The Grounds of the Christian Faith, Book 3 · Chapter 4

The Grounds of the Christian Faith · Book 3 · Chapter 4

p. 533CHAP. IV. Of the Origine of Nations.

All mankind derived from Adam, if the Scriptures be true. The contrary supposition an introduction to Atheism. The truth of the history of the flood. The possibility of an universal deluge proved. The flood universal as to mankind, whether universal as to the earth and animals; no necessity of asserting either. Yet supposing the possibility of it demonstrated without creation of new waters. Of the fountains of the deep. The proportion which the height of mountains bears to the Diameter of the earth. No mountains much above three mile perpendicular. Of the Origine of fountains. The opinion of Aristotle and others concerning it discussed. The true account of them from the vapours arising from the mass of subterraneous waters. Of the capacity of the Ark for receiving the Animals from Buteo and others. The truth of the deluge from the Testimony of Heathen Nations. Of the propagation of Nations from Noahs posterity. Of the beginning of the Assyrian Empire. The multiplication of mankind after the flood. Of the Chronology of the LXX. Of the time between the flood and Abraham, and the advantages of it. Of the pretence of such Nations, who called themselves Aborigines. A discourse concerning the first plantation of Greece, the common opinion propounded and rejected. The Hellens not the first inhabitants of Greece, but the Pelasgi. The large spread of them over the parts of Greece; Of their language different from the Greeks. Whence these Pelasgi came; that Phaleg was the Pelasgus of Greece, and the leader of that Colony proved from Epiphanius: the language of the Pelasgi in Greece Oriental: thence an account given of the many Hebrew words in the Greek language, and the remainders of the Eastern languages in the Islands of Greece, both which not from the Phaenicians as Bochartus thinks, but from the old Pelasgi. Of the ground of the affinity between the Jews and Lacedaemonians. Of the peopling of Amercia.

THE next thing we proceed to give a rational account Sect 1.of, in the history of the fi…t ages of the world contained p. 534in Scripture, is the peopling of the world from Adam. Which is of great consequence for us to understand, not only for the satisfaction of our curiosity as to the true Origine of Nations, but also in order to our believing the truth of the Scriptures, and the universal effects of the fall of man. Neither of which can be sufficiently cleared without this. For as it is hard to conceive how the effects of mans fall should extend to all mankinde, unless all mankind were propagated from Adam; so it is unconceivable how the account of things given in Scripture should be true, if there were persons existent in the world long before Adam was. Since the Scripture doth so plainly affirm, that God hath made of one blood all Nations of men, for to dwell on the face of the earth; Some Greek copyes read it foreign, leaving Act. 17. 26.Acts 17:26out foreign which the vulgar Latin follows: the Arabick version to explain both, reads it ex homine, or as De Dieu renders it ex Adamo uno, there being but the difference of one letter in the Eastern languages between foreign and foreign the one denoting blood, and the other man. But if we take it as our more ordinary copyes read it foreign, yet thereby it is plain, that the meaning is not, that all mankind was made of the same uniform matter, as the author of the Prae-Adamites weakly imagined (for by that reason, not only mankind, but the whole world might be said to be foreign of the same blood, since all things in the world were at first formed out of the same matter) but foreign is taken there in the sense in which it occurs in the best Greek authors for the stock out of which men come: So Homer, foreign. Odyss. v.Thence those who are near relations, are called in Sophocles, foreign; thence the name of Consanguinity for nearness of relation; and Virgil useth sanguis in the same sense, Trojano à sanguine duci. So that the Apostles meaning is, that however men now are p. 535so dispersed in their habitations, and differ so much in language and customs from each other, yet they all were originally of the same stock, and did derive their succession from that first man whom God created. Neither can it be conceived on what account Adam in the Scripture is called the first man, and that he was made a living soul, and of the 1 Cor. 15. 45, 47.1 Cor 15:451 Cor 15:47earth, earthy; unless it were to denote that he was absolutely the first of his kind, and so was to be the standard and measure of all that follows. And when our Saviour would reduce all things to the beginning, he instanceth in those words which were pronounced after Eve was formed, But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and Marke 10. 6, 7.Mark 10:6Mark 10:7female; for this cause shall a man leave Father and Mother and cleave unto his Wife. Now nothing can be more plain and easie then from hence to argue thus; those of whom those words were spoken, were the first male and female which were made in the beginning of the Creation; but it is evident these words were spoken of Adam and Eve: And Adam said, this is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh: Gen. 2. 23. 24.Gen 2:23Gen 2:24therefore shall a man leave his Father and his Mother and shall cleave unto his Wife. If the Scriptures then of the New Testament be true, it is most plain and evident that all mankind is descended from Adam; and no less conspicuous is it from the history of the Creation as delivered by Moses.

For how necessary had it been for Moses, when he was Sect. 2.giving an account of the Origine of things, to have discovered by whom the world was first planted, if there had been any such plantation before Adam; but to say that all the design of Moses was only to give an account of the Origine and history of the Iewish Nation, and that Adam was only the first of that stock, is manifestly ridiculous, it being so clear, that not only from Adam and Noah, but from Sem, Abraham, and Isaac came other Nations besides that of Iews. And by the same reason that it is said, that Moses only speaks of the Origine of the Iewish Nation in the history of Adam, it may as well be said that Moses speaks only of the making of Canaan, and that part of the heavens which was over it, when he describes the Creation of the world in the six dayes work. For why may not the earth in p. 536the second ver. of Genesis be as well understood of the Land of Iudea, and the light and production of animals and vegetables refer only to that, as to understand it so in reference to the flood, and in many other passages relating to those eldest times? But the Author of that Hypothesis answers, That the first Chapter of Genesis may relate to the true Origine of the world and the first peopling of it, but in the second Moses begins to give an account of the first man and woman of the Iewish Nation. Very probable! but if this be not a putting asunder those which God hath joyned together, nothing is. For doth not Moses plainly at first give an account of the formation of things in the first six dayes, and of his rest on the seventh? but how could he be said to have rested then from the works of Creation, if after this followed the formation of Adam and Eve in the second Chapter? Besides if the forming of man mentioned, Gen. 2. 7. be distinct from that mentioned. Gen. 1. 27. then by all parity of reason, foreign the Generations of Heaven and earth mentioned, Gen. 2. 4. must be distinct from the Creation of the heaven and earth mentioned, Gen. 1. 1. And so if there were another Creation of heaven and earth belonging to the Iews in Gen. 2. we may likewise believe that there was a new Creation of man and woman in that Chapter distinct from that mentioned in the former. Again further, if there had been any such persons in the world before Adam, no doubt Adam himself was ignorant of them; or else it had been a false and ridiculous account which he gives of the name of his wife foreign because she was foreign the mother of all living. Not of all living things, for that Gen. 3. 20.Gen 3:20had been a more proper description of a Ceres, or Magna Mater, or Diana multimammia, of our Grand-mother the earth, but certainly it extends to all of the kind, that all living creatures that are of humane nature came from her. So the Chalde… Paraphrast understands it, she was called Hava, because she was foreign the mother of all the sons of men. And so the Arabick version, quia ipsa fuit mater omnis viventis rationalis. To which Selden. de jure natur. & gent. l. 1. c. …. p. 65purpose our Learned Selden cites the version of the Mauritanian Iews, and the Persick of Tawasius.

p. 537But what ever the credit or authority of these versions be, this is most certain, that Adam had no reason at all to have given this name to his wife, as being the mother of all living, if there had been any of mankind existing in the world from other mothers, which had been long before Eve was formed. So that we find it plain and clear, that if the report given of things in Scripture be true, the hypothesis of Prae-Adamites is undoubtedly false. And certainly who ever seriously considers the frequent reflections on the authority of the Scriptures which were cast by the author of that Fiction, and his endeavouring on all occasions to derogate from the miracles recorded in it, may easily suspect the design of that Author was not to gain any credit to his opinion from those arguments from Scripture, which he makes shew of (which are pittifully weak and ridiculous) but having by the help of such arguments made his opinion more plausible, his hope was that his opinion would in time undermine the Scriptures themselves. When he had made it appear that the account given in the Scriptures of the plantation of the world was unsatisfactory, since there were men before Adam, which the Scriptures to please the Iewish Nation, take no notice of. So that after he had attempted to prostitute the Scriptures to his opinion, his next work had been to have turned them out of doors, as not of credit to be relyed on by any when they were so common to every opinion. But how impious, absurd and rude that attempt was upon the sacred and inviolable authority of the Scriptures, hath been so fully discovered by his very many not unlearned adversaries, that it might seem needless so much as to have taken notice of so weakly grounded, and infirmly proved an opinion, had it not thus far lain in my way in order to the clearing the true Origine of Nations according to the Scriptures. The main foundations of which fabulous opinion lying chiefly in the pretended antiquities of the Chaldaeans, Egyptians, and others, have been fully taken away in our first bsok, where our whole design was to manifest the want of credibility in those accounts of ancient times, which are delivered by Heathen Nations in opposition to the Scriptures. There is nothing at all in Scripture from the Creation p. 538of Adam to the flood which seems to give any countenance to that figment, but only what may be easily resolved from the consideration of the great conciseness of the Mosaick History, in reporting that long interval of time which was between the fall of Adam, and the Flood; By means of which conciseness such things are reported as speedily done, because immediatly succeeding in the story, which asked a very considerable time before they could be effected, and besides all things which were done before the Flood, being all quite obliterated by it, and all the numerous posterity of Adam being then destroyed (only Noah and his Family excepted) to what purpose had it been any further to have reported the passages before the Flood, otherwise then thereby to let us understand the certainty of the succession of persons from Adam, and such actions in those times which might be remarkable discoveries of Gods providence and mans wickedness in it, which being most apparent at first in Cain and his posteriry, did by degrees so spread its self over the face of the then inhabited world, that the just God was thereby provoked to send a Deluge among them to sweep away the present inhabitants to make room for another Generation to succeed them.

