CHAP. I.
The Opinion of Junius concerning the place of Paradise proposed.

THE Opinion of Junius concerning the place of Pa­radise (which is almost ge­nerally followed by all In­terpreters since his time, not Protestants only, (both Lutherans and Calvinists) but even the most ingenuous and learned Papists) is, that it was situated in Chaldaea, in the Re­gion which Ptolemy calleth Auranitis, which he supposeth by the change of a let­ter to have been corrupted from Audanitis or Edenitis. The River watering it he takes to be the main stream of Euphrates, [Page 2] which toward the end of his course divideth it self into four branches. The first to­wards the West, which divideth betwixt Chaldaea and Arabia the desert (which Mose's calleth the land of Cush, or, as we (with o­thers) Aethiopia) is that which Ptolemy calleth Baar-sares, Strabo Maar-sares, Am­mianus more corruptly Marsias, Abydenus [...], because it emptieth it self into certain Fens abounding with Frogs, which the Chaldaeans call Akrukan: and this he sup­poseth to be that which Moses calleth Gi­hon, the signification of their names so well agreeing, which in both is as much as Alve­us, foss atúmve deductum atque distractum. The second branch is that which runneth through Babylon and Otris, and is by Am­mianus [...] called Euphrates, and therefore without straining supposed to be Moses's [...] The third is that which Pliny saith the Assyrians commonly cal­led Armalchar, Ammianus (more truely) Nahar-malca, Abydenus by a Metathesis [...], and is the very same put into Greek which Ptolemy calleth [...]. This he conceiveth to be Pishon, which breaking from the main stream at a Town (taking name therefrom) called by Ammianus Macepracta (or, as he would [Page 3] have it read, Maja-prakta) by Pliny Massice, and running into the River Tigris at Apa­mea, not onely mingleth his water, but his name with it, which from thenceforth is called Pasitigris, or Pisotigris, and entring the Persian Gulph at Teredon, watereth by the way the whole Region of Havila, where there is Gold, Bdellium, and the Onyx-stone; that is (as he expoundeth it) the Country of Susiana, where all those precious things are to be found. The fourth and last branch, called by Moses Hiddekel, he supposeth to be that Rivolet mentioned (but without name) by Ammianus, which being drawn out of Nahar-malca, emptieth it self into Tigris at Seleucia and Ctesiphon,, and so runneth Eastward toward Assyria, as he rendreth Moses words, Gen. 2. 14. These four Heads, all drawn from the same River, suiting so handsomely with the description of Moses, besides the incredible fruitfulness of the Eastern part of this Region, (where he conceiveth the very Garden-spot to have been) so highly extolled by divers Authors of good credit, work over the exact judg­ment of this learned man to so firm a be­lief that this was the very place created by God for the habitation of our first Parents, that he doubteth not to conclude his exact [Page 4] and elaborate Discourse with this confi­dent close, Atque hic quidem Hedenis situs, qui meâ sententiâ tam manifestus est, & documentis certis confirmatus, ut à nemi­ne in dubium vocari possit. Comment. in Gen. c. 2.

CHAP. II.
Junius his Opinion examined, and the weakness of the Conjecture from the name Auranitis manifested.

BUT (by the leave of so worthy a man) though a great verisimilitude present it self in this Description at the first sight, yet being more narrowly examined, so many Scruples arise to counter-sway our belief as may justly retard our assent, and suggest very great causes of doubting. For, 1. what he bringeth from the name of the Region Aur anitis for Audenitis or Edeni­tis, by mistaking ρ for δ, this is but gratis dictum, and a Conjecture (for I think he esteemed it no more) of no great probabili­ty: for though errors in transcriptions be ve­ry common, (in which regard Conjectures sometimes become very useful)

[Page 5] yet this doth not appear to have any solid ground, because ρ and δ are literae contrarii ductûs, the one drawn downward, the other upward; which kind of mistakes as they are not so easie, so neither are they so usual. Besides, the name of this Region is diversly delivered out of Ptolemy, none of which much favoureth this Conjecture. Ortelius in his Nomenclator Ptolemaicus calleth it Auramitis, Maginus's Edition of Ptolemy hath it Auchanitis; and I should suppose (for we are but upon conjectures) that this should come nearest the true rea­ding, the depressed draught of the upper part of [...] (frequent in Manuscripts) being mista­ken for a ligature with the following ι, i. e. [...] for VI, and so the true name might hap­ly be Auchaditis, or Achaditis, from the City Accad, one of the first four which Nimrod built in this Province, the Land of Shinar, Gen. 10. which ancient name might still continue to the Region, though the City it self changed its name (yet a name (as I suppose) either of the same or equivalent signification in the Chaldee tongue.) Hieronym. Trad. Heb. in Gen. Achad, quae nunc dicitur Nisibis. Idem de loc. Heb. Achad urbs regni Nimrod in Babylone. Porrò Hebraei hanc esse dicunt [Page 6] Mesopotamiae civitatem, quae hodie quoque vocatur Nisibi, à Lucullo quondam Romano Consule obsessam captámque, & ante pau­cos annos à Joviniano Imperatore Persis traditam. But I cannot assent to S. Hi­erom's Rabbies, that Achad built by Nim­rod was Nisibis under Mount Masius in Mesopotamia, for that is out of the Vierge of the Land of Shinar; but another in Chaldaea upon the River Euphrates, divers times mentioned by Josephus, especially Antiq. lib. 18. c. ult. circa initium. Near­dea dicitur urbs Babyloniae, frequens po­pulo, & agro fertili, qui tantam multitudi­nem possit alere: ad haec non patet hostium assultibus, cincta fluentis Euphratis & fir­missimis moenibus. Eidem flumini est & Nisibis apposita: and again, circa finem ejusdem cap. Plerique (Judaeorum) in Ne­ardam & Nisibin se receperunt, securitatem suam reponentes in earum munitionibus, quae alioquin etiam habitantur à viris bel­licocissimis; for it was a Frontier-town and a Garison, as the name imports. Jun. in Gen. c. 10. v. 10. But this we are content shall pass for a surmize onely, not an asser­tion, as intending here no more but to op­pose one Conjecture against another.

CHAP. III.
A second Inconvenience of Junius his Account, as not suiting with Moses's description of the Rise of the River of Paradise.

2. A More considerable Doubt ariseth from the River, which Moses affir­meth to take its spring out of Eden, and having watered the Garden with one entire channel, [...] ab inde, after that it divideth it self into four Heads. Thus much Lam­bert. Danaeus in Antiq. diligently weigh­ing the Text of Moses hath judiciously ob­served; to whom Alstedius (though a pre­cise follower of Junius's Topography) doth assent. His words are these, Encyclop. l. 20. Historic. c. 11. Rectè igitur Lam­bertus Danaeus in Antiquitatibus ait, quatuor illa flumina fuisse unius & ejusdem aquae sive fluvii ex Edene regione nascentis divortia seu brachia; Et addit, Fontem istum & fluvium ex eo emanantem in Ede­ne regione, antequam se in divortia illa quatuor diduceret, Hortum illum terrestrem irrigâsse, & quidem totum adhuc & non divisum: postquam autem totum Hortum [Page 8] irrigaverat, tunc se infra Hortum in quatuor ista flumina divisisse. How this can agree with the Description of Junius, I see not; for, in his opinion, the Garden of Eden was placed in the utmost corner of Chaldaea, in an Island made by Nahar-malca and Tigris. These are his words. Fuit igitur Hedenis hortus, non in ea parte He­denis quae cis Babylonem est, sed in ori­entali parte trans Babylonem situs secun­dum Basilium & Tigrim fluvium, ubi fer­tilissimus est totius Orientis ager. But Euphrates ere it attain thus far hath spent all its divisions, being it self ready to be swallowed up of Tigris, who here inter­cepts a great part of his waters, and carri­eth them with him into the Persian Gulf, leaving him no further place for after-divi­sions: which that he (or at least his follow­er Alstedius) wh ohath transcribed and ap­proved the observation of Danaeus, should not take notice of, might well be wondred at, if a second error (or slumber rather) no less strange did not at the same time equal­ly possess them both, about the Head of this River, which Moses plainly affirmeth to have its rise in Eden, and having wa­tered the Garden, afterward to divide it self. Now Geographers commonly place [Page 9] the Head of Euphrates in the Northern part of Armenia major, where at its first rise it is called Pyxirates say Strabo and Pliny, or rather (as Junius himself corrects them) Puc-perath, i. e. profusio Euphratis, from which place to the nearest part of Auranitis in Babylonia is above 7 de­grees distance, which make up 400 miles and above: all which space of ground ha­ving coursed through with a large circle, he is so far from meeting any Paradise, when entring Babylonia he is about to divide his Channels, (as according to Moses's descripti­on he ought) that contrariwise he hasteneth through as unfruitful a piece of ground as any on the face of the Earth, having Ara­bia Deserta on the right hand, and the no less barren Deserts of Mesopotamia on the left, as by experience they have found who have led Armies that way; witness Xenophon in the Expedition of Cyrus, Ammianus and Zosimus in the Expedition of Julian, &c. Junius may seem to have had some fore­sight of this Objection as ready to incoun­ter him, and therefore in favour of his opini­on he translates [...] in Gen. 2. 10. not exit (though he ingenuously confess that is the proper importance of the Hebrew word) but procedit, as willing to perswade us that [Page 10] Moