be the theater, whereon that tragical accident was acted.

I confess Aphek a place in Issachar, but find it not charactered to be a City, such an one as our Aphek in Asher is described, and whose walls are therefore more probable to do the foresaid execution. However, be it known unto you, whensoever two places are with equal likelihood corrivals for actions therein achieved, we adjudge it to that place, that falls first under our description. Thus, the start of half an hour, bestows on the elder twin, the whole inheritance. To avoid confusion, and prevent repetition, first come, first served; the place first occurring, carries away all history in our describing thereof.

YOu, very confidently, make Jordan continue his un • ixit stream, clean through the Galilean-sea (a course somewhat irregular in nature) without alleging any authority for the proof of so improbable a passage.

Excellent Authors avouch the same. Tacitus, amongst others, tells us of this River, Unum, atque alterum lacum integer perfluit, tertio • etinetur; One, and another lake (viz. the waters of Merom, and Galilean-sea) it runneth through entire, but is stopped in the third; namely, in Asphaltite-lake, or Dead-sea. More full is the testimony of Philostorgius, and deserveth our serious perusal thereof. Who speaking of this River, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Which (saith he) passeth through the lake of Tiberias, cutting it in the middle, and flowing clean through it in its own proper channel. Which cutting of the lake, implies the entire continuance of Iordans water; otherwise, that knife doth not cut the loaf, but is cut by the loaf, which is broken in the dividing thereof.

I wonder you pass over Shimron-Meron in such silence, which appears a place of great note, yea, a Royal City in the days of Joshua, as the Coronet thereupon doth inform us.

I confess it signed with a Coronet, and with something more, a flag of uncertainty, having nothing sure of the location thereof, the chiefest cause that I willingly declined the mention of it. However, we will screw ourselves into as much certainty of this place, as may be extracted out of Scripture: and observe, the four first wreaths of my screw are undoubtedly, the fifth and last more then probably true, as followeth.

• 1 Shimron-Meron was one of the Royal Cities, whose King Joshua destroyed.
• 2 The same City is elsewhere called plainly Shimron, without any addition.
• 3 It lay on the northern part of the land, because the King thereof associated in the northern, and second combination of the Canaanites against Joshua.
• 4 A City named Shimron, was alloted to the Tribe of Zebulun.
• 5 Most probably this is the same Shimron, whose King was destroyed by Joshua.

This is all, which my best industry could collect out of Scripture, or good Authors, concerning the situation of this place.

What mean you by that third smooty circle, which (as the Meteor Halo about the Sun ) surroundeth the Levites City of Iockneam?

It signifieth nothing, being a mere aberration of the Graver, which (now but obscure) will in process of Printing, wholly disappear. And I could heartily wish, no other faults in our Maps, would be of longer continuance.

You make the Galilean-sea all along the east boundary of this Tribe. Whereas I am altogether of the mind of Masius, that no part of Zebulun touched on that sea; with him principally grounding my opinion on the Scriptures silence, which mentioneth not any conterminating of this Tribe thereupon. Which might soon have been spoken, yea surely would not have been omitted, had Zebulun been so situated.

That Zebulun bordered on this sea, may clearly be demonstrated; first from Jacob's prophecy, that he should dwell 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 At the haven of the Seas. Seas in the plural, pointing at his position betwixt the Mediterranean, and Galilean seas, the west and east bounds of his possession. Now lest any should seek to wave these words by an Enallage in Number (a figure, we confess, frequent in Hebrew) Zebuluns bounding on the Galilean-sea, is unfallibly collected out of the Gospel, where Christ is said to dwell in Capernaum which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Z • bulun, and Naphtali.

Christ his feeding of five thousand, with five loaves, and two fishes, is misplaced in your Map, as which ought to be set on the east side of the Sea of Galilce.

Learned men are much perplexed about the position of this miracle. A miracle, so remarkable in itself, that of all the passages betwixt Christ's conception, and the introduction to his passion, this only, and the descent of the Dove at his baptism are recorded in all four Evangelists. Yet some difficulty appears in the particular place thereof. Luke termeth it the desert of Beth • aida; but Saint John who wrote the last, (therefore supplying the omissions, and explaining the doubts in other Gospel's ) assigneth the particular place to be near Tiberias, both being Cities on the west side of the sea, so that north of Tiberias, betwixt it and Bethsaida, (in a desert named from the latter, because leading to it) this miracle is properly placed.

But immediately at the ending thereof, the Disciples are said to sail 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , unto the other side unto Bethsaida, or as Saint John says, towards Capernaum (both these being Cities not far asunder.) Wherefore, if they crossed over the Sea to go to Bethsaida, they were not already on the same side thereof when the miracle was wrought, and by consequence were then on the other [ the eastern ] side of the Sea.

By 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is meant the opposite shore, on the same side of the Sea, but so that it was over a reach, or bay which they crossed therein, sailing (not athwart the breadth of the Sea from west to east, but) almost foreright the length of the lake, from a place near Tiberias to the land of Gennesaret, on the north end of the lake, betwixt Bethsaida and Capernium. Thus, such who on the Severn Sea sail from Bristol to Barstable, may be said in some sense to cross the water, as well as those that sails from Barstable to Cardif • e. And thus, in placing this miracle we have not only followed the judgment of worthy Calvin, but also the eyes of Biddulph a modern traveler, who beheld the place.

WHat vast mountains have you made those of Gilboa to be? the highest of them four miles perpendicular: Surely the battle betwixt Saul, and the Philistines could scarce be fought on such ascents. Yea, David might well have spared his wish, Let there be no dew, neither let there be rain upon you, whose tops, (as you have exalted them) may be presumed higher then the clouds themselves.

I confess them to be of the largest size, store of room and want of other matter to fill it, gave the occasion to their greater growth. Which fault is amended in the following Map of Manasseh, where behold them reduced to a more moderate proportion, less then many of the mountains in Wales.

How comes a parcel of mount Ephraim to straggle into the Map of Issachar? It being proper for those mountains to be confined to their own Tribe of Ephraim, whence they fetched their denomination.

I may say the Tribe of Ephraim had the Preemption, but not the Monopoly of them. I mean his turn was first served, and he had the best and most of those mountains in his possession, whence they deservedly took their name. Yet so, that some part of mount Ephraim ranged south ward into the Tribe of Benjamin, (as mount Zemaraim ) and some branched northward into Issachar, as Shamir in mount Ephraim; certainly in this Tribe, because Tola a man of Issachar was buried therein.

It followeth not, because he was extracted from this Tribe, that therefore the place of his burial was in the same, finding many men's interments in Scripture, casual, out of the Tribes of their nativity. Thus Saul and Jonathan being Benjamites, were notwithstanding buried in the Tribe of Gad, at Jabesh Gilead: as also Ishbosheth and Abner their Countrymen got graves at Hebron in the Tribe of Judah: so infirm is your inference, that Shamir in mount Ephraim was in Issachar, because Tola an Issacharite was intombed therein.

You instance only in persons, some forcibly, others treacherously slain, which occasioned their hasty, tumultuary, and extravagant interment. Remember also that Saul and Jonathan, (though intermediately at Jabesh Gilead ) were finally intombed in the sepulchers of their Father, in the land of Benjamin, as we may presume that Tola his corps a peaceable Judge (no violent detention, or disturbance appearing to the contrary) did rest in the possessions of that Tribe; the Jews generally being as ceremonious to be buried in their own land, as to be married in their own linage.

ANd why so much of the Map of Issachar presented again in Manasseh? What need this waste, and repetition of the same again?

The squaring of the Map necessarily commanded the repetition thereof; nor is it lost labor, because two scattered pieces in Issachar belonged to Manasseh.

But ô what a medley motley pieced Map have you made of this half Tribe of Manasseh! Surely Joseph's coat consisted not of more colors then Manasseh (Joseph's sons ) portion is made up of shreds and parcels as you have presented it, marring the in • ireness of this half Tribe with your manifold divisions.

And yet no more then what are warranted by God's word. Let none part what he hath put together, nor put together what he hath parted. I delight not out of wantonness, to make smp • of Manasseh's portion, but the Tex • puts the Shears into my hand, commanding me to cut it so: because Manasseh had three Countries in Issachar and Asher: That is, surrounded with them, which necessitates the cantoning of this half Tribe into such dis-jointed parcels.

You make a piece of Asher, parted from the main body thereof, to confine on Manasseh, whilst Bonfrerius finds a fitter expedient by cutting off the west ends of Zebulun and Issachar from the Mediterranean, and continuing Asher along the sea side to Manasseh, so preserving Asher entire thereby.

His Expedient raiseth more difficulties then it allaieth; as directly opposite to Scripture, Reason, and the general consent of Writers, as formerly hath been largely proved in our Objections against Zebulun. Better it is therefore to admit a parcel of Asher separated from the main of the Tribe (Instances in English Counties being frequent in this case) then by Bonfrerius his shift, to allow Truth parted from Jacob's prophecy, which inevitably follows, if Zebulun be made Land • locked, and cut off from bounding on the sea.

Indeed you put Manasseh's separate Countries within Issachar, but not within Asher, not environed there with, but only joining thereto, whereas the Text saith equally, And Manasseh had in Issachar and Asher &c.

The main body of Issachar confining on Manasseh afforded us conveniency to insert such Countries therein. But Asher his part being in itself but a small dis-jointed portion, is not so capable of surrounding a Country within it, seeing such a parcel within a parcel would appear so diminutive a subdivision as almost inconsiderable. Besides, the preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rendered In in the Text, may sometimes be satisfied with signifying ad, or juxta, nigh, or by, that is, a bare proximity, apposition, and contiguousnes of a thing. In which sense Manasseh had land bordering on this dis-jointed piece of Asher.

In Ephraim you say that Jezreel was more then twenty miles from Samaria, which measured by the scale in your Map are not above twelve miles asunder.

Let not the Typographicall mistake of the Printer be accounted the Topographicall error of the Author; That twelve should be twenty, and in the Errata is mended accordingly.

You might almost as well inscribe this Map the Tribe of Levi, as the Half Tribe of Manasseh. It was the complaint in time of Popery, that the Church did eat up the Commonwealth; every third foot in the kingdom being Church-land, before the dissolution of Abbeys. You endeavor to reduce Palestine to the same proportion. It was a pious wish of Moses, Would God, that all the Lord's people were Prophets: But a covetous desire in you to convert so much of the land into the Levites portion, by extending the circular suburbs of their Cities to six miles Diameter; whereas Authors contract them, within less then half that compass, yet observing the true dimension of the Cubit therein.

For number such Cities are no moe then the Scripture assigneth, though here haply falling thicker then in other Maps. As for the three thousand Cubits of their extent on all sides, we have in the manner of the measuring thereof followed the direction of judicious M ^r . Ainsworth, (as he the learned Rabbi Maimonides ) preferring it amongst various expositions, as most natural to the Text. Now let none wonder that we make a thousand Cubits adequate to a thousand paces, or on English mile. For, although lesser Cubits were used by the Jews, about their vessels, and buildings; yet their Geometrical Cubit (generally employed for their better expedition, because largest, in their surveying of land) contained six common Cubits; and Rabbi Kimhi expressly saith that a thousand Emoth, or Cubits make a mile. Besides, consider I pray, these three thousand Cubits were to be measured from the wall of the City, the flexures and bendings whereof, produced the parallel bendings in the bounds of the Levites suburbs. But because we cannot be instructed in what from the line of their walls ranged about, we begin our measure from the midst of the City, and therefore 〈◊〉 bound to make their lands amends with the largeness of the C • ibts, because beginning our mensuration to their disadvantage, from the •• n • er of the City, in s • ead of the [unknown] circumf •••• ce thereof.

I am not satisfied in the situation of 〈◊〉 , that it was seated in this half Tribe of Manass • h.

It is seated according to Adrichomi • s, and the judgment of most other Authors. But if I might interpose mine own opinion, I conceive it many miles nearer unto Jerusalem in the Tribe of Ephraim, rather nigh then on the sea, in the road betwixt Jerusalem, and Cesarea, some thirty miles from the former; whither I shall remove the same, when my opinion herein shall be countenanced with the approbation of others. My reason that Antipatris could not be so far northward, (full sixty miles as they make it from Jerusalem ) is, because the • ootmen sent to attend Saint Paul marched thither from Jerusalem in one night. Now, although their suspicion of the Jews pursuing them to rescue Saint Paul, might quicken their pace, yet foot-soldiers could not be foot-posts, it being impossible for spearmen to go so far, in so short a time, betwixt the third hour [nine a clock at night] and the next morning.

YOu make a strange desultory Description of the bounds of this Tribe, va • lting over from length to breadth in such a fashion as is hard to be understood, and worse to be applied to the letter of the Text.

Wise Agur confessed he knew not the way of an Eagle in the air, whose flight therein 〈◊〉 not to be traced, leaving no visible perforation behind it, partly through the swiftness of his motion, partly through the subtileness of the air presently closing up the passage. So short and concise is the Holy Spirit in bounding the children of Joseph, and so long since hath time taken all impression of many limitary obscure places there mentioned, that exactness herein, by the confession of the best Authors, is not to be attained. But herein we have followed the direction of the learned Bonfrerius, save that we have not contracted the east of Ephrain to wards Jordan into so narrow a point, but bounded it broader, to make it a degree the better with the descriptions of other Authors.

You make Shechem in this Tribe, full seventy miles from Hebron in the Tribe of Judah. Me thinks they should be much nearer seeing Jacob sent Joseph from Hebr • n to Shechem to give a visit to his brethren. Now how could his tender love adventure his darling child alone so tedious and dangerous a journey? Surely the distance was far less then you make it.

〈1 paragraph〉

Rama in this Tribe, doubtlesly was a City of the Levites as doth appear by Elkanah and Samuel their constant habitation there, both of then Levites. Why therefore is it not surrounded in your Map with a double circle, like other Cities of the saine qualification?

I acknowledge Ra • a for the reasons by you alleged, probably pertaining to the Levites, but have omitted the double incircling thereof, because I find it not amongst the four Cities given the Levites in Ep • raim, nor the forty eight assigned to them in the whole kingdom.

Was it not then usurpation in the Levites to inhabit a City which by God was never granted unto them?

Under favor I conceive, though the Levites must have four, they might have moe Cities in Ephrain, or elsewhere, if the charity of well disposed people was pleased to bestow them. Thus, beside the three Cities for Refuge west of Jordan the Israelites were bound, if God did enlarge their coasts, to add three more for the same service. By which analogy it may be collected, that the Ephraimites in gratitude to God, who gave them more entire possession of their portion then any other Tribe in Joshua's division (nothing out • ezer, a Levites City being detained from them by the Can • anites ) might give this Ra • a as a gratuity to the Levites. Besides, the suburbs and lands of the Levites reached from th • walls of the Cities three thousand Cubits round about, with in which space they might erect what buildings they please, being therein (without encroaching on any other Tribe) resident on their proper inheritance. Rama therefore might be built within that circumference, and by the proportion of miles we collect it to stand within the circuit of Gezer, so that though they could not get Gezer itself, they might gain and build Rama within the compass thereof for their habita • ion. However, we define nothing positively, much less impose it on the belief of others. Clipt money is worth as much as it weighs, though it will not pass for what it was coined; and conjectures, though they will not go for certain truths, deserve to find as much acceptance, as they bring probability with them.

Have you nothing more to observe concerning the blessings, and 〈◊〉 pronounced on mount Ebal and Gerizim

I conceive on second thoughts, that the Prie • ts with the A • ke stood in the valley betwixt the two hills (whilst the whole body of the ordinary Levites were on the mount of Gerizi • ) whose station in the half way betwixt both, when they pronounced the blessings and the cursings, facilitated the conveyance of the sound on both sides, as appeareth on the serious comparing of the Scripture.

Tiphsah is made by you a City in this Tribe. But, if it were situate herein, very short were the dominions of Solomon even in the very height of his greatness, who then reigned on this side of the river from T • phsah even to Azza, or Gaza, in the Tribe of Simeon, not fully an hundred miles, as appears by your Scale in the general Description of the land.

Tiphsah there mentioned being the eastern boundary of Solomon's Empire (from our Tiphsah where cruel Menahem began his reign) was near a thousand miles north-east on the river Euphrates, probably the same with the City Tharsacus, whereof Ptole • y, Strabo, and Stephanus take special notice.

Have you any miraculous faith, who so easily have removed the mountain of Phinehas (wherein Eleazar was buried) from the north of this Map, within the suburbs of Bethhoron a Levites City, to the south thereof near Shiloh, where in your Map general the same is presented?

On better consideration I see no necessity, that his mountain should be brought within the bounds of any Levitical City. Phinehas was an extraordinary person, and therefore his land might be extraordinary in the location thereof. This his portion was no part of the Levites patrimony in their forty eight Cities given them by God, but seems rather the s • perpondium of the people's bounty cast into the balance, as an honorable augmentation in reward of his eminent desert. I conceive therefore it lay in Mount Ephraim, near Shilob, where the Tabernacle was set up, bestowed upon him thereabouts, for his more convenient attending of God's service therein.

YOu positively affirm that the land of Dan belonged primitively to Judah, yet produce no Scripture for the proof thereof. We believe the same of Simeon, the Text affirming that their inheritance was within the inheritance of Judah, but no evidence appears of such derivation of Dans possession originally from Judah.

The same is infallibly collected from Scripture, because the Cities of Eshtaol, Zoreah, Timnah, Ekron were first bestowed on Judah, and afterwards we find the same places, (with the Country thereabouts by necessary consequence) conferred upon Dan's posterity for their portion.

Such an alteration seems utterly inconsistent with divine immutab • lity, with whom is no 〈◊〉 , nor shadow of changing. To give a thing and take a thing is unproportionable with his proceedings, whose Gifts are pronounced by the Apostle to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , without Repentance.

Indeed such gifts as amount to the notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are uncapable of alteration, to which his other grants are subject. Besides, God never so passed away that land but he still reserved it as his own Demesnes. For the land (saith he) is mine; not was, but is, even after the Israelite, had long possessed the same. Is it not lawful for him to do as he will with his own, and to change at pleasure what tenants to rent, or rather what Bailifes to occupy his own ground?

The faces of the Men which bear the great bunch of grapes, are set the wrong way. For being to go south-east to Kadesh- • arnea, they look full west to the Mediterranean sea.

You put me in mind of a man, who being sent for to pass his verdict on a Picture, (how like it was to the person whom it was to resemble) fell a finding fault with the frame thereof (not the Limners but the Ioiners work) that the same was not handsomely fashioned. Instead of giving your judgment on the Map, (how truly it is drawn to represent the Tribe) you cavil at the History • properties therein, the act of the • raver, not Geographer. Yet know Sir when I checked the Graver for the same, he answered me that it was proper for Spies, (like Water-men and Rope-makers) for surety sake to look one way and work another.

WHy both an Asteriske and flag of uncertainty over Sheba? For, though unassured of the exact position thereof, the Text ascertaineth us, that it was a real City in Simeon, Beer-sheba, and Sheba, and Moladah &c.

I am not satisfied that Sheba was a distinct City by itself, but rather conceive it the same with Beer-sheba. Because,

• 1 They are both accounted the same when originally denominated.
• 2 Sheba is omitted in Chronicles where other Simeonite Cities are sum'd up) as the same with Beer sheba.
• 3 Simeon had but thirteen Cities, which make fourteen if Sheba be accounted a distinct City by itself.

The premisses considered, Sheba appears the same with Beer-sheba (as Salem with Jerusalem ) commonly so called for brevity sake.

But then how do you answer the Text, which expressly maketh Sheba a distinct City, Beer-sheba, and Sheba, and Moladah &c?

Proteus appeared not in more shapes, then the Particle • (here rendered and ) hath several significations, for though chiefly it is copulative, other whiles it is causal, collective, adversative, exegetical, redditive, and disjunctive, as Bonfrerius readeth it here, Beer-sheba, or Sheba, and Moladah &c.

You say that Simeon was surrounded on all sides with Judah, whereas in your Map, the northern side thereof, is all along fairly flanked with the Tribe of Don.

You may remember (what we so lately proved) that Dan's portion primitively pertained to Judah, and was a canton cut out thereof. In which sense according to Scripture, Simeon's inheritance was within the children of Judah's, and originally encompassed therewith.

Why call you this Tribe a jagged remnant, being as whole a cloth as the rest, and (though not so great) as entire as the other Tribes? I am not sensible by this your Map of any notorious dispersedness of the Simeonites habitations.

Undoubtedly Judah his portion made many incisures, and larcinations into the Tribe of Simeon hindering the entireness thereof. Particularly Askelon and Gaza first given to, once possessed by Judah, (though regained by the Philistines ) were continued and tied by some narrow labell of land to the main of Judah, at leastwise had a Church-path (as I may term it) a passage to the Temple, without going through any part of Simeon. But, wanting certain instructions, how to contrive, and carry on such indented conveyances, and not willing to confine the Reader to our conjectural fancies, we have left him to his liberty, presenting Simeon entire, wherein he may frame such incursions of Judah as comply best with his own opinion.

You make this Tribe to range some miles south of Beer-sheba, whereas that place passeth currant for the utmost border of the Country. What more common in Scripture, then from. Dan to Beer-sheba, that is, from the north to the south of the land of Canaan?

It was the utmost eminent City, but not absolutely the farthest place in Palestine, as neither mentioned amongst the southern boundaries of the land in general, Numb. 34. nor with the utmost limits of the Tribe of Judah, Josh. 15. In ordinary discourse we measure England east and west from Dover to the Mount, as the farthest western place of note, though Cornwall stretches seven miles beyond it unto the lands end. So Beer-sheba was the remotest remarkable City of Canaan, where the cloth, as I may say, ended, though the list thereof reached beyond it to the River of Egypt.

WHy make you Nob a Levite City in Benjamin, within the suburbs of Anathoth? Seeing Nob is neither named amongst the four Cities bestowed on the Levites in this Tribe, Josh. 21. 17. nor is it any of the eight and forty belonging unto them throughout the whole Country of Canaan.

That Nob was in this Tribe, appears by that ca • alogue of Cities presented us in Nehemiah, which the Benjamites repossessed after their return from Babylon. That it was a Levites, yea a Priests City, appears (too plainly) by the Massacre therein on them committed. We confess it none of the eight and forty originally assigned to the Levites. Yet how they in after-ages, were capable of supernumerary Cities more then in their first Charter, and how the Mort • main of the Levites (as I may term it) was enlarged with new foundations, we have lately answered in the objections of Ephraim , whither we refer you for further satisfaction.

You make the sons of Saul executed on an hill nigh Gibeah of Saul, which your judicious friend will have hung up before the Tabernacle in Gibeon, observing therein an exemplary piece of divine justice, that, whereas Saul had ruined the Tabernacle at Nob, his sons were hung up before the same in Gibeon.

Not to be a Plaintise against him, but a Defendant of myself▪ I conceive him mistaken in confounding Gibeah of Saul with Gibeon, distinct Cities, as may appear by their several owners, and actions therein performed.

GIBEON.	GIBEAH.
An ancient City of the Hivites, whose inhabitants deceived the Israelites, given to the Levites, in the Tribe of Benjamin, where the Tabernacle was set up in the time of Solomon.	A City in Benjamin, hard by I • rusalem, distinct from the former, whose inhabitants were mere Benjamites, and by their lust abused the Levites Concubine to death, for which their Tribe was almost extirpated: it was afterwards called Gibeah of Saul from his birth and frequent residence therein.

Now the text expressly saith, that the Gibeonites did hang them up unto the Lord in Gibeah of Saul, that is, in Saul's native place, and Court, where he had issued out his cruel edicts for the slaughter of the Gibeonites.

But that expression they hanged them in the hill before the Lord, imports the same performed in some religious place, probably in the prospect or view of the Tabernacle.

Before the Lord implies no more, then what in the foregoing verse was termed unto the Lord, that is, in a sacred manner, not out of private revenge, but in an holy zeal, tendering the parties executed an oblation to divine justice, and so is interpreted by the Expositors thereon.

In your particular Map of Benjamin, Jordan runs almost directly south, the whole course of whose channel visibly bendeth eastward in your Map general of Palestine.

That general Map, (though first placed) was last perfected, wherein we have amended three mistakes, as escaped in our particular descriptions. One that wherein you instance, another 〈◊〉 Re •• en (formerly forgott • n to be confessed) making that Tribe a little longer from north to south, then it is represented in our particular description thereof. My care shall be, God willing, in the second edition, to conform those particular Maps, according to these rectisi • ations in the general description.

WOuld not it affright one to see a dead man walk? And will not he in like manner be amazed to see the Dead-sea moving? Why have you made the surface of the waters thereof waving, as if like other seas it were acted with any ty • e, which all Authors avouch, and yourself confesseth to be a standing stinking lake? Think • not to plead, that such waving is the impression of the wind thereupon, seeing Tacitus affirms of this sea, Neque vento impellitur, it is such a drone, it will neither go of itself, nor yet be driven of the wind.

I will not score it on the account of the Graver, that it is only lascivia, or ludicrum coeli, the over-activity of his hand: And in such cases the flourishings of the Scrivener are no essential part of the Bond: but behold Mercators, and other Authors Maps, and you shall find more motion therein, then is here by us expressed. The most melancholy body of moisture, (especially of so great extent) is necessarily subject to such simpering in windy weather, as inseparable from the liquidity thereof.

Why set you Zeboim most northernly of all the five Cities in the Dead-sea, in the place where Sodom is situated in all other descriptions?

The placing of them is not much material, whether longwise all in a File as M ^r . More sets them, or in two Rankes, (two and two) as they are ordered by Mercator. Skuls in a charnel-house never justle for the upper place; and as senseless is the contention betwixt these dead Cities, which shall stand first, whose foundations long since were doubly destroyed with fire and water. But the sole motive of my placing Zeboim most northern of these four Cities, is because I find the valley of Zeboim in the Tribe of Benjamin, which probably lay near the influx of Jordan into the Dead-sea, denominated from the vicinity of Zeboim thereabouts.

The Hebrew Orthography confutes your conceit. For Zeboim by you last alleged is spelled with different letters from the City which was burnt with fire from heaven.

I confess a threefold variation in the writing of this name, though all the same in effect,

• 1 Gen. 14. 2. and so also Deut. 29. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 2 1 Sam. 13. 18 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 3 Hosea 11. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . I shall set thee at Zeboim &c.

Here to mollify the word, the Gutturall is either altered, or wholly omitted; neither amounting to make it a new word: How variously are the names of the same English towns spoken and spelled; as Lester, Leicester, Legeocester, Legecester, yet the same word dressed in several spellings and pronunciations?

Why make you Heb • on being a noted City of the Priests, and City of Refuge, different from all the rest, only with a single circle about it?

Because the fields and villages thereof were none of the Priests, but were given to Caleb the son of Iephunneh for his possession.

If so, then Hebron ought not to have had any circle at all about it, being a bare City of the Priests without any suburbs belonging thereunto.

The Priests in Hebron had, and had not, suburbs pertaining thereunto, according to the several acception of suburbs. If by them you only understand aedificia suburbana, buildings (though without the City walls) contiguous thereunto, these (no doubt) belonged to the Priests, who had Hebron with her suburbs: otherwise if you extend them to ager suburbanus, the fields surrounding the City, these related to Caleb as the proper owner thereof.

You might well have afforded conjectural flags to most of the Cities in Judah, going generally by guess in your placing of them, and differing from all other authors therein.

The Learned in Anatomy have informed me, that veins are alike in their trunks, but not in their branches; so that although the great Channels of blood run alike in all bodies, yet the smaller veins (as is most visible in their diva • ication on the back of the hand ) disperse themselves diversely, in divers persons: The like is confessed in all Maps of Judah, wherein the grand Cities, Hebron, Debir, Bethlehem &c. have their certain position agreed on by most Authors, whilst their inferior places (and no Tribe afforded more obscure Cities but once named in Scripture) are subject to much variety, according to the fancies of Authors. Wherein we hope we have observed, as much as might be, these short, and small directions we find in Scripture.

But you are not constant to yourself in the location of those lesser places, as appears by some diversity of their distances (both amongst themselves and from Jerusalem ) in the particular description of Judah, and in the general Map of Palestine.

I confess the same; who having discovered some errors in the particular Map, reformed the same in the Map-general. Which may be beheld in this point, as a new Edition of the former, corrected and amended. Request I therefore the Reader in such small differences, to rely rather on the credit of the Map-general.

You once placed Hepher a royal City in Manasseh on this side Jordan, which since you have removed into Judah, without giving any account of the alteration.

Some probability persuaded us to our former opinion. Cheifly because Hepher is mentioned in Joshua's list, next to Tapuah; which is known to be in Manasseh. But since finding also a Tapuah in Judah, and a land of Hepher near Sochoh, a place also in Judah, it hath staggered our judgment, and caused us to remove Hepher into Judah with a flag of uncertainty thereon; all Authors finding an Ignoramus for the exact position thereof.

The land of Goshen is sufficiently known to be in Egypt: And how stragleth of Country of Goshen into this Tribe?

You know that besides this England wherein we live, there is an Anglia in Denmark, whence our Ancestors are said to have come; and there is England beyond Wales, whither some of our nation removed. Some such occasion (to us unknown) might give the name of Goshen to a petty tract of ground in Judah: Or else it might be so called from some assimilation in the fruitfulness thereof. Wonder not at a Goshen in Egypt, and another in Judah; when we find two Ziphs, two Zenoahs, two Socohs &c. (As two Kirbies market-towns in Westmorland ) within the compass of this Tribe.

Conceive you that any wildernesses wherewith Judah abounded, were places of any pleasant habitation?

I am confident thereof. For instance, Engedi though a Wilderness, was so delicious a place, that the Spouse is compared to a cluster of Camphire in the Vineyards of Engedi. Besides, it had the conveniency of Palmtrees, therefore in Scripture called Hazazon-Tamar, which is Engedi Tamar, being in Hebrew a Palme. Nor can I omit the testimony of Pliny as the best comment herein in God's word; who speaking of people living on the west of the Dead-sea; amongst these (saith he) is the town ENGADDA; Second to Jerusalem in fruitfulness, and WOODS OF PALME-TREES; but now become another heap of Ashes.

I find indeed a City, and wilderness of Maon in this Tribe, but were the dwellers therein, those same Maonites, which are said Judge. 10. 12. with the Zidonians and Amalekites to have oppressed Israel?

O no. I take these tyrant Maonites to have been a fierce and foreign Nation. Saint Jerome, de locis Hebraicis, conceives Maon to be the Country of Moab. The vulgar Latin translates it Canaanites, because Maonites signifieth inhabitants, and the Canaanites we know were the ancient and original dwellers in the land) whose Relicks left in the land contrary to God's command, were constant thorns in the sides of the Israelites. But I conceive rather with learned Cajetan on this place, these Maonites were a distinct neighbouring nation, whose certain habitation is to us unknown.

Saul, when marching against the Amalekites, is said to have numbered the people (being two hundred and ten thousand, in Telaim: which by the coast of the Country seems south in or near Judah. Yet no such place appears in your Map thereof.

The Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is variously interpreted, the Rabbins render it appellatively in Lambes; affirming the Saul did not count them in specie, but for more safety or expedition, computed the people by their Paschal Lambes, proportioning such a number of men to a Lamb. Others read it, He numbered them as Lambes, that is, now grown meek and quiet, (whereas at the first there were some animosities of the people against him: Shall Saul reign over us? ) contentedly submitting themselves to his command. But I take Telaim for a true City, and the same with Telem Josh. 15. 24. which you may find in our description.

I Perceive the imperfection of your description by the omitting of a memorable valley therein, namely the vale of Baca, mentioned by the Psalmist pronouncing him blessed who passing through the vale of Baca maketh it a Well. You instead of passing through, pass by this vale unmentioned.

I reserved my observations on this vale for this place. Some render it appellatively, The vale of weeping: meaning thereby the militant condition of a Christian in this life, encumbered with constant afflictions. If so, this vale of Baca is too big to come under my description; all the mountains in the world being but part of this valley, the extent whereof is adequate to the whole earth. But if you be pleased to take this vale for a proper place, I embrace the opinion of learned Ainsworth on the text, that this vale of Baca, or Mulberry trees, (for so also it signifieth) was near to Jerusalem; out of the tops of which trees, God sounded the Alarum to David when he conquered the Philistines.

WHat is charged unjustly on Saint Paul and his companions, that they had turned the world upside down, may truly be laid to your charge, you have in your description of Jerusalem tumbled all things topsie turvy, in the position of the gates thereof; yea the foundations of the City, as presented by you, are out of course, and contrary to the rules of other writers.

Let God be true, and every man a liar. In this particular I profess my self a pure Leveller, desiring that all human conceits (though built on most specious bottoms) may be laid flat and prostrated, if opposing the written Word. In conformity whereunto, we are bound to dissent from such Authors (otherwise honoring them for their several deserts) to accommodate the Description of the Gates and Towers of Jerusalem, according to a threefold eminent Directory, which we find in Nehemiah.

Give us I pray you an account of them in order.

The first main Scripture direction we are to observe is, the night survey which Nehemiah took of the walls, (or rather ruins) of Jerusalem, described in this manner:

The second is the several reparations (where the same were required) done on the Gates and walls of the City by several persons, in a circular form, from the Sheep-gate surrounding the whole City till they returned to the same place where they began▪ Whose names we have carefully inscribed on those portions of buildings, upon which their cost and pains were expended.

The third, but most material, (because most declaratory of the method of the Gates) is the solemn Processions, which the people divided into two Quires, made round about the walls: each of them measuring a Semi-circle; both of them incompassing the whole circumference of Jerusalem, and at last joining together in the (best meeting place) the Temple of God.

Now I request the Reader with his eye to examine, whether the walls of Jerusalem, as designed in our draught, agree not with these directions of Scripture. To purchase the favor whereof, I pass not for the frowns of any Authors. Omne excelsum cadet, down with whatever dare oppose our embracing of the Text. This we hope for the main▪ will satisfy any indifferent Reader; otherwise if being as impossible for me in this short discourse, to meet with the several exceptions of private fancies; as for a Geographer in the Map-general of a Country, to set down the house of every particular person.

You set Zion south of Jerusalem, clean contrary to the description of the Psalmist , Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth is mount Zion, on the Sides of the North the City of the great King.

The place by you alleged is difficult, much canvassed by Comments, who fasten upon it two principal interpretations.

1 Sense. Some make this verse a description of Zion alone, the latter clause by Apposition so referring unto it, that Zion itself is solely charactered to be the City on the side of the North.

2 Sense. Others make this verse the full description of all Jerusalem, consisting of two principal parts, by the figure of Asyndeton coupled together.

• 1. Zion. Beautiful for situation the • oy of the whole earth is Mount Zion.
• 2. Properly Jerusalem. On the sides of the North the City of the great King.

That the latter is the truer interpretation we send the Reader to the voluminous labors of Villalpandus proving the same out of Scripture, Josephus, and other Authors. Besides (though time and casualty hath made many alterations on Jerusalem, yet) what Peter in his time said of David's sepulcher, even in our age true of mount Zion, it is with us unto this day, standing still full south of Jerusalem, as Travelers do affirm, no doubt in the ancient place and posture thereof. For, although Joseph could remove the Egyptians from one end of the borders of the land, unto the other end thereof; yet mountains are too firmly fastened to be transplanted from their natural location.

You do commit what you condemn in Adrichomius, taxing him for fashioning the streets of Jerusalem after his own fancy; assuming the same liberty to yourself in conjectural ranging them without warrant from God's word.

Reason dictates what we have done herein. For Gates being made for entrance, probably the streets from them stretched forth-right, as we have de • igned them. Those Insulae, or Quadrants of buildings, are nothing else but the necessary product of the decussation and thwarting of such direct streets where they cross one another. It is impossible that in describing Jerusalem we should do what Saul in another case desired of the Ziphites, See therefore and take notice of all the lurking places, and come ye again with the certainty; only such generals in likelihood may be presumed, and the rest is left to every man's free conception.

You have forgotten the Porta fictilis or Potters-gate, which Villalpandus solemnly sets up on the east of the City, building on a place alleged out of the Prophet Jeremiah.

His Porta fictilis, is rather fictitia and so brittle a gate that it is broken with perusing the text by him cited, for the proof thereof. Thus saith the Lord, go and get a potters earthen bottle, and take of the ancients of the people and of the ancients of the Priests, and go forth unto the valley of the son of Hinnom, which is by the entry of the east gate, and proclaim there the words that I shall tell thee. See here (whatever may be in the vulgar Latin) no sherd of a Potters-gate, though we confess a Potters field nigh the City; but, thence it cannot be collected that there was also a gate of that name, no more then if follows, because of Smithfield, there must be Smith-gate in London.

You affirm that we meet with no gate at all in Zion, flatly contrary to the words of David, The Lord loveth the gates of Zion more then all the dwellings of Icoab.

I say again, that because of the precipice of the place, Zion had no out-gates, but had those which led into Jerusalem which might be meant by the Psalmist. But to speak plainly, Gates of Zion are not there to be taken literally, being put for the assemblies of the people at God's public worship; especially, whilst the Ark was in David's time fixed in Zion.

IN your description of the Courts of Solomon's Temple, I find only four gates to the cardinal winds, but neither Parbar nor Asuppim Gate, though both of them eminently mentioned in the Bible.

I must confess myself utterly unsatisfied in the position of these places, whether or no they were in the first two Courts, as built by Solomon, or added in after ages, when the new or third Court was added to Solomon's foundation: which latter I am most inclined to believe. For perusing the date of the first book of Chronicles, I find it written long after the Jews return from the captivity of Babylon, as appears by reckoning up the grand-children of Zerubbabel, and therefore I suspend the describing of them till further information.

At the entrance of the House of the Lord, you make horses, but omit the Chariots of the Sun, both equally mentioned in Scripture, and destroyed by Josiah. Besides, you make them artificial statues, which (no doubt) were natural horses, sent out with riders every morning in a superstitious frolic, to give a welcome, or visit to the dawning-day, and to salute the Sun in the first arising thereof.

Chariots must be supposed there, though not expressed for lack of room. Sure they were no real horses, which the [idolatrous] Kings of Israel had given to the Sun. For (except thereby be meant a successive breed, or race) such horses must be extremely old at this reformation, after the eighteenth year of Iosia • , probably set up by Ahaz sixty years since. Besides, it is improbable, that living horses were kept so close to the Temple, and that noisome stables should be so near God's house, generally set at some distance from men's dwellings. However, I had rather subscribe, then engage in a controversy not worth the contending for.

You mention only one Table of show-bread, whereas David made preparation for the Tables thereof. And lest so plain a place of Scripture should be avoided, by the frequent figure of Enallage, Solomon is expressly said to have made ten Tables and placed them in the Temple, and it is added not long after, whereon the show-bread was set.

I am confident, there was but one principal Table for the presentation of show-bread, whereon, by God's appointment, the twelve Cakes were set in two rouse, according to the number of the twelve Tribes of Israel. Now, if there were ten Tables provided for that purpose, the twelve Cakes could not be equally set upon them without a fraction. I conceive therefore the other nine, only as side-cupboards, or Livery tables ministerial to that principal one, as whereupon the show-bread elect was set before the consecration thereof, and whereon the old show-bread removed for some time, might be placed, when new was substituted in the room thereof.

To proceed to the Altar. I approve your answer taken from the Celestial fire thereupon, as satisfactory in relation to the Tabernacle, and Solomon's Temple, that so many sacrifices were so suddenly consumed without any noisomeness. But, the difficulty still remains as touching the second Temple: where, by general confession (in default of heavenly ) the Priests were fain to make use of common, and ordinary fire.

Although I believe not in full latitude, what the Jewish Rabbins do affirm; That the Pillar of smoke which ascended from the sacrifice, curled only upwards in direct wreaths to heaven, without any scattering, or shedding if self abroad; yet for the main, we may be confident, it was no whit offensive to the Priests, or people thereabouts. This we impute to the providence of God, passing an Act of indemnity, that none should be impaired, either in health or wealth, by the performance of any service according to his appointment. And, as the land of the Jews was secured from foreign invasion during the appearing of all the males thrice a year at Jerusalem: so the same goodness of God ordered, that his people should sustain no damage or detriment, either in their purses, or persons, whilst busied in his worship: the main reason that no infection did arise, no smoke, nor ill savor scented from the fat, offall, and excrements of so many sacrifices offered in so short a time, and small a compass.

You say something for the avoiding of noisomeness, but nothing in answer, that that common fire should so quickly devour so many sacrifices, though, I confess the offerings in the second Temple, nothing so numerous as those in Solomon's.

We must totally ascribe this to the work of the Lord, who though not granting this second Temple the honor and use of Celestial fire (allowed to the former) yet, in approbation of his own ordinance, endued common fire with more then common activity. As, often in extremities, when miracles are denied, ordinary means are blessed with extraordinary efficacy in their operation.

I Forbear from objecting anything against this Map of the Temple, seeing, by your confession, it is none of your own designing, but borrowed from Ludovicus Cappel. Only let me tell you, that I have seen a draught of the same Temple, as in fashion much unlike it, so in exactness far above it. I mean the same which Constantine L' Empereur hath set forth out of Middoth, or the Rabbinical book of Solomon's building.

I confess myself to give little credit to Rabbinical relations therein, and think the worse of the writings of all Rabbins, for their own thinking so well thereof, comparing them with, yea preferring them before Scripture itself. Such passages (which for me shall go unenglished ) being found frequent therein. In illis qui operam dant lectioni Biblicae, virtus aliqua est, aut potiùs nulla; at qui traditioni, virtus est, propter quam accipitur premium. Egredienti e studio Talmudico ad studium Biblicum, non erit pax. Scito verba Scribarum amabiliora esse verbis Prophetarum. Justly therefore did Christ complain of thē, Making the word of God of none effect through your traditions which ye have delivered. And, although I am not of the mind of Villalpandus, who adviseth such as would read the Rabbins without danger, first to fence themselves with the sign of the Cross, and then whilst reading their books, often to repeat our Savior's word, You are of your father the Devil; yet I conceive Epicharmus his counsel very useful herein, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Remember thou not to believe, their books (I mean in many passages therein) being the Leaven of the Scribes and Pharisees, whereof Christ forewarneth us to beware.

Grant them unsound in points of faith, they may be true in matters of fact. And though we must zealously reject their doctrinal positions, we may safely embrace their historical relations; especially concerning the contrivance of the second Temple extant in their age.

As touching this second Temple, the works of the Rabbins now extant can give us no true intelligence thereof. The Jews once said to our Savior , Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? taxing him for pretending to more antiquity, then his age could extend unto. Though this was but a cavil at Christ, the same may justly be charged on the Rabbins, that the oldest of them extant at this day, (all of them writing since Ann. Dom. 100. in Trajans time) are too late and modern to give us any infallible information of the second Temple, as which their eyes did never behold. Whilest Josephus (out of whose instructions Cappel his description was lately taken) was an eye-witness thereof.

Allow their personal experience too short to reach the Temple, their reports proceed on ancient records, declaring, as what was done in their days, so in the old time before them.

So many and prodigious are the monstrosities by them delivered, that it is hard to discern their Lampreys from their Snakes; and the very truths among them are rendered suspicious, because mixed with so many falsehoods: Who, because they received not the truth [Christ himself] for this cause God hath sent them strong delusions that they should believe a lie.

Grant the Rabbins generally guilty hereof, yet Rabbi Judah may be credited, living about Trajans time, not much above thirty years after the destruction of the Temple. One commonly styled the Prince, and the Holy, conceived by his Countrymen next to Moses in knowledge and piety. Wherefore that new description of the Temple I so lately commended, deserves belief, coming from the pen of this Rabbi Judah, as far exceeding other Rabbins, as the Patriarch Judah excelled other Tribes.

Your so much admired Rabbi Judah was swollen with Pharisaical hypocrisy, as high as any other. Witness his dying words, breathing out his soul with an expression to this effect, Lord of the world, it is manifest and known unto thee, that I have labored in thy law with my ten fingers, and have not received any gain, no not with so much as the least finger. Justly therefore may we be jealous of this water coming from such a fountain.

Well, to wave the description of this Rabbin, and to give you only an occasion to enlarge yourself, I desire farther information both in this draught of Cappel, and also in your own written description of Zerubbabel-Herod's Temple. For the first, I wonder you have omitted the Bridge from mount Olivet to the Temple, mentioned in Middoth.

We find indeed such a Bridge (others call it a Caus-way ) in Middoth built on purpose from mount Olivet to the mountain of the house, whereon the Temple was built. But oh! how long must that Bridge be? Above a mile in the direct extent thereof. How many, but especially how high must the arches therein be, to stride over so vast a concavity? What need of so expensive a structure, seeing an ordinary plank would serve for a bridge over Kedron? which in summer time was all bridge it self. How came Josephus (one neither blind to see, nor dumb to tell of beautiful buildings for the honor of his nation) to take no notice hereof? Indeed the high Priests amongst the Romans, anciently had an inspection over the making and mending of bridges, thence called Pontifices: but he deserved to be Pontifex Maximus amongst the Jews, who erected this sumptuous bridge, on which may belief dare not walk with confidence, for fear of falling, and therefore I conclude it well omitted by Cappel.

I am not satisfied in the reasons you give why Solomon's Porch was so called.

Concerning the name whereof, let me add this (to what formerly we have written on this subject) that some conceive it so called, not because Solomon ever built it, but because in after ages erected by Herod, it did approximate, or come the nearest in state and magnificence to that of Solomon's first founding. Thus Manna is termed Angels food, not because they ever eat thereof, but had they any intention to feed thereon, better dainties could not be desired by them, or afforded to them: as this Solomon's porch (at leastwise in the apprehension of the builders thereof, well conceited of their own workmanship) was so called, because as brave, and beautiful, as if Solomon himself with all his wealth, and glory, had been the erectour thereof?

I conceive some carnal reason for the buyers and sellers of Sheep and Oxen in the Temple, (driven out by our Savior) because men, to save the tedious driving of them up in kind, brought flocks and herds up in their purses to Jerusalem, (money wherewith there they bought them) but what use was there of money-changers in the Temple?

Besides their changing of strangers gold into silver, for less payments at their coming hither; silver into gold for the lighter portage, at their departure hence; under favor I conceive, they fitted people coming hither with Shekels, for their religious service. True it is, the Roman coins were only currant in common and civil payments (as appears by Christ's question and the Jews answer, Whose image and superscription is this? and they said, Caesars ) but probably Shekels were used in sacred payments, the Romans permitting the Jews the free enjoyment of their Religion, in things not destructive to their civil government. Now, seeing the Jews were enjoined by God's Law, to tender unto him Shekels of the Sanctuary, not only in valuation, but in Specie (especially in the case of vows, paying moe or few according to the age, or sex of the person) it is likely that the money-changers here furnished the aforesaid Votaries with Shekels, and other pieces thereof, in exchange for their Roman moneys. But herein such Brokers so improved themselves on the present necessities of some, and ignorance of others, that they much defrauded people with their contracts, therefore termed by our Savior a Den of thieves.

Why was the outward Court in the Temple called the Court of women?

Not, that they alone were permitted to be there; but because they were not suffered, unless on special occasions, to go any farther. Thus Josephus calls it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the proper place for women to worship in; but elsewhere expounds himself, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , farther then this the Temple was unaccessible to women; so that this Court was proper for, but not peculiar unto the weaker sex for their staying therein.

Seeing that Court was signally so called from Women, do you conceive as many women as men repaired to God's public service in Jerusalem?

O no! All males were enjoined to appear thrice a year (and that not empty handed) before the Lord in the Temple; whilst the same was not required of women. Whose exemption proceeded partly from the infirmity of their sex, not able to endure so long a journey; partly to protect their chastity in such a concourse of people; and partly that they might attend their young Children, and family-affairs. For though God gave them assurance, that during their husbands absence, no enemy should invade the land; yet their tender children were not exempted from inconveniencies which might arise if their mothers were away from them.

Me thinks the place in the Temple, where the Sacrifices were slain and flayed, seems too small for such a purpose, if all the Paschal Lambes (computed by Josephus to be thousands) were as the Rabbins will have it) all killed by the Priests in the Temple, and that betwixt the two Evenings, (i. e. between three and six a clock in the afternoon) no longer time being allotted thereunto? I say, if so, a far greater square then what is presented in your Map was requisite for that service.

I am not bound to find room for all their Lambes. Sufficeth it that I have exactly followed my pattern in the dimensions of the place. But to the point, may I be so bold as to whisper my opinion in your ear; I conceive that, after the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (or Priests appointed to view the blemishes of Lambes) had at more leisure approved those Lambes legally perfect, a private person might sacrifice them in his own house; and then the less room was required in the Temple for such performances. And here I allege the authority of Philo, affirming that (as undoubtedly at the first institution of the Passover and before the erection of the Tabernacle ) everyone was a Priest in his own family, even in his days, and sufficiently qualified for the offering of such sacrifices.

You make stairs ascending to the Altar, flatly against God's command; Neither shalt thou go up with steps unto my Altar; and the reason is rendered, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.

To salve the matter, (and to reconcile our, with the Rabbins, description) I conceive under the favor of Cappel, that the going up to the Altar was not divided into steps (as he presenteth it) but that it heightened itself by insensible degrees, being (though a Rise of many Cubites) an even ascent (as I may term it) equally elevated, so that the Priests, not striding, but pacing up thereon, were not necessitated to any divarication of their feet, which might occasion the discovery of any uncomeliness.

You make the Holy immediately continued to the Holy of Holies, whereas there was a Cubit distance betwixt them, and that covered with two veils, which interstitium was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by the Rabbins.

I have read as much in their writings, and that they were unresolved whether to refer this space to the Holy or Holy of Holies; (like the condition of dying men in transitu, dubious whether to be accounted in this or another world) and thence they say it was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. Perturbation or disturbance, because the Priests were much disquieted thereat to which part of the Temple to relate it. But what • aith the Psalmist? man disquieteth himself in vain, as here the Rabbins do, causelessly troubling themselves about that which appears not in Scripture. This we know, the Temple (besides the Porch ) had two fair rooms, the Holy and Holiest; but as for this partition-Closet betwixt them, no foundation thereof in God's word.

You confidently deny that the Ark was in the second Temple, whereas, upon inspection of the Triumphant Marble of the Vespasians in Rome, the same appeareth pourtraicted thereupon.

Their eyes are much mistaken which find the Ark on that Mon • meant, though something Ark-like, (but in very deed nothing else but the Table of show-bread ) be presented therein: as for further satisfaction we have caused here to be exemplified.

You avouch an utter abolition of all Temple-Utensils, and no surviving Relics thereof at this day. I conceive the contrary may be made good out of History and daily experience.

I confess the fingers of superstition have itched to be tampering with them. But finding the same not to fadge, at last she was fain Hands-off to desist from such improbable designs. One tells us of a cheater in France which many hundred years ago pretended to Moses his wonder-working Rod (though that of Aaron, not Moses, was preserved in the Tabernacle ) and essayed to work miracles therewith, till at last he was beaten with his own Rod, detected and punished for an impostor. I confess also that Comestor, and out of him Ribera in altari Lateranensi infra quod dicitur esse Arca, In the Lateran Altar, say they [in Rome] beneath [within] which IT IS SAID the Ark is; but both of them speak so uncertainly, and put it on public fame, that they teach us to deny the Truth thereof.

You are very brief in the destruction of the City and Temple by the Romans, whereas so memorable a subject deserved a fuller description.

It is largely related by Josephus to whom the Reader is referred; only I will add a word of the remarkable time thereof. God graciously promised his people, Neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the Lord thy God thrice a year. Obedience is better then an Army to secure ones estate. As the Meniall-servants of great Persons are protected in some cases, from Arrests, whilst they wait on their Masters in public employment; so God's people were privileged from damage during their attendance on him thrice a year in his Temple; no invasion being found to befall them on that occasion clean through the Scripture. But at last, in token that they, by their wickedness, had out-lawed themselves of his protection, and he withdrawn his defending of them, the Romans besieged them in Jerusalem, coming up thither on the solemn feast of the Passover; and soon after both Temple and City was destroyed, by Vespasian and Titus his son, seventy two years after our Savior's birth. Not one stone of the Temple left upon another; though three towers of the City ( Ma • iamne, Phaselus, and Hippicus ) were left standing; not out of pity, but pride; their devouring sword leaving this mannerly bit on purpose, that posterity might taste how strong the place was, to the greater credit of the conquerors.

To add to the solemnity of the State, Titus with his Father Vespasian made a solemn Triumph in Rome, wherein the golden Table and Candlestick, with other sacred Utensils of the Temple, formerly reverenced, now derided, made once for God's service, now served to adorn the Trophies of Pagans. We read what befell Belshazzar when he quaffed in the vessels of the Temple. Some perchance might here expect that God, to punish the profana • ion of these holy instrument • , should then have shown some signal judgment on the profaners. But the case was altered, because the date of Ceremonies was then expired, the use of Types ended, Christ the Truth being come: and the Moon may set obscurely without any man's taking notice of her, when the Sun is risen.

The last and greatest Trophy then carried in triumph was the LAW OF THE IEWS: probably that very numerical book, the Authenti • k or Original of the Law, which by God's command was constantly to be kept in the Temple. And this perchance was permitted by divine providence, not without a peculiar mystery therein, to show, that the Law, which formerly bound men over to damnation, was now bound itself in captivity, outed of its former dominion, deposed from its condemning power, having now the Gospel of Grace succeeding in the place thereof. Lastly, orders were issued out to the Governor of Syria to set the whole land of Judea to sale; which was done accordingly. Time was, when by the Levitical Law, Jewish land though • old, yet at the year of Jubilee was to revert to the ancient owners; but now the King of heaven granted such a license of Alienation, that it was fully and finally passed away from its ancient possessors.

To perpetuate th • memory of this Roman conquest, besides many other monuments, Coins were stamped both in gold and silver, with the Image of Vespasian and Titus, on the one side, and on the reverse a woman placed in a pensive posture under a Palme-tree, which tree was the Hieroglyphic of Judea, only differing herein, that the Palme-tree the more depressed, the more it flourisheth, whereas Judea sunk under the weight of her woes, and never again outgrew her miseries. And lest men should miss the fancy of the Impress, they are guided thereunto by the Motto subscribed, Judea capta, Judea taken.

What • an on sight hereof would not call to mind the complaint of the Prophet, How doth the City sit solitary that was full of people? how is she become as a widow? she that was great among the nations, and Princess among the Provinces, how is she become tributary? Great, no doubt, was the grief of the Jews hereat. But few drops seasonably showered, would preserve the green blade from withering, when much rain cannot revive the roots once withered. Eyes dry for their sins, are vainly wet after their sufferings: and a drought in the Spring is not to be repaired by a deluge in the Autumn.

YOu make Libanus to be the north-ridge of these hills, and Anti-Libanus to be the south part thereof, clean contrary unto learned Munster in his description of it.

Munster is singular therein, unseconded by any other Authors. However, the controversy is not important as touching Scripture, wherein this distinction appears not at all, both the north and south chains of those mountains being promiscuously called Libanus in Holy Writ. Some human Authors lay this distinction in point of east and west, so great is the difference among them. If I may freely profess my opinion herein, I conceive that the inhabitants of this mountain, termed the place of their own habitation, wheresoever they dwelt, Libanus, and named the mountains of their overthwart neigh • bours Anti-Libanus: as commonly men account their own Religion only to be Christianity, and all such opinions as are opposite to their own, Antichristian

In your Map general of old Canaan, the Island of Arvad (or Aradus ) is not above forty miles from Zidon, which in this Map of mount Libanus are fourscore miles asunder. Indeed I have read of a floating Isle in Scotland, moving from place to place with the wind and waves. But is this Isle of Aradus fixed to no firmer foundations, so that it hath swom forty miles more northward in this, then in your former draught thereof?

May you be pleased to remember, that in our instructions premised to the Reader, we gave notice that places standing on the Um-stroke▪ or utmost line of any Map, denote not their accurate position, but situation thereabouts, to clear the continuation of the Country. Such the location of Arvad in our former Map, which in this of mount Libanus is placed according to the true distance thereof.

You make the River Aban • (in heathen Authors Chrysorrho • s ) to sink into the ground, without communicating itself to the sea. This is out of the common road of nature, that this River should be free from paying tribute to the Ocean, to which all smaller waters are indebted. Yea and Adrichomius (no doubt on good authority) maketh it, when passing from Dam • scus, to run through a plain called Arch abod, and so into the Syrian, or Medite • ranean-sea.

His error therein is confuted, both by ancient, and modern writers. Strabo speaking thereof, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Which Chrysorrho • s beginning from the City, and Country of Damascus, in a manner is wholly spent in drains thence derived; for it watereth much ground, and that very deep. Some thing more may be collected from Ptolemies expression, not terming the fall of Chrysorrhoas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (his ordinary word) the Out-lets, or Ejections thereof into the sea, but only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the End, or determination thereof. Where, by the degrees by him assigned, Be • tius in his Maps presenteth this River swallowed up wholly in the sands: and the same is confessed by Bellonius an eye-witness thereof, and other modern Geographers, that it never cometh unto any sea.

You have omitted the Vale of Salt in your Map (near Aram • Zoba • ) neither mentioning in your description that most memorable defeat, which David gave the Syrians therein. Your modern Merchants of Aleppo will inform you thereof, who have been on the very place where the battle was fought, as tradition reporteth.

I have heard so much from the mouths of my judicious friends, which have lived in those parts: and have formerly read the same in effect; How, within half a days-journey of Aleppo, there is a very great plain, without grass growing on it, the sand whereof is naturally good salt, and after rain being dried again with the Sun, the people gather it. However, I cannot be persuaded, that this Salt Vale was the place, whereon David gave his enemies that notable overthrow, as on the perusal of the following Scriptures will appear.

Here under favor, I conceive, these several Scriptures intend one, and the same victory, because fought in the same place, the Valley of Salt, whilst the seeming contradictions, in the names of the Conquerors, different numbers, and nations of the persons conquered, are easiely reconciled:

• 1. Joab (as General ) might give the Command, and Abishai (Lieutenant General ) do the execution, whilst David (as Sovereign ) received the honor of the Action.
• 2. Twelve thousand might be slain on the place, and six more killed in the pursuit, so making up eighteen thousand in the total number.
• 3. This slaughter fell on the Edomites, who are called Syrians, not by their Country (though Syria taken in a large sense is comprehensive of many nations) but cause, and confederacy, as engaging themselves (to their cost) auxiliaries in the same quarrel of the Syrians against King David.

This battle thus stated (with most probability in my opinion) it seems fought rather in the land of Edom, where there is another Valley of Salt eminent in Scripture, and not near Aleppo, or Aram Zobah. However, because Tradition is a Tyrant on the contrary, I dare resolve nothing positively, but suspend my own, and attend the judgments of others herein.

You make Marra the next modern stage south of Aleppo: whereas there be many moe miles, and intermediate lodging-places (namely Cane-Toman, and Saracoop ) betwixt them.

I confess no less, but am sorry your memory is so short, that I must so often incultate the same rule unto you: That places situate on the Um-stroke (such the location of Aleppo in our Map) are not in their exact position, whilst we only make a long arm to reach them confusedly into our description, though otherwise they be at greater distance, then the scale of miles will admit.

I wonder you make the Mediterranean from Tripoli to Antioch, to run with such a crooked flexure, in form of an Hook, which certainly will not catch the belief of any judicious beholder thereof. The rather because no Geographers take cognizance of it, and such a bending is disavowed by all modern Maps.

Consult Ptolemies Maps (as drawn by learned Bertius ) and they present the fashion thereof accordingly: though such an Elbow appears not in the late Cardes of this Country. No news nowadays for Sea to gain, Land to lose, or (reciprocally) both to alter their ancient, and accept new forms: seeing our Cornish-men will tell us, that a good piece of their horn is blunted, and broken off by the sea: whose land formerly stretched out more westward, and was called (as they say) Lioness, before the waters devoured both the paws, and whole body thereof.

YOu have left the eastern part of this Map altogether empty, which you ought to have furnished with moe towns, and Cities therein.

Whose image and superscription doth this Map bear? Is it not of Arabia the desert, a wild barren Country? To make a desert full, is as absurd, as to paint a Black-more fair. Besides, whence should the Geographer fetch the names of these Cities, except from his own groundless fancy? And then, as King Edgar is said to have founded in England as many Monasteries as there be weeks in the year, a Map-maker might build moe Cities then there be hours therein, whilst the Reader must have as much simplicity, as the Author dishonesty, that gives credit thereunto.

You have false pointed (to use your own expression) the Jewish peregrinations, seeing those four intermediate stages ( Comma's, as you term them) be Ar, Mattanah, Nahaliel, and Bamoth, being named after the stream of Arnon, seem on the other side of the River, and therefore rather to be placed in the Tribe of Reuben.

I have consulted the text, and best Comments upon it, and cannot yet be convinced, but that the same is rightly situate. Arnon I conceive divided into many streams, therefore plurally termed the brooks of Arnon, probably tributary brooks running into that main River: and though the places aforesaid lay north of these rivulets, they were south of the main Arnon, and in the land of Moab. However, because of their so ambiguous posture, being more willing to learn then to teach, I am ready to alter them on any better information.

You make Job's sons tent in your Map blown down on his children therein, whereas Scripture calleth it expressly an house, and otherwise it is unlikely they should be slain, with such slight curtains falling upon them.

I will not plead that a tent is also termed an house in Scripture phrase, that tent-dwelling was most fashionable in the eastern Countries, especially in that ancient age, that statory, or long standing tents were quilted with timber, for their stronger support; that Job • children might be (though not killed with weight) stifled with the closeness of the very linen in the tent, when Satan with such violence in a vengeance, drave it in upon them; but fairly charge it on the account of the Graver following his own fancy therein.

You have made the Red-sea too near to the Dead-sea, presenting not above sixty miles distance betwixt them, when there is much more in all authentic descriptions of them. See now what covetousness doeth, it makes men guilty of much falsehood, as here your over-greediness to recover Ezion Gaber within this Map, hath tempted you to trespass on due proportion.

I confess the main channel of the Red-sea runs many miles more south-west; but this Bay called Sinus Elaniticu • ; from 〈◊〉 (E • ath in Scripture, a fair City built by Uzziah, and restored to I ••• ah, hard by Ezion Gaber ) buncheth out more to the north, and in M ^r . Mores Maps, and others of good credit, is advanced as near to the Dead-sea, as in this our description. Besides, I have good reason to conceive, that this Reach of the Red-sea, anciently stretched more north-ward, then nowadays; even to the City of Elana, or Elath, whence it takes its name; because in Ptolemies Map, Elana is set in the land, some miles distance from the Sea; whither, no doubt, it reached formerly, and made an haven for Ezion Gaber thereabouts.

But, how can Ezion Gaber stand on the Red-sea, when we read of Hiram King of Tyre (an haven sufficiently known to be seated on the Mediterranean ) that he sent ships to Solomon to Ezion Gaber? Surely, they sailed not round about Africa, much less can you conceive them to go over land, (ships having fins, and not feet ) and a shole of fish may with as much probability be driven over the Continent.

Here Sir, I will not tell you of the Prince of Orange his constantly carrying boats to make bridges of (though of no great burden) in his wagons: much less will I instance in those seventy lesser ships, and Galliots, brought by Zoganes Bassa Anno 1453. up a great hill, and so by dry land with all their sails abroad▪ out of the Bosphorus, the space of eight miles, into the haven of Constantinople, by an ingenious device, and a great strength of men to manage it, whereby the said City was soon after unexpectedly taken by the Turk. An invention formerly found out, and practiced by the Venetians at the lake of Bennacus. But, waving these things, take notice, I pray, of two memorable passages concerning the matter in hand.

The result of both is this, Solomon's ships were built in the place at Ezion Gaber, where all their lumber, and ma • sie timber was provided, at the Dock wherein they were made: whilst their tackling, and other essential implements thereof (easily portable when taken in pieces) might be sent from Tyre by land-carriages. Such far carting being part of the burdens Solomon imposed on the people, whereof they afterwards so grievously complained: or else by Hurams sending ships, by a Metonymy of the cause understand ship-rights, such as found materials there, and brought art and industry (virtually with the former a whole navy) thither with them.

Seeing Edom bounded north-ward on the Dead, south-ward on the Redsea (whereon stood Ezion Gaber in the land of Edom ) how can the children of Israel be conceived (when denied passage through it) to compass the land of Edom without coming into any part thereof, except they went into the water?

Understand it, they went not the nearest way to Canaan through the heart, and fruitful middle of Edom, but surrounded the same, going through the borders thereof (leaving the Red-sea on the right hand) where their passage was no whit prejudicial to the Edomites, as being through a base Country secured against the long stay of any passengers therein, by its own barrenness. Besides, some conceive the land of Edom extended not anciently so far as the Red sea, so that in Moses his time Ezion Gaber belonged not thereunto, though in the days of Solomon accounted parcel thereof.

IN your Map of Simeon and Judah, you make that the River of Egypt, which runs nigh Rinocolura into the Mediterranean sea. And here you call both that brook that runs into the Syrbon Lake, as also the easternmost stream of Nile by the name of the River of Egypt. How comes this triplication? Where the Scripture presents but one, you multiply three Rivers of Egypt.

You put me in mind of a passage Bishop Latimer confesseth of himself, whilst as yet a young Priest, and zealous Papist. He, being enjoined by the Rubric to mingle water with the wine in the Ch • lice at Mass, was so scrupulous to do it effectually, that he poured in water so much, and so often, that he almost diluted all into water. Such is the 〈◊〉 of my caution herein, who have Egypt-rivered this Map to purpose, willing to please all without displeasing of the truth. You know who saith, If it be possible, as much as in you lieth have peace with all men, as herein I have endeavored. For,

• 1 The Rivolet south of Simeon, by general consent
• 2 That running into the Syrbon-lake, by M ^r . More
• 3 The easternmost stream of Nile, by Bochartus
• is made the River of Egypt.

Thus each opinion having learned men to patronize it, we equally tender them all to the Readers discretion, to reject, or accept which of them he shall conclude most probable.

You make Sinai (where the Law was given) a different, and distinct mountain from mount Horeb. Whereas in Scripture it plainly appears, that Horeb was the same with Sinai, two names for one and the same mount. For, that the Law was given in Sinai, all agree, and the same is attributed to Horeb also. The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.—The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount, out of the midst the fire.

Some conceive this mountain (as Moses is erroneously fancied with horns ) to rise up Parnassus -like, with a double top; whereof the one is called Horeb, the other Sinai. Or else the former, like the Alps, is a genericall name to many, whilst Sinai, like mount Senis amongst the Alps, is more eminent and conspicuous then the rest, for the height thereof.

Seeing the Spies were sent from Kadesh-Barnea to discover the Land, a City afterwards assigned to Judah, how come you to make the Israelites to incamp so many miles south of the same place?

None can be so wild as to conceive that the Israelites during their journeying in the wilderness, ever came within the walls of any City, but always pitched in the open desert. This premised, when they are said to be in Kadesh-Barnea, we understand thereby a Country, not City, so named, which began southwardly about Rithmah (the fifteenth station of the Israelities, whence they sent their spies) and extended northwardly to Kadesh-Barnea properly so called, (probably a City) certainly a limitary place belonging afterwards to the Tribe of Judah.

You term their provocation of God in this place as yet the last and greatest temptation, which seems to me not of so heinous a nature.

So many and great were their Rebellions, it is hard to define which was their highest offense. Their carriage for forty years is styled by God a day of temptation, whose transgressions were so frequent and came so fast, that they all completed but one entire, constant, and continued temptation. But to the point, that this their despising of the pleasant land was a paramount impiety, appears not only by the exclusion of that whole generation from entering the same, but by the confession of modern Jews: Manasseh Ben Israel (the Hebrew Divine at this day in Amsterdam ) observes the ninth day of the month Ab, whereon saith he Exploratores flebant sinecau • a, The spies sent to discover the land [and all the congregation occasioned by their false reports] wept without cause, hath ever since been unfortunate to their nation, their first, and second Temple being burnt on the same day, and many dysasters have since befallen them thereon. Thus the Jews travel far off in their inquiries, fetching the cause of their misfortunes from their forefathers in the wilderness more then three thousand years ago, which with more ease might take up their lodging nearer hand, and find the same in their crucifying of Christ, as their highest sin, and the cause of their deepest suffering.

Think you that Rithmah (the fifteenth stage of the Israelites ) was the particular place, whither the spies returned bringing the report of Canaan?

Though many conceive so, under favor I take it more probable, that the next mansion, Rimmon-parez by name, was the proper scene of that action. For, it signifieth in Hebrew the Division of Pomegranates, so called (as I conceive) not from any growing there (too barren a place for such beautiful fruit) but brought thither by the Spies ( Pomegranates being specified amongst the fruits of the land) which here were divided, and shared among the people of Israel, to show them a sample of the fruitfullness of Canaan.

What a blank and vacuity have you left betwixt Ezion-Gaber the thirty second, and Kadesh-Zin the thirty third station of the Israelites (sixty miles at least) without any stage interposed? It is not probable that they travelled so far, without resting themselves betwixt them.

Surely they had intermediate Mansions where they took their nightly repose, though not named by Moses, because not making any considerable abode therein. I conceive, that after their departure from Ezion-Gaber, God quickened the Israelites (who truanted before in their slow, and snail-like proceedings) making them mend their pace, probably travelling every day will they came to Kadesh, which their young men might the better endure, the old generation being almost worn out.

How comes Aaron to be buried in mount Hor, whom elsewhere the Scripture affirmeth to be interred in Mosera?

It is no news to have several names for the same place. The forest of Black-more, and the forest of White-Hart (though black and white be contrary colors) signify the self same tract of ground in Dorset-shire. Hor was the east part, and Mosera the west part of this mountain. This Mosera had formerly been the twenty seventh Mansion of the Israelites in their passage to Ezion-Gaber, near which afterwards they made their thirty fourth station (when Aaron was buried there) which sufficiently argues the crookedness of their journeying, crossing those parts again where they had been before.

I commend your cunning that hath slipped over in silence, four of the hardest names contained all in one verse Deut. 1. 1. These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel, on this side Jordan in the wilderness, in the plain over against the Red-sea, between Paran, and Tophel, and Luban, and Hazer • th, and Dizahab, Direct us to the position of these places.

Some conceive the plains of Moab (wherein Moses wrote the book of Deuteronomy ) described thereby with the eminent bounds (though at some distance) round about it, in manner following.

Others refuse this interpretation, as an obscure, and far fetched bounding of those plains, preferring our English translation (reading it Red-sea, instead of Zuph, or Sedgie-land ) and so making these several places the signal stages of the children of Israel in their passage out of Egypt. Whereof the Red-sea, and Paran are sufficiently known, Laban the same with Libna • their seventeenth station; Hazeroth the place where Miriam was punished with leprosy; Dizahab, which the Greek renders golden mines, and the Chaldee refers to the place where the golden Calf was made, and stamped to powder, whilst Tophel (not mentioned again in Scripture) is conceived some station in Paran. Thus Deuteronomy is a repetition of the law, and of the memorable actions which occurred at these several places.

I object nothing against the draught of the Tabernacle, because the authority of Arias Montanus (whence you confess it taken) will pass it without exception. But I question the exactness of several places in your Map of Egypt.

You mind me of a Gentleman's finding a Picture in the shop of a Country-Painter, whom he mistook for the maker thereof, and thereupon fell a finding many faults therein. But being informed that the same was drawn by one of the rarest Masters in Italy, he instantly turned his cavilling at, into commending thereof. Such a convent your judgment will quickly be when I shall tell you that the Map of Egypt is of Ortelius his making, save only that the southern part thereof (useless for our history) is cut off, and such places only inserted herein as appears in Scripture. The same I plead for the Habits, and Idols of the Jews; the former taken all out of Scripture, the latter out of such Authors as are severally cited in our description. Only I could wish, that in the Picture of Moloch out of Benjamins Itinerarie the three statues had been presented • itting according to our directions. And by the Altar to the unknown God we mean not that erected in Athens (to a Grecian, no Jewish Deity ) but only we intend the same for a reserve for those many Jewish Idols, whose names, and several worships are unknown unto us. But, it is time to break off, lest one grand objection be made against all our Objections and Answers, that they swell the volume into tediousness.