This therefore we now come to consider, viz. the History of the flood, and the certainty of the propagation of the world Sect. 3.from the posterity of Noah after the Flood. I begin with the History of the Flood its self, as to which two things will be sufficient to demonstrate the truth of it. 1. If there be nothing in it repugnant to reason. 2. If we have sufficient evidence of the truth of it, from such who yet have not believed the Scriptures. There are only two things which seem questionable to reason concerning the flood; the first, is, concerning the possibility of the flood its self; the other is, concerning the capacity of the Ark for preserving all kinds of Animals. The only ground of questioning the possibility of such a Flood, as that is related in Scripture, hath been from hence, that some have supposed it impossible, that all the water which is contained in the ayr, supposing it to fall down, should raise the surface of water upon the earth a foot and a balf in height; so that either new waters must be created to p. 539overflow the earth, or else there must be supposed a rarefaction of the water contained in the Sea and all Rivers, so that it must take up at least fifteen times the space that now it doth; but then, they say, if the water had been thus rarified, it could neithe… have destroyed man nor beast, neither could Noabs Ark have been born up by it any more then by liquid ayre. To this therefore, I answer.

First, I cannot see any urgent necessity from the Scripture to assert, that the Flood did spread its self over all the surface of the earth. That all mankinde (those in the Ark excepted) were destroyed by it, is most certain according to the Scriptures. When the occasion of the Flood is thus expressed, And God saw that the wickedness of man was great Gen. 6. 5, 7. …Gen 6:5Gen 6:7upon earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth. It could not be then any particular deluge of so small a Country as Palestine, which is here expressed, as some have ridiculously imagined; for we find an universal corruption in the earth mentioned as the cause; an universal threatening upon all men for this cause; and afterwards an universal destruction expressed, as the effect of this Flood. And all fl…sh died that moved upon the earth, and every man. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face Gen. 7. 21.Gen 7:21of the ground, both man and cattell, and the creeping things, 23.and the fowl of the Heaven, and they were destroyed from the earth, and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the Ark. So then it is evident that the Flood was universal as to mankind, but from thence follows no necessity at all of asserting the universality of it as to the Globe of the earth, unless it be sufficiently proved that the whole earth was peopled before the Flood: which I despair of ever seeing proved. And what reason can there be to extend the Flood beyond the occasion of it, which was the corruption of mankinde? And it seems very strange that in so short an Interval, in comparison as that was from Adam to the flood, according to the ordinary computation, viz. 1656. years, and not much above two thousand, according to the largest, the world should then be fully peopled, when in so p. 540much longer a space of time since the flood to this day, the earth is capable of receiving far more inhabitants, then now it hath. The only probability then left for asserting the universality of the Flood, as to the Globe of the earth, is from the destruction of all living creatures together with man; now though men might not have spread themselves over the whole surface of the earth, yet beasts and creeping things might which were all destroyed with the Flood: For it is said, That all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl and of cattel, and of beast, and of every creeping thing, that creepeth upon the earth, and every man. To what end should there be not only a note of universality added, but such a particular enumeration of the several kinds of beasts, creeping things, and fowls, if they were not all destroyed? To this I answer. I grant as far as the Flood extended, all these were destroyed; but I see no reason to extend the destruction of these beyond that compass and space of earth where men inhabited: Because the punishment upon the beasts was occasioned by, and could not but be concomitant with the destruction of mankinde, but (the occasion of the deluge being the sin of man, who was punished in the beasts, that were destroyed for his sake, as well as in himself) where the occasion was not, as where there were animals, and no men, there seems no necessity of extending the Flood thither. But to what end then it will be replied, Did God command Noah with so much care to take of all kind of beasts, and birds, and creeping things into the ark with him, if all these living creatures were not destroyed by the Flood? I answer, because all those things were destroyed where ever the Flood was; suppose then the whole Continent of Asia was peopled before the Flood, which is as much as we may in reason suppose, I say, all the living creatures in that Continent were all destroyed; or if we may suppose it to have extended over our whole Continent of the anciently known world; what reason would there be that in the opposite part of the globe, viz. America, which we suppose to be unpeopled then, all the living creatures should there be destroyed because men had sinned in this? And would there not on this …p…osition have been a sufficient p. 541reason to preserve living Creatures in the Ark for future propagation, when all other living creatures extant had been in such remote places as would not have been accessible by them in many generations, and those beasts growing wilde for want of Inhabitants, would not have proved presently serviceable for the use of men after the Flood? which was certainly the main thing looked at in the preservation of them in the ark, that men might have all of them ready for their use presently after the Flood, which could not have been, had not the several kinds been preserved in the Ark, although we suppose them not destroyed in all parts of the world.

All this proceeds on supposition that Animals were propagated Sect. 4.much further in the world then men were, before the Flood. Which I confess seems very probable to me, on this account because the production of Animals is parallel in Genesis with that of Fishes, and both of them different from man; For God saith, Let the waters bring forth every Gen. 1, 20, 21.Gen 1:20Gen 1:21moving creature that hathlife; viz. Fish, and Fowl; and accordingly it is said, that the waters brought forth abundantly every living creature after their kind, and every Fowl after his kind. Accordingly in the production of beasts, we read, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattel, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind, and it was so: But in the production of man, It is Ver. 24.said, Let us make man in our own likeness. From hence I Ver. 26.observe this difference between the production of animals, and of man, that in the one God gave a prolifick power to the earth and waters for production of the several living creatures which came from them; so that the seminal principles of them were contained in the matter out of which they were produced, which was otherwise in man, who was made by a peculiar hand of the great Creator himself, who thence is said to have formed Man of the dust of the ground. Gen. 2. 6.Gen 2:6Now therefore although there were but one Male and Female of mankinde at first… which had a special formation by God himself; yet there is no reason we should conceive it to be so as to the production of oth…r living creatures, whether Fish, or Fowl, or Beasts; b…t the prolifick vertue being p. 542by Gods power given to that material principle out of which they were formed, it may very well be supposed that many of the same kind were at first produced. For it seems very strange to imagine that in the whole Ocean there should be only two of a kind produced; but Fish and Fowl both arising from the water, we may have just reason to think, that the waters being separated before this prolifick vertue was communicated to the whole masse of waters, might in the several parts of the globe of the earth, bring forth both fish and fowl after their kinds. The same I say of the production of Animals in the sixth days work, which are ranked into three sorts, Cattel, creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kinds; now God saying, Let the earth bring forth her living creatures (and that after the waters had divided some parts of the earth from other, so that there could be no passage for the cattel, creeping things, and beasts out of one part into another, without the help of man) it seems very probable that at least those parts of the earth which were thus divided from each other, did bring forth these several living creatures after their kinds, which did after propagate in those parts without being brought thither by the help of man. If now this supposition be embraced, by it we presently clear our selves of many difficulties concerning the propagation of animals in the world, and their conservation in the Ark, which many have been so much to seek for satisfaction in. As how the unknown kind of Serpents in Brasil, the slow-bellied creature of the Indies, and all those strange species of animals seen in the West Indies should either come into the Ark of Noah, or be conveyed out of it into those Countries which are divided from that Continent where the Flood was by so vast an Ocean on the one side, and at least so large a tract of Land on the other (supposing any passage but of one Continent into another, which yet hath not been discovered.) Besides some kind of Animals cannot live out of that particular Clime wherein they are; and there are many sorts of animals discovered in America, and the adjoyning Islands, which have left no remainders of themselves in these parts of the world. And it seems very strange that p. 543these, should propagate into those remote parts of the world from the place of the Flood, and leave none at all of their number behind them in those parts from whence they were propagated. These things at least make that opinion very probable which extends the production of animals beyond that of mankinde in the old world, and that the Flood though it destroyed all mankinde, and every living creature within that compass wherein mankind inhabited, yet might not extend its self to those parts, and the animals therein, in which men had never inhabited. And by this means we need not make so many miracles as some are fain to do about the slood; and all those difficulties concerning the propagation of animals do of themselves vanish and fail to the groud. This is the first way of resolving the difficulty concerning the possibility of the Flood, by asserting it not to have been over the whole globe of the earth, but only over those parts where mankinde inhabited.

Secondly, Suppose the Flood to have been over the whole globe of the earth, yet there might have been water enough Sect. 5.to have overwhelmed it to the height mentioned in Scripture. For which we are to consider that many causes concurred to the making of this Deluge; first, the air was condensed into clouds, and those fell down with continued force and violence, not breaking into drops, but all in a body (which Sir Walter Rawleigh parallels with the spouts of the Hist. of the World. 1 B. c. 7. sect. 6.West Indies) which are thence called the Cataracts or Flood-gates of heaven, God loosening (as he expresseth it) the power retentive which was in the clouds, and so the waters must needs fall in abundance, according to the expression in Iob, Behold he withholdeth the waters, and they Job 12 15.Job 12:15dry up, also he sendeth them out, and they overturn the earth. Now, I say, although these waters falling down with so much fury and violence, as well as in so great abundance, might quickly destroy all living creatures; yet this was not all for God who held in the Ocean within its bounds, whereby he saith to it, Thus far it shall go, and no farther, might then give it Commission to execute his justice upon the sinfull world: and to all this, we have another cause of the Deluge, which was, That the Fountains of the great p. 544Deep were broken up. By which Vatablus, most probably Gen. 7. 11.Gen 7:11understands, Immensam illam & profundam aquarum copiam quae est subter terram: That vast body of waters which lies in the bowels of the earth; now when all these fountains were broken up, and the waters within the earth rush out with violence and impetuosity upon it, it must needs cause an inundation so great as that is mentioned in the Scripture. For as that judicious Historian Sir W. Rawleigh observes, Let us consider that the earth had above …id.21000. miles compass, the Diameter of the earth according to that Circle 7000. mile, and then from the Superficies to the Center 3500. mile; take then the highest mountain of the world, Caucasus, Taurus, Tenariff, or any other, and I do not finde, saith he, that the highest exceeds thirty miles in height: It is not then impossible, answering reason with reason, that all those waters mixed within the earth, 3500. miles deep, should be able to cover the space of 30. miles in height, which 30. miles upright being found in the depths of the earth 116. times; for the fountains of the great Deep were broken, and the waters drawn out of the bowels of the earth. But then withall, saith he, if we consider the proportion which the earth bears to the air about it, we may easily understand the possibility of the Flood, without any new Creation of waters; for supposing so much air to be condensed, and so turned into water which doth encompass the earth, it will not seem strange to men of judgement, yea but of ordinary understanding, that the earth (God so pleasing) was covered over with waters, without any new Creation. But this will yet appear more probable if the height of the highest mountains doth bear no greater a proportion to the Diameter of the earth, then of the 1670. part to the whole, supposing the Diameter of the earth to be 8355. miles, as P. Gassendus computes both. And it is more …. 2. …p. Phys. sect. 3. …1.then probable, that men have been exceedingly mistaken, as to the height of mountains, which comes so far short of what Sir Walter Rawleigh allows to them, that the highest mountain in the world will not be found to be five direct miles in height taking the altitude of them from the plain they stand upon. Olympus whose height is p. 545so extold by the Poets and ancient Greeks, that it is said to exceed the clouds, yet Plutarch tells us that Xenagoras measured Plut. in Aemil…n. Plin. l. 2. c. 65.it and sound it not to exceed a mile and a half perpendicular and about 70. paces. Much about the same height Pliny saith that Dicaearchus found the mountain Pelion to be. The mount Athos is supposed of extraordinary height, because it cast its shadow into the Isle of Lemnos, which according to Pliny was 87. miles. yet Gassendus allows it but two miles in height; but Isaac Vossius in a learned discourse concerning the height of mountains in his notes on Pomponius Mela, doth not Voss. in Pomp. Melā l. 2. c. 2. p. 115. &c.allow above 10. or 11. furlongs at most to the height of mount Athos. Caucasus by Ricciolus is said to be 51. miles in height: Gassendus allowing it to be higher then Athos or Olympus, yet conceives it not above three or four miles at most; but Vossius will not yeild it above two miles perpendicular, for which he gives this very good reason; Polybius affirms there is no mountain in Greece which may not be ascended in a dayes time, and makes the highest mountain there not to exceed ten furlongs; which saith Vossius, it is scarce possible for any one to reach unless he be a mountainer born; any other will scarce be able to ascend above six furlongs perpendicular; for in the ascent of a mountain every pace doth reach but to an hand breadth perpendicular; but if we do allow eight furlongs to a dayes ascent, yet thereby it will appear that the highest mountains in the world are not above twenty four furlongs in height, since they may be ascended in three dayes time: and it is affirmed of the top of mount Caucasus, that it may be ascended in less then the compass of three dayes, and therefore cannot be much above two miles in height. Which may be the easier believed of any other mountain, when that which is reputed the highest of the world, viz. the Pike of Teneriffe which the inhabitants call Pica de Terraria, may be ascended in that compass of time, viz. three dayes: for in the months of Iuly and August (which are the only months in which men can ascend it, because all other times of the year snow lyes upon it, although neither in the Isle of Teneriffe nor any other of the V. Varenium Geogr. General. l. 1 c. 10 prop. 3Canary Islands there be snow ever seen) the inhabitants then ascend to the top of it in three dayes time, which top of it is p. 546not Pyramidal but plain, from whence they gather some sulphureous stones which are carryed in great quantities into Spain. So that according to the proportion of eight furlongs to a dayes journey, this Pike of Teneriffe will not exceed the height of a German mile perpendicular, as Varenius confesseth, then which he thinks likewise, that no mountain in the world is higher. For what Pliny speaks of the Alpes being fifty miles in height, must be understood not perpendicular, but in regard of the obliquity of the ascent of it; so that he might account so much from the foot of the Alpes to the top of them, and yet the Alpes in a perpendicular line not come near the height of a German mile. If then the highest mountains do not exceed much above three miles in height (for the Spaniards themselves affirm, that those lofty mountains of Peru, in comparison of which they say the Alpes are but like Cottages, may be ascended in four dayes compass) we see from hence then far greater probability, how the waters in the time of the general flood might overtop the highest mountains.

Especially if it be made evident that there is so great an Abysse of subterraneous waters, that the breaking open of Sect. 6.the fountains of it may so much encrease the inundation arising from the clouds, and from the breaking in of the Ocean upon the main Land. And that there is such a mass of waters in the body of the earth is evident from the Origine of Fountains; for the opinion of Aristotle imputing them to the condensation of aire in the caverns of the earth, and that of other Philosophers ascribing them to the fall of rain-water received into such cisterns in the earth which are capable of receiving it, are both equally unsatisfactory, unless we suppose a mass of waters in the bowels of the earth, which may be as the common stock to supply those Fountains with. For it is very hard, conceiving how meer aire should be so far condensed, as to cause not only such a number of Fountains, but so great a quantity of water as runs into the sea by those rivers which come from them, (as the river Volga is supposed to empty so much water in a years time into the Caspian Sea, as might suffi…e to cover the whole earth) by which likewise it is most eviden… that there must be some subterranean p. 547passages in the Sea, or else of necessity, by that abundance of water which continually runs into it from the rivers, it would overflow and drown the world. And from this multitude of waters which comes from Fountains, it is likewise evident, that the Origine of Fountains cannot be meerly from such water which falls from the clouds, which would never suffice to maintain so full and uninterrupted a stream as many Fountains have: Especially if that be true which some assert, that rain-water doth never moisten the earth above ten foot deep, for of far greater profundity many Fountains are. And besides the rain-water runs most upon the surface of the earth, and so doth rather swell the rivers which thereby run with greater force in their passage to the Ocean, and doth not lodge it self presently in the earth, especially if it descends in a greater quantity which alone is able to fill such Cisterns supposed to be in the earth, especially in mountains, which may keep a stream continually running. Although therefore we may acknowledge that the fall of rain may much conduce to the overflowing and continuance of Fountains, as is evident by the greater force of springs after continued rains, and by the decay of many of them in hot and dry weather (which yet I had rather impute to the Suns exhaling by his continued heat those moist vapours in the earth, which should continually supply the springs, then meerly to the want of rain) and by the rise of most great rivers from such Fountains which came from the foot of mountains; where the ground is supposed to be of so hard and consistent a substance, as stone, or chalke, or something of like nature which might help to the conservation of water there, from whence it after ran in streams to the Ocean (which was the great argument of the famous Peireskius for this opinion) although I say, these things may argue thus far, that rain-water doth much conduce to the V. Gassend. vit. Pereskii l. 3. p. 292.preservation of springs, yet it cannot give a sufficient account of the Origine of them: Which with the greatest reason and probability is imputed to those subterraneous waters which pass up and down through the bowels of the earth. Some have fancyed the earth to be as one great animal, whose subterraneous passage's were like veins in the p. 548body which received water out of the Sea, as the veins do blood out of the Liver; and that there are some kind of hot vapours in the earth which supply the place of vital spirits, which are diffused up and down the body through the arteries. And that as in an animal there are some parts which upon the least prick do send forth blood, and others are more callous where the incision must be deeper before any blood appears; so it is in the earth; when it is opened in a right vein we find presently a spring of water; but if we chance to hit on a wrong place, we go deep and may find none; not that water is wanting, but we have not hit on the veins through which it runs. And thence as the blood with equal freedom and velocity ascends into the head as it runs into the legs, because it is equally dispersed into all the parts from the center of it; so in the body of the earth it is as natural for the water to ascend into the tops of mountains, as it is to fall down into the center of the earth. And that it is no more wonder to see springs issue out of mountains, then it is to see a man bleed in the veins of his forehead when he is let blood there. So in all places of the earth the parts of it are not disposed for apertion; for some of them are so hard and compact, that there seems to be no passage through them (which is the most probable reason, why there is no rain neither in those places, because there is no such exsudation of those moist vapours through the surface of the earth, which may yeild matter for rain, as it is in many of the sandy places of Africa, but usually mountainous Countryes have more large, and as it were Temple-veins through which the moist vapours have a free and open passage, and thence there are not only more frequent springs there, but clouds and rains too.) Now if this account of the Origine of springs in the earth be as rational as it is ingenious and handsome (and there is not much can be said against it, but only that then all fountains should be salt as the water is from whence they come) then we easily understand how the earth might be overflowed in the universal deluge; for then the fountains of the deep were broken up, or there was an universal opening of the veins of the earth, whereby all the water contained in them would presently run upon the surface of the p. 549earth, and must needs according to its proportion advance its self to a considerable height. But because the salving the difference of the water in springs from what it is in the Sea is so considerable a phaenomenon in our present case, I therefore rather take this following as the most rational account of the Origine of fountains. viz. That there are great cavityes in the earth, which are capable of receiving a considerable quantity of water, which continually runs into them from the Sea (which as it continually receives fresh supplyes from the rivers which empty themselves into it, so it dispatcheth away a like quantity through those spongy parts of the earth under the Ocean, which are most apt to suck in and convey away the surplusage of water) so that by this means the Sea never swells by the water conveyed into it by the rivers, there being as continual a circulation in the body of the earth of the water which passeth out of the Ocean into the subterraneous cavernes, and from thence to the mountains, and thence into the Sea again; as there is a circulation of blood in mans body from the heart by the arteryes into the exteriour parts, and returning back again by the veins into the heart. According to which we may imagine such a place in the heart of the earth like Plato's Barathrum, foreign, As Plato in his Phaedrus describes it out of Homer, a long and deep subterraneous cavity. foreign. Into which cavity all the rivers at last flow, and from which they again disperse themselves abroad. Now this Cavity of the earth thus fill'd with water supplyes the place of the heart in the body of the earth, from which all those several aquaeducts which are in the earth have their continual supply; but that which makes those passages of water which we call springs and fountains properly, I suppose, is thus generated; from those Cavityes fill'd with water in the earth by reason of the hot streams which are in the body of the earth, there are continually rising some vapours or little particles of water, which are p. 550disjoyned from each other by the heat, by reason of which they attain a greater celerity of motion, and so pass through the inner pores of the earth till they come near the superficies of it. Which when they have approached to, they are beat back again by the cold which environs the surface of the earth, or at least are so arrested by the cold and condensed by it, that they lose the form of vapours and become perfect water again. Which water being now more gross, then while it was a meer vapour, cannot descend again through the same pores through which it ascended before, because these are not now capable of receiving it: And therefore it seeks out some wider passages near the surface of the earth, by which means it moves in an oblique manner, and is ready to embrace any other vapours which are arrested in the same manner; now when these are grown to a considerable body in the surface of a mountain, or a plain, and find a vent fit for them, there appears a proper fountain whose streams are still maintained by the same condensation of vapours, which when they are once come abroad are in continual motion whereby rivers are made, which are still finding a passage through the declivity of the surface of the earth, whereby they may return to the Ocean again. Now according to this account, that grand Phaenomenon of the freshness of fountain water when the water of the Sea is salt, whence it originally comes, is sufficiently resolved. For meer transcolation may by degrees take away that which the Chymists call the fixed salt; and for the Volatile salt of it (which being a more spirituous thing, is not removable by distillation, and so neither can it be by transcolation) yet such an evaporation as that mentioned, may serve to do it, because it is evident that fresh water will fall from the clouds which hath risen from those vapours which have come out of the Sea; and besides these vapours or small particles of water in their passage through the earth (especially when they come near the surface of it) do incorporate with other sweet vapours as those which come from rain and others, by which means they insensibly lose their former acidity and sharpness. But those fountains which do retain their former saltness, as there are many such in the world, may very probably … p. 551supposed not to have come from these vapours condensed, but to be a kind of a breaking of vein in which the salt water was conveyed up and down the body of the earth. Now then considering that mass of waters and multitude of vapours arising thence which are in the earth, how easie is it for us to understand what the breaking open the fountains of the deep means in Scripture, and how by that means together with the falling down of the Cataracts of the clouds, and the letting loose of the Ocean, the whole earth might be overspread with an universal deluge. The possibility of which was the thing to be shewed.

The next thing we come to concerning the flood, is, the capacity of the Ark for receiving the several animals which Sect. 7.were to propagate the world afterwards. Concerning which, two things are necessary to be understood, what the measure of the Ark was, and what the number of animals contained in it. The measure of the Ark must be determined by the proportion of the cubit, which there is no reason at all to suppose either with Origen and others to have been the Geometrical cubit, which contains six ordinary cubits or nine feet, both because we find no mention at all of any such cubit in Scripture, and because the Fabrick of the Ark would have been of too vast a proportion; Neither yet is it probable, which Sir W. Rawlegh supposeth, that this cubit must be of a proportion as much exceeding ours as the stature of a Gyant doth ours, both because there is no certain evidence, either from Scripture or reason, that the proportion of men then did generally exceed what is now; and besides this tends not in the least to make the thing more plain. For according to that proportion, we must then have imagined beasts to have been as well as men; for the horse must have been proportionably as great to have been serviceable to men of that stature, and so the Animals would have taken up as much more room in the Ark as the cubit is supposed to be bigger. I suppose then that Moses speaks of the cubit most in use in his own time, (for he writ so that they for whose use he writ might be easily able to understand him) now this cubit by the consent of writers contained a foot and a half in length; according to which proportion, p. 552supposing the Ark by Moses his description to have 300. cubits in length, 50. in breadth, and 30. in height, Gen. 6. 15.Gen 6:15the whole capacity of the Ark according to the computation of Ioh. Bute… comes to 450000. solid cubits. For the length of 300. cubts being multiplyed into the breadth of 50. Buteo de arca Noe.cubits, and the product by the height of 30. cubits makes the whole Concavity 450000. Which Matthaeus Hostus reducing to the German measure, makes the longitude of the Ark to p. 93. Ho…tus de fabrica Arcae Noab…. 66.be 31. perches, 4. cubits, 5. fingers; the latitude 5 perches, 2. cubits, and 11. fingers; the altitude 3 perches, 1. cubit, 9. fingers; allowing to every perch 15. Roman feet. So that if we take a perch to contain 10. Hebrew cubits, which exceeds the former 11. fingers, the whole capacity of the Ark will be 450. cubical perches. And as he saith, Hujusmodi sane aedificii amplitudo capacissima est, & quamlibet magno animantium numero haud dubie sufficere pot uit, the Ark of so large a capacity might easily contain the several kinds of animals in it. Which will be easily understood, if according to our former supposition, only the animals of the inhabited part of the world were preserved in the Ark; but admitting that all kinds of animals were there, there would be room enough for them and for provision for them. For which Sir W. Rawlegh gives a prudent caution, that men ought not to take animals of a mixt nature, as Mules and Hyaena's, nor such as differ in size and shape from each other, as the eat of Europe and Ownce of India, into the several species of animals. Sir W. Rawlegh following Buteo reckons 89. or least any be omitted, a 100. several kinds of beasts, and undertakes to demonstrate from a triple proportion of all beasts to the Ox, Wolf, and Sheep, that there was sufficient capacity for them in the Ark. Hostus allows 150. several kinds of animals, yet questions not the caepacity of the Ark, but these things are so particularly made out by those learned Authors, especially by Buteo, that I shall rather refer the reader for further satisfaction to the Authors themselves, then take the pains to transcribe them.

I come now therefore to the evidence of the truth and Sect. 8.certainty of this universal deluge, of which we have most clear and concurring Testimonies of most ancient Nations of p. 553the world. For which purpose Grotius and others have at V. Grot. Annot. in l. 1. deVerit. r lig Christ. Vo…. Isago. Chronolog. dissert. 4. c. 2. & 3. Bochart. Geogr sacr. l. 1. c. 4. August. de Civit. Dei. l. 18 c. 12. & ibi. Lud. Viv. Euseb. Chr. p. 5. cd. 2. Scaliger. If. Voss. epist. ad Colvium. pag. 409. Martin. hist. Sinic. l. 1. p. 12. Joh. de Lact. de orig. gent. American. l. 1. p. 115.large produced the testimony of Berosus the Chaldean out of Iosephus, concerning the flood and the Ark in which Noah was preserved, of Abydenus out of Cyrill and Eusebius concerning Xisuthrus, or Noahs sending out of the birds to see if the flood were asswaged, and of Alexander Polyhistor concerning the preservation of animals in the Ark, of Plutarch concerning the sending out of the Dove, of Lucian de D…a Syria concerning the whole story, and so of Molon and Nicolaus Damascenus. Besides it is manifested by others, how among the Chaldeans the memory of Noah was preserved under the Fable of Oannes, which had par… of a fish and part of a man, as is evident from the fragments of Apollodorus, Abydenus, and Alexander Polyhistor preserved in Eusebius his Greek Chronica; among the Chineses under the name of Puoncuus, who by them is said to have escaped alone with his Family out of the universal Deluge, saith Isaac Vossius, who supposeth Pu or Pi to be only a Prefix to the name, and so that Puoncuus is the same with foreign. Martinius tells us, de diluvio mul…a est apud Sinicos Scriptores mentio, that the ancient writers of the Sinick history speak much of the flood. Iohannes de Lact tells out of Lescharbotus how constant the tradition of the flood is among the Indians, both in new France, Peru, and other parts. This being therefore so fully attested by the evident and apparent consent of so many writers and historians, which did not own the authority of the Scriptures, I shall suppose this sufficiently proved, and proceed to the main thing which concerns the Origine of Nations, which is, the certainty of the propagation of mankind from the posterity of Noah. Of which there is this strong and convincing evidence, that in all that account which the Scripture gives of the propagation of Nations from the Sons of Noah, there is some remainder in the history of that Nation to justifie the reason of the imposition of the name from the names of the Nations themselves, which have preserved the original name of their founder in their own, as the Medes from Madai, the Thracians from Thiras, the Ionians from Iavan, the Sidonians from Sidon, the Philistins from Pelisthim, …the Arcaeans, Aradians, p. 554Elymaeans, Assyrians, Lydians, from Arki, Arrad, Elam, Gro. Annot. ad l. 1. de Verit. Ari. Montan. Phaleg. Junius in Gen. 10. Bochart. Geogr. Sacr. p. 1.Gen 10Assur and Lud, and many others produced by Grotius, Montanus, Iunius, and especially Bochartus, who with admirable industry and learning hath cleared all this part of sacred history, which concerns the reason of the imposition of the names of the people which were propagated from the posterity of Noah, and given a full & satisfactory account of the several places where the posterity of Noah seated themselves after the deluge. In stead of that therefore, I shall consider the pretences which can be brought against it, which are chiefly these three. 1. That the Chaldean Empire seems to have greater antiquity then can be attributed to it by the history of Moses. 2. That the most learned Heathen Nations pretend to be self-originated, and that they came not from any other Country. 3. That no certain account is given from whence America should be peopled.

1. The History of the Assyrian Empire seems inconsistent Sect. 9.with the propagation of the world from the sons of Noah; for the reign of Ninus and Semiramis is placed by many Chronologers within the first Century after the flood, which seems a manifest inconsistency with the propagation of mankind from the Sons of Noah; for it seems utterly impossible that the foundations of so great an Empire should be laid in so small a compass of time by the posterity of three persons; and besides Ninus and Semiramis were not the first who began the Assyrian Empire; for Belus not only raigned fifty five years before Ninus, but according to the Chaldean Antiquities from Evechous, who they say first reigned among them, are reckoned 495. years. But admit that the beginning of the Assyrian Empire be placed so low as Petavius and other Chronologers would have it, viz. in the year Petav. de doctr. temp. l. 9 c 14. Tom. 2.after the Flood, 153. yet the difficulty is only somewhat abated, but not removed; for it seems yet unconceivable that from three persons in 150. years, such multitudes should spring, as to make so large an Empire as that of Ninus, and that within an hundred years after the Flood there should be such vast multitudes for the building the tower of Babel and dispersion up and down the world, so that according p. 555to the Hebrew computation, in the compass of 300. years, viz. about Abrahams time, the world was so fully peopled, that we read of several Kings encountering one another, by which it is evident the world had been peopled sometime before, or else there could not have been such potent Kings as some of them were at that time. This being the grand difficulty, to it I answer these things.

1. There is no such certainty of the beginning of the Assyrian Empire, as for the sake of that, to question the truth of the propagation of the world by the sons of Noah. I havealready largely manifested the want of credibility in the Chronology of the ancient Chaldeans, and that we have no certain grounds to rely upon in reference to it. Especially as to those seven first Babylonian Kings, which are cited out of Africanus by Eusebius, and Georgius Syncellus, viz. Evechous, Chomasbolus, Porus, Nechubes, Abius, Oniballus, Chinzirus, who are said to reign 225. years, two moneths; and alike fabulous, I suppose, is the other Dynasty of six Arabian Kings, whose Empire is said to have stood 215. years to the time of Belus, who expelled the Arabians and took the power to himself; And it is much more agreeable to reason to reject these two Dynastyes, which have no record of them left in any History of the Assyrian Empire, but only in Berosus, whose authority in this case hath been discussed already, then to follow our late excellent Primate of Armagh, who punctually sets down the reign of the Kings of these two Dynastyes, but cuts off at least eight Ages in the time of the Assyrian Empire from Ninus to Sardanapalus, which time he confines to 496. years, and placeth Ninus in the 2737. year of the world, according to the Vsser. Annales Vet. Test. A. M. 2737.Hebrew computation, and so to live in the time of the Iudges, and be cotemporary with Deborah: Which he builds only on a place in Herodotus, which relates not to the time between Ninias and Sardanapalus, but to the time of the defection of the Mèdes from the Assyrian Empire, as Isaac Vossius hath already shewed. We cannot then finde any certainty Castigat. adv. Hornium. c. 10. Gen. 91.in the beginning of the Assyrian Empire, which may give us cause to question the propagation of the world from the posterity of Noah.

p. 5562. We have reason to think that there was a more then ordinary multiplication of the world from the sons of Noah after the Flood. For as God had before punished the world by destroying mankind in it by an extraordinary manner; so after the Flood, he doth in a particular manner bless Noah and his Sons, and said unto them, Be fruitfull and multiply, and replenish the earth, which may well be thought to have then had an extraordinary effect. Severall ways have been attempted by learned men to make appear, to what a vast number the posterity of Noah would increase in the space of two of three hundred years after the Flood. Petavius supposeth that the posterity of Noah might beget children Petav. de doctrin. temp. l. 9. c 14.at seventeen, and that each of Noahs sons might have eight children in the eighth year after the flood, and that every one of these eight might beget eight more; by this means in only one Family as of Iaph…t in the year after the Flood 238. he makes a Diagramme, consisting of almost an innumerable company of men. Iohannes Temporarius, as Usser. Chronol. Sacr. c. 5.our most learned Primate tels us, takes this way, that all of the posterity of Noah when they attained twenty years of Age had every year twins, on which supposition by Arithmetical progression, he undertakes to make it appear, that in the 102. year after the flood, there would be of males and Females 1554420, but taking away the one half, because of the groundless supposition of twins, yet then in that time there would be 388605. males besides Females. Others suppose that each of the sons of Noah had ten sons, and by that proportion, in few Generations, it would amount to many thousands within a Century. Others insist on the parallel between the multiplication of the children of Israel in Egypt; that if from 72. men in the space of 215. years there are procreated 600000. how many will be born of three men in the space of an hundred years? some have said above 23000. but with what success in their Arithmetick I shall not determine. But whether all or any of these ways Horn. desens. dissert. de aet. mundi. 6. 26.be sufficient, and satisfactory, we have yet cause to believe that there was a more then ordinary multiplication in the posterity of Noah after the flood.

3. If we embrace the account of those copies, which the p. 557Septuagint followed in their version, all this difficulty is then ceased. For that account doth very much enlarge the times, and makes almost a thousand years between the Flood and Abraham, by which means there will be sufficient space given for the propagation of mankind, the building the Tower of Babel, the dispersion of Nations, the founding the Assyrian Empire, the plantation of Egypt, China, and other places, all which seem to have been in that time, and to concur with that computation, as well as Iosephus doth, and the whole Primitive Church before Hierome, which certainly ought in no case to be disregarded.

The whole controversie concerning this part of the Chronology of the world comes at last to this, whether it be more probable that the Iews, who lived under the second Temple (who then were the Trustees to whom were committed the oracles of God) whom the LXX. followed in their version, had the true reading, or the Talmudick Iews after their dispersion and banishment from their Country, when they were discarded by God himself from being his people, when he broke up house among them at the destruction of Ierusalem and the Temple. But if the reader desire further satisfaction concerning this difference of the Chronology of the LXX. from that of the present Hebrew copyes, he may consult the learned dissertation of the late learned Bishop of Proleg. ad bibl. Polyglot. cap. 9. s. 58, 63, &c. Isaac Vossius de LXX. I…rp. & …. History of the World. p. 1. b. 2. c. 1. s…ct. 7.Chester upon the LXX. and the later discourses of Isaac Vossius on this subject. Seting a side then the controversie between the present Hebrew copyes and the LXX. in point of integrity and incorruption which I meddle not with, I cannot but subscribe to the judgement of our judicious historian, Sir W. Rawleigh: That if we look over all, and do not hastily satisfie our understanding with the first things offered, and thereby being satiated do slothfully and drowsily sit down, we shall find it more agreeable rather to follow the reckoning of the LXX. who according to some editions make it above 1072. years between the flood and Abrahams birth, then to take away any part of those 352. years given. For if we advisedly consider the state and ceuntenance of the world such as it was in Abrahams time, yea before Abraham was born, we shall find that it were very ill done of us by following opinion without the p. 558guide of reason, to pare the time over deeply between Abraham and the flood; because in cutting them too near the quick, the reputation of the whole story might perchance bleed thereby, were not the Testimony of the Scriptures supreme so as no objection can approach it; And that we did not follow withall this precept of St. Austin, that wheresoever any one place in the Scriptures may be conceived disagreeing to the whole, the same is by ignorance of misinterpretation understood. For in Abrahams time all the then known parts of the world were peopled: all regions and countryes had their Kings. Aegypt had many magnificent Cities, and so had Palestine and all bordering Countryes; yea all that part of the world be sides as far as India: and those not built with sticks, but of hewn stones, and defended with walls and rampiers, which magnificence needed a parent of more antiquity then those other men have supposed. And therefore where the Scriptures are plainest and best agreeing with reason and nature, to what end should we labour to beget doubts and scruples, or draw all things into wonders and marvails? giving also strength thereby to common cavillers, and to those mens apish brains, who only bend their wits to find impossibilities and monsters in the story of the world and mankind. Thus far that excellent Historian, whose words deserve consideration. Thus much for the first objection.

The second is, From the great pretence of several nations that they were self-originated, or came not from any other Sect. 10. 2.place. This was the pretence of the Aegyptians, Graecians, ancient inhabitants of Italy, and others. But how little reason we have to give credit to these pretences, will appear on these accounts. 1. The impossibility in nature that mankind should be produced in such a way as they imagined, which we have manifested already in our discourse of the Origine of the universe. 2. That the Nations which pretended this, were never able to give sufficient evidence of it to any other Nation which demanded it; which is manifest: by their want of any certain records of their ancient times, which is fully proved in our discourse in the first book of the want of credibility in Heathen histories. 3. The only probable reason, which induced these Nations to make themselves Aborigines, was, because they supposed themselves to p. 559be the first inhabitants of the Countryes they lived in, which although I may allow to the Aegyptians and some other ancient Nations, yet I cannot do it to the Hellens or Greeks, who most vainly and arrogantly pretended to it. Which because it may give more light into the greatest antiquities of Greece and some other Nations then hath been yet discovered or taken notice of, and because it may further tend to clear the truth of the Scriptures as to the Origine of Nations, I shall more particularly enquire into the first Plantation of Greece. That it was first inhabited by some of Noahs posterity, is out of question with all those who prefer the most ancient and undoubted records of Scripture before the fabulous impostures of mens brains. But by whose immediate posterity the Country of Greece was first inhabited, is not yet so clear as it hath been generally presumed to be, by most who had rather follow the dictates of others then spend time in such enquiries themselves: Which yet certainly are so far from being unworthy mens labour and industry, that nothing tends more clearly to advance the truth of Scripture-history, then the reconciling the antiquities of the elder Nations to what we find delivered of the plantation of the world from the posterity of Noah. As to this particular therefore of the first plantation of Greece, I shall first propound the opinion generally embraced among learned men, and then shew how far it is defective, and what other more true account may be given of it. It is evident from Moses, Gen. 10. 5. that the posterity of Iaphet took possession of the Isles of the Gentiles, i. e. according to the Hebrew Idiome, not only such as are properly so calld, but all those Countries which lay much upon the Sea, being at any distance from Palestine, especially such as lay between the Ocean and Mediterranean Sea; and so both Greece and Italy come under the name of the Isles of the Gentiles. Among the sons of Iaphet none is conceived so probable to have first peopled Greece, as he whose name was preserved among the inhabitants of Greece with very little alteration. And so as the Medes from Madai, the Assyrians from Assur, the Thracians from Thiras, by the like Analogy the Ionians from Iavan. From which it is observable that p. 560although among the Greeks themselves, the Ionians were but as one division of that people which inhabited Greece, yet other Nations comprehended all under the name of Ionians. For which we have sufficient evidence from Hesychius and the Scholiast on Aristophanes. foreign, saith Hesychius; and more to this purpose the Scholiast … … …. Schol.…Arist. Acharn…ns.speaks. foreign. For foreign with the Insertion of the Aeolick Digamma, (which is alwayes done when two vowels meet) is foreign, i. e. Iavones, and Stephanus Byhantius tells us, that from foreign comes foreign, and so Homer, Stephanus de …. v. …. Hom. l. u.foreign. And Dionysius Periegetes reckons up foreign as one of the rivers of Arcadia, foreign. Dio…u. 416.And which much confirms this opinion, the Hebrew word for Iavan before the points added by the Masorites, viz. …bears a perfect Analogy with the Greck foreign; and foreign in Scripture is taken for Greece; and so Dan. 8. 21. Alexander is calld foreign which the LXX. render foreign, and Ioel 3. 6. You have sold my sons foreign to the sons of Iavan, i. e. to the Greeks as it is generally understood. But as Iavan cannot be supposed to have come into these parts without his family, so it is generally presumed that there are no obscure footsteps left of Iavans eldest son, Elisha's seating himself in Greece. For from him Iosephus derives the name foreign, with whom the Jerusalem Paraphrast concurs. Montanus from thence derives the name Elis, from whence he supposeth the Greeks are called foreign. Ar. Montan. Phaleg. …. 24.Bochartus finds the clearest remainders of Elisha in Elis the same with Pelopponesus, one part of which by Homer is called Alisium; thence Ezek. 27. 7. we read of the purple and searlet from the Isles of Elisha, which makes it most probable to be that part of Greece w…ch lay upon the Jonian Sea, Bochart. Phal…g. l. 3. cap. 10.where the best purple next to the Tyrian was found, as the p. 561learned Bochartus hath demonstrated from several Authors. This is now the substance of the generally received account concerning the plantation of Greece from the posterity of Noah. Which if it be taken as to that people which did at length possess Greece, I see no reason to disapprove it; but if it be extended to the first plantation of Greece, I see as little to embrace it. That we may therefore judge more freely of the first inhabitants of Greece, it is requisite we take an account of it from those who prosess themselves most versed in their own Antiquities, who may in a matter of this nature which is attested by the common consent of the most learned Antiquari…s of Greece, be the more credited, in that what they thus deliver, may be supposed to come from an ancient and undoubted Tradition.

It is evident therefore, from the judgement of the most Sect. 11.learned and judicious even of the Greeks themselves, that Greece was first inhabited by a people by them called Barbarous, i. e. a people different from them in Language and manners. So Ephorus whom Poly…ius commends as the best writer of the Greek Antiquities, saith that Greece was inhabited by a barbarous people before the Hell…ns came into it. And … Mil…sius cited by Str…o concerning Pelo… ponesus, foreign, which Strabo himself not only believes of Pelopponesus but of all Greece that it was foreign, anci…ntly a Plantation of Barbarians; the same is affirmed by Aristotle writing of the Geogr. l. 7. V. cho isst. in Apollonium l. 4. v. 262.Commonwealth of the Tegeates concerning Arcadia, that before its being possessed by the Arcadians i… was inhabited by a barbarous people, who because they were expulsed their Country, before moon rising, the Arcadians called themselves foreign. Whether that be the ground of that vainglorious boast (of which many reasons are given by learned men) I here dispute not; it is sufficient that we find the Grecians were not the first who peopled any of these several places; which is likewise attested by Herodotus, Thucydides and others, whose testimonies we shall afterwards produce. It being then evident that the Grecians were not the first who inhabited that Country after from them called Greece, it follows to be inquired what this Barbarous people was and p. 562from whence they came. Strabo hath given us in a large Catalogue of the names of many of them, as the Dryopes, Caucones, Leleges, besides the Aones, Tembices, Hyantes and many others; but these seem not to have been that ancient people, but rather some latter Castlings of the Carians, who as Thucydides tells us, did very often make inroads upon the quarters of Greece. That people which had the largest spread and greatest Antiquity, was the Pelasgi: thence Pelopponesus was anciently called foreign. Stephanus Byzantius foreign and foreign: and Apollodorus saith, that the Pelopponesians were anciently called Pelasgi; and Euripides,

foreign

foreign.

And elsewhere, foreign. These Pelasgi were not only in Pelopponesus, but in Attica too, as appears by Strabo, where he saith the Nation of the Geogr. l. 9.Pelasgi did inhabit, and by the Athenians (that is after their mixture) they were called foreign Storks foreign for their frequent removals from place to place: and Pausanias mentions their being under the Acronoli at Athens: that they were in Thessaly, is evident from Hesy…hius. foreign; Arcadia seems to have th… first or chief place of their residence; for the Arcadians who were accounted foreign, do vindicate the founder of this Nation, whom they call Pelasgus to themselves, and say he was an foreign among them, that is, the fi…st who came into that Country; for all those whose original they knew not they called them Terrae filios, and genuinos terrae. In Arcad.Pausanias rightly conjectures that he was the first man among them, not as though he was alone, but because the Chief Ruler and Commander among them, and that brought them into the Country; but though they might fix p. 563themselves about Arcadia, it is evident they spread further; for Menecrates Eleates in his book of the founders of Cities, Strabo. l. 13affirms that all the Sea coasts of Greece called Ionica beginning from Mycale, were first inhabited by the Pelasgi; nay we find them yet much higher up in Epirus, who were as Strabo tells us, the first founders of the famous Oracle of Lib. 7.Dodona; for so Ephorus in him saith it was foreign, and that these were foreign: thence the Poet, foreign. And Hesiod, foreign. Strabo further makes it evident, that they were a barbarous people which lived about Dodona, from the description Homer gives of them,

foreign

foreign.

Which Philostratus best interprets when he saith they were foreign, such that thought In Imag…the Gods were best pleased with their simplicity and severity of life, and therein far different from the Grecian humour. Suidas in Thessalicis (cited likewise by Strabo) saith that the Temple of Dodona was removed from Scotusa in Pelasgia in Thessaly, which is confirmed by Herodotus in Euterpe, where he largely speaks of the Temple and Oracle at Dodona. These Pelasgi confined not themselves to Greece neither, but were dispersed into the neighbour Islands, as Chios, Creet, Lesbos, Lemnos, Imbro, Samos, as will appear afterwards; and at last came into Italy, as is well known, and are thought to be the same with Tyrrhenians, and by some conceived to be the first founders of Rome. We see what a large spread the Pelasgi had over Greece, which was divided after the Hellens began to appear, into foreign, as Herodotus p. 564witnesseth; and so these two appear to be a very different people from one another, and not the same under different names as is commonly thought.

Which sufficiently appears from their language, which was Sect. 12.quite different from one another. So Herodotus foreign, they used a barbarous language: i. e. a language not understood by the Hellens; who at first, had their chief residence in Thessaly, from whence by degrees they came forwards into Greece, as Thucydides shews. For although the name of Hellens at last spread its self over all the people of Greece, yet it was at first peculiar to that part of Thessaly called Pthiotis, and thence Homer calls them properly Hellens which followed Achilles from thence; and it appears by Homer that there was a City there called foreign, which as Stephanus de Urbibus tells us was there built by foreign, although he will not have him to be Hellen the son of Deucalion, but the son of Pthius, wherein he is mistaken; For Thucydides plainly shews that it was from Hellen the son of Deucalion that the name foreign came, and this Hellen lived in Pthiotis. But although they were first in Pthiotis, yet they dayly increasing in numbers and power, by degrees they got all Thessaly into their hands, of which one part was called foreign; afterwards under Dorus the son of Hellen they conquered Hestiaectis, that part of Thessaly which lyes under the mountains Ossa and Olympus; from thence they were beaten back by the Cadmeans into Pindus, where the Greeks were first called foreign, as Herodotus tells us; from hence they went into Dryopis, and thence into Pelopponesus, and there had the name Dorians; but before their coming hither, they had first secured themselves of Hellens lying between Thessaly and Pelopponesus, and there they dispossest the Pelasgi in all the Attickregion; who were now forced to submit or to fly; they who submitted, as most of them did, were incorporated into the Greeks, and became one people with them, and so by degrees lost that former language which was peculiar to themselves and wholly distinct from the Greek tongue. That the Hellens did thus gradually come into Pelopponesus, is evident from the names of people and placts common to Thessaly and Pelopponesus p. 565which came from hence, that though the Greeks left the Cities behind them, yet they carryed most of the names along with them. Thus the Achaei, Ionians, and Aeolians, and Dorians in Pelopponesus came from those of the same names in Thessaly; and so likewise the names of these following regions and Cities were common to both, as Ellopia, Estiaea, Eretria, and Oropos, Graia, Larissa, Psophis, Iton, Occalia and very many others Salmasius seems to be of opinion, that the Pelasgi never used any language distinct De Hellen. p. 315.from the Hellens; but besides that it is directly contrary to the testimony of Herodotus, the arguments he produeeth for it are very weak. The first is because the Pelasgi that went into Italy, did use the Greek tongue, from their calling Agylla Caere, from foreign a word pronounced from one on the walls; and because the Arcades used only the Greek language in the Aeolian Dialect, which Evander carryed with him into Italy, and from which most of the old Roman language was derived. But doth not Herodotus expresly say, that after the mixture between the Greeks and Pelasgi these by degrees lost their own proper language and made use of the common Greek tongue? Yet afterwards too it is evident from Herodotus in some places, as at Crotona, they did use a language different from the Greek. His other argument is, that the names of the eldest persons mentioned were originally Greek; but this is expresly denyed by Strabo who makes the contrary one of his strongest arguments, that the Barbarians did anciently inhabit Greece; and instanceth in Cecrops, Codrus, Aeoius, Cothus, Drymas, Crimanus. Thus we have abundantly proved against the common opinion, that Greece was not first peopled by the Hellens, or the posterity of Elisa, although these did afterwards come to the full possession of Greece.

It remains that we shew whence these Pelasgi came, and of whose posterity they were, and what the language was Sect. 13.which was used by them. He that gave the name to this people according to the Grecian fables, was one Pelasgus, which none will wonder at among them, whose constant custom it was, (partly by reason of their Ignorance of the true account of their names, and partly by their pride that p. 566they might not seem ignorant of any thing) when they meet with any names of people to find out some person near it who was the founder of them. Thus Artica from Actaeus, it being anciently called foreign, and Cranae from Cranaus, Aegialea from Aegialeus, Mauritania from Maurus, S…ythia from one S…ythes, Galataea from Galates, and thus in multitudes of other names. But from the name Pelasgi we may probably find out the true founder of the people, allowing that variation which is usually caused through the Greeks melting the harsher words of the Eastern languages into a sound fit …or their more delicate palats, as is evident in the comparing the names of the Prophets in Ebrew, with what they are in the Greek version. Thus the Pelasgi may with great probability be derived from foreign Pheleg; for which we have the concurrent testimony of two learned persons, Grotius and Salmasius, who are contented to mention it, without bringing much evidence of reason for it. What they Grot. not. in lib. 1. de jur. b…l. &c. cap. 3. Sal…de Hellen.only touch at, we shall endeavour to make out more at large; which we shall do by removing the great presumptions against it, and laying down the probabilities for it. The great presumptions lying against it are; for that the Isles of the Nations tell to the posterity of Iapheth, and that Phaleg lived with Eber in Chaldea. For the first, it must be acknowledged that the greatest part of the Countries lying upon the Ocean and Mediterrancan, were in the time when Moses wrote so inhabited; not that the habitations of the sons of Noah had their bounds and limits set them either by God or Noah, but that the posterity of Iaphet did chiefly address themselves to those parts which lay towards Europe; but yet not so, as to exclude any of the posterity of Sem, if their necessities for further room made it necessary for them to seek for habitations further abroad. For we can have no reason to think, that because the chief of Sems posterity did live together, therefore none of them went further off, which necessity would put them upon because of their great increase; for we read of Phaleg and others, that besides those in a direct line to Abraham (whose Genealogy it was Moses his great design to recount) they begat many other sons and daughters, which would make it necessary for p. 567Gen. 11. 19, 21.Gen 11:19Gen 11:21them, to seek their habitations further abroad. And that Phaleg and Ragan did so, we have the express testimony of Epiphanius, foreign. D… Seyth…s. ep. ad. …. & ….That from the age of Therah and then…e forward Ph…leg and Ragau diverted toward the Clime of Europe, to part of Scythia, and were joyned with those Nations from whi… the Thracians arose. Several things make this not so improbable as some have imagined it to be; for first, it is the constant acknowledgement of all sober inquirers into the original of the Greeks, that Greece was first peopled from Scythia, and indeed almost all the N…tions in Europe have come out of that Country: besides there is evidence of it, even in the Gr…cian Fables; for Prometheus (from whom the Greeks derived themselves) is fan…yed by them to lie bound in mount Cancasus, which must be suppos…d to be the Country from whence he came. Again it is evident already that the Hellens came not into Greece before it was peopled by the Pelasgi, and that these had different language and customs from one another; now then in all probability, although the posterity of Elisa might come first down from Scythia into those parts and seat themselves in Macedonia and Th…ssaly, where they had in probability more then room enough at first and a Country to their desire; they might be willing to permit the posterity of Phaleg to pass on further; for in those first plantations we cannot otherwise conceive, but that the last comers must be the furthest goers; unless they had strength enough to drive the former inhabitants out of their seats whereof they were already possessed, as the Scythians did afterwards, and so the H…llens; So then the posterity of Phaleg being forced to quit their own Country because of the multitude of inhabitants, must be supposed to take that course, where in probability they might find an empty seat fit for them to dwell in; thence they come towards Europe; for they saw how the posterity of Sem did spread it self Eastward already, and Cham Southward, and coming to part of, that vast Country of Soythia, which was both already taken up and not so convenient p. 568an habitation for them, they draw downwards towards Thracia, and there the po…erity of Thiras from whom the Thracians came had already possessed themselves; passing further into Thessaly, they find that already planted by some of the posterity of Elisa, but as yet but scant and thin of inhabitants; therefore they disperse themselves up and down through some part of Epirus, most part of Ellas, and some pass into Peloppon…sus, where they six themselves chiefly upon Arcadia, and thence spread up and down by degrees towards the Sea-side; for we cannot but think that the Maritime parts were the last peopled, partly for fear of another d…luge, partly for want of conveniency of Navigation most of their travels being by Land; and partly when Navigation grew more in use for fear of Pirates, who drove a great trade upon the Coasts of Greece in elder times, as is most evident from Thucydides in the beginning of his history. Thus we have a reasonable account given of the P…lasgi their first coming into Greece, and how by degrees the Hellens came to possess their Country, and what a fair pretence the Arcadians had to boast of the greatest antiquity, their Country being probably first peopled by the Pelasgi of any part of the whole Chersonese, and the seat of the leader of the whole company whom they call Pelasgus and the Scriptures Phaleg.

Having thus far cleared the Antiquities of Grecce as to the first planters of it, whom we have evidenced to have been Sect. 14.the Pelasgi, and these derived from Peleg, it will be no great difficulty to resolve what language they brought along with them, which must be supposed to be the same with that used in the family from whence Peleg or Phaleg came, as to the substance of it, although it might admit as great variation of Dialact from it as the Chaldee or Syriack doth. But this I will not only suppose, but offer these probabilities for the proof of it, the first is, the agreement of the ancient Greek language with the Hebrew in many of its primitive words; and here we have a most rational and probable account given of it; which is the Greeks mixing with the Pelasgi, and both coming to be one people, they must needs retain many of the old words used by the Pelasgi in their p. 569Greek language; which are evidently of an Eastern extraction, the ground of which cannot with such probability be fetched from Cadmus and the Phoenicians, because it is not so easie admission of a forraign Language after the perfection of their own, unless by long tract of time, or great numbers overrunning the former people, neither of which can be so truly affirmed of Cadmus and his company; for they were soon driven out of Greece, he himself ending his dayes in Illyricum; neither was their spread so large as that of the Pelasgi, who were before possessors of the Countrey; and it is continually seen how impossible it is for any Conquerors, as the Greeks were, to bring their own language so into a place, where some of the former people are suffered to live, and not to retain many of their old words among them, and so make the Language mixt of both, as it is in all Nations conquerd by the Romans; the Roman not being purely spoken by any, but corrupted with a mixture of the sormer Language in use among them. The second Argument is from the different pronunciation and dialects in use in the Greek Language; of which no account so likely can be given, as the mixture with different Language. This is most evident in the Dorick Dialect; for the Dorians inhabiting probably where most of the Pelasgi had been, their pronunciation and dialect comes the nearest to the Eastern of any of the Greeks: For in the Dorick dialect the foreign; or broad pronunciation, is most taken notice of: So he in Theocritus upbraids the Dorians, foreign, they speake every thing very broad; which answers to the pronunciation of the Eastern Languages; besides, the Dorick dialect delights much in adding a to the end of words, which besides that it is the custom of Eastern tongues, especially the Syriack, it doth much widen the pronunciation. The third Argument is from the remainders of the Eastern tongues in those places, especially where the Pelasgi had been. The Pelasgi are much taken notice of for their frequent removes and travelling from one place to another; which I suppose was chiefly after the Hellens had conquerd the Countrey where they dwelt, then they were forced to go seek better habitations abroad; thence Strabo calls th… p. 570Nation of the Pelasgi foreign: Lib. 5.and elsewhere that they were foreign, they went up and down to great part of Europe; Lib. 12.but we may suppose them to have made their first and chief resort to the neighbour Islands to Greece; where we shall see what evidence they left of their language there. The first Island we meet with them in, is Crecte; so Strabo speaking of them, foreign; that a Colony of them lived in Creete, for which he vouchsafeth Lib. 5.Homers authority:

foreign,O…ly …. 175.

foreign,

foreign.

It is evident then that the Pelasgi were in Creete. Now most of the Cretan words are of an Eastern extraction, if we believe the learned Bochartus, who hath promised a discourse on that subject; besides Creete we find the P…lasgi in De Phoen. Col. l. 1. c. 15.Chios, foreign, saith Strabo, the inhabitants of Chios say that the Pelasgi of Thessaly were their first inhabitants; and here the forenamed learned person hath derived the name Chios, the mountain Pelinaeus, and the wine Arvisium, all from the Eastern languages. The next we find them in, is Lesbos, foreign, Lib. 1. c. 9.which from them was called Pelasgia, saith Strabo, whose name is likewise fetched out of the East. By Bochartus further we find them in Lemnos and Geogr. p. 2. l. 1. c. 12.Imbros; so Anticlides in Strabo, foreign; concerning whose names, see Bochartus 82. I know that learned Author makes the Phoenicians the Authors of all these names, from no other ground generally, but because they are of an Eastern derivation; but according to what we have laid down, we may yield to the thing it self, and upon clearer grounds; for of some of these Islands he ingenuously confesseth he can find no evidence of the Phoenicians being in them Phoenices in his Insulis habitasse nusquam legimus; but we find it very plain, that in Lib. 1. c. 9.those very Islands the Pel…sgi inhabited; and whether account p. 571then be more probable, let the Reader judge. One thing more I shall insist on, which is the original of the Samothracian Mysteries: That these were as to their names from the Eastern languages, is now acknowledged by all learned men, the Cabiri being so evidently derived from foreign which signisies strength and power, i. e. the Dii potes, so Cabiri is explained by Varro and Tertullian, and the particular De spect. c. 8.names of the several Cabiri mentioned by the Scholiast on Apollonius, foreign and foreign, are very handsomly explained by that learned and excellent Lib. 1. c. 12.Bochartus from the Eastern languages; only he will needs have them derived from the Phoenicians, whereas Herodotus expresly tells us that they were from the P…lasgi, whose words are these; foreign: And again, Lib. 2.foreign. We see evidently by this, that the Samothracians derived their Mysteries from the Pelasgi; and without all question they had their names from thence, whence they derived their Mysteries: And to this purpose it is further observable, that as the old Hetrurians were certainly a Colony of the Pelasgi, upon their removal out of Greece; so Vossius observs that the old Hetruscan language (ferè … Syris habet cuncta sacrorum nomina) hath almost all the sacred appellations De Idol. l. 2. c. 57. A…not. in Mat. 12. 1.Matt 12:1from the Eastern Tongues. For which purpo…e it is further observable, which Grotius takes notice of, that the jus pontisicum Romanorum was take… …great part from the Hetrusci, & the Hetrurians had it ab H…braeis out of the Eastern parts.

By all which I cannot conceive but this opinion, notwithstanding its novelty, is advanced to as high a degree of Sect. 15.probability, as any that stands on the like foundations; and not only so, but is an excellent clue to direct us to the Labyrinth of Antiquities, and gives us a fair account whence the Eastern Tongues came to be so much used among both the ancient Greeks and Hetrurians. One thing more this will help us to understand far better then any salvo hath been yet used for it; which is the affinity spoken of by Ari…s King of Lacedaemon, in his Letters to Onias, between the p. 572Iewes and Lacedaemonians: foreign: which 1 Machab. 12 21. Antiq. l. 13. c. 9.is explained by Iosephus thus: foreign: They had found in a book that the Jewes and Lacedemonians were of the same stock, from their mutual relation to Abraham. Vossius thinks the Original of this was from those of the posterity of Anak, who came into Greece, and peopled Sparta, and would seem to have been of the posterity De Idol. l. 1. c. 13.of Abraham; or that they were partly of the posterity of Abraham by Agar or Cethura, and partly of the Canaanites driven out by Ioshua: But how unlikely a thing is it (supposing Sparta peopled by the Canaanites, which yet is not evident) that they should give out themselves to be of that stock which they had been expelled their Country by? And for the true posterity of Abraham coming thither, as we have no ground for it but the bare assertion, so we have this strong evidence against it, that all that came from Abraham were cirucumcised, as the Ishmaelites, Hagarens, &c. which we never read of among the Lacedaemonians. H. Grotius differs not much from the opinion of Vossius concerning the ground of this kindred between the Iewes and Spartans: For in his notes on that place in the Maccabees, where it is spoken of, he gives this account of it. The Dorians, of whom the Spartans were a part, came from the Pelasgi; the language of the Pelasgi was different from that of the Greeks, as appears by Herodotus in his Clio: foreign. Now the Pelasgi (saith he) are foreign dispersi, a scatterd Nation; thence he supposeth these Pelasgi, or banished people, to have come from the Confines of Arabia and Syria, in which the posterity of Abraham and Cethura had placed themselves. But 1. it is uncertain whether the posterity of Abraham by Keturah were placed so near Canaan or no. I know Iunius endeavours to find the seat of all the sons of Cethurab in Arabia; but Mercer gives several not improbable reasons why he conceives them placed not in the East of Canaan, but in the Eastern parts of the world. 2. We have no evidence at all of any remove of these sons of Abraham by Ceturah out of the p. 573parts of Arabia, supposing them placed there; nor any reason why they should be banished thence. 3. That which was the badge of Abrahams posterity, was never that we read of in use among the Spartans, which was Circumcision. Indeed in much later Ages then this we speak of, we read of a people among the Thracians who were circumcised, whom the Greeks themselves judged to be Iewes. So Aristophanes brings the Odomantes in. foreign Achar…ens. Act. 1. sc. 4Acts 1(saith the Scholiast) i. e. foreign. Whereby it is plain that Circumcision was in use among the Thracians; for these Odomantes were (saith the Scholiast) a people of Thrace. foreign. It seems it was a tradition among them that they were Iewes. If so, it seems most probable that they were some of the ten Tribes, who were placed about Colchis, and the adjacent places: For Herodotus in Euterpe saith, that the Syrians that lived about the Rivers Thermodon and Parthenius, learned Circumcision from the Colchi, of whom he saith, foreign. Only the Colchi, and Aegyptians, and Ae…hiopians had originally the custome of Circumcision. Or else these O…omantes might be some of the dispersed Iewes in Armenia, where Strabo mentions a Region called Odomantis, and so they Geogr. l. 11.retained the name of the place from whence they came, after their removal into Thrace. But what ever these Odomantes were, they were far enough from the Spartans, who never were thus suspected of Iudaism, nor laught at for Circumcision. So that this opinion of Grotius on that account seems not very probable. Bochartus, who hath been so happy in many other conjectures, yet here gives out, unless it may depend upon the testimony of Claudius Iolaus in Stephanus De Phoeni…. Col. l. 1. c. 22.Bizantius, who fabulously derives the Iews from one Iudaeus Sparton, who went from Thebes along with Bacchus into the Wars; which Sparton they might confound with another Sparton the Son of Phoroneus, the Founder of Sparta; which yet is rejected as a Fable by Pausanias in Laconi…is. Surely the Lacedaemonians were very ambitious of kindred with the Iewes, that would claim it upon such p. 574grounds as these, especially at such a time when the people of the Iewes were undet distress, and their kindred might be like to cost them so dear: And if they had never such a mind to have claimed kindred with the Iewes, they would certainly have done it upon a more plausible testimony then the fable of one Claudius Iolaus, that had neither sense nor r…ason in it; and yet supposing his Fable true, it had been nothing to the purpose, without the linking another F…ble to it, which was so gross, that even the Greeks themselves were ashamed of it, who were always the most daring forgers of Fables in the world. But let us see further what the Divine (as some have loved to call him) Ios. Scaliger saith to it: All Canon. 1. sag. p. 332.that he saith, is only a wonder or two at it: Quid mag is mirum quàm Iacedaemonios ab Abraham prognatos …sse, &c. and a refutation of an absurd opinion, that Oebalus the Father of Tyndareus, and Grandfather of Castor, Pollux, and Helen…, was the same with Ebal, mentiond Gen. 10. 28. which there can be no reason for, since Ebal was the Son of Ioctan, and so of another race from Abraham; and Ioctans Sons were placed Eastward, but chiefly Oebalus was within an hundred years before the destruction of Troy; but Phaleg, Unkle to Ebal, died 664 years before Oebalus in A. M. 1993. Thus far then we cannot find any plausible account of this claim of kindred; but though it be an endless task to make good all the claims of kindred in the world, especially to persons of power and authority, yet there being no visible interest or design which the Spartans could have in such a claim, especially at that time with a Nation generally hated and maligned by Heathen Idolaters, we cannot suppose but there must be some at least plausible ground for such a perswasion among them. What if we should conjecture that the Spartans might find in the Greck version of the Pentateuch, which was much spread abroad at that time among the Sons of Ishma…l, one whose name makes the nearest approach to their Cadmus, from whom they suppose themselves derived: for the youngest of Ishma…l sons was called K…demah, Gen. 25. 15 which the Syriack renders Kedem, the very name of Cadmus in the Eastern Tongues. But this being a light conjecture, I pass it by, and return p. 575to the subject of our discourse, which gives a plausible account of the ground of this kindred. We have already shewed that the Pelasgi were the …irst who peopled Greece (foreign, is Strabo's expression of that Nation, that it spread over all Greece) and withall it appears that the chief Seat of the Pelasgi was in Arcadia, to which next adjoyns Laconica; and therefore in all probability was peopled by them; and besides, the Dorians sprang from the Pelasgi, and the Spartans were a part of the Dorians, as appears already out of Grotius; so that what kindred the Pelasgi had, was derived down to the Spartans; and we have manifested that these Pelasgi were from Phaleg, and the Scripture tells us that Phaleg was the son of Gen. 11. … 17, 28.Gen 11:17Gen 11:28Eber, from whom Abraham came in a direct and lineal succession. And thus the Iewes coming from Abraham, and the Spartans by the Pelasgi from Phaleg, they both came out of the same stock: For so I…sephus expresseth it, not that the Lacedaemonians came from Abraham, but that the Iewes and they were both foreign, out of the same stock; and both had relation to Abraham; the Iewes as coming in a direct line, the Spartans as deriving from Phal…g, from whom Abraham came. And thus much may now…cle…r the first Plantation of Greece, and to shew how consonant it is to sacred Scripture; which I have taken the more pains in, because of the serviceableness of this discourse to that end, and to shew what use may be made of this kind of Learning, for vindicating the honour of the sacred Scriptures.

The only thing remaining as to the Origine of Nations, is the peopling of that vast Continent of America, which I cannot think we have yet sufficient in…ormation, either concerning the passages thither, especially East and North, or concerning any records the Indians have among themselves absolutely to determine any thing in it. It seems most probable that the several parts of it were peopled at several times, and from several parts, especially North and East; but to go about absolutely to determine from what Nation, in what Age, by what means they were first peopled, were a piece of as great confidence as ignorance, till we have p. 576more certain discoveries of it. I choose therefore rather to refer the Reader to the bandyings of this Controversie in the Vi Grotium Joh. de La…, Horn. de Orig. Gent. American. V. Manass… Be… Israel. Spes Israelis. Et Spizzel. dc Israeli…is America…is.many Writers about it, then to undertake any thing as to the decision of it. Only in the general it appears from the remaining tradition of the Flood, and many Rites and Customes used among them, that they had the same original with us, and that there can be no argument brought against it from themselves, since some Authors tell us, that the eldest Accounts and Memoires they have, do not exceed 800. years backward; and therefore their Testimony can be of no validity in a matter of so great Antiquity, as the Origine of N…tions is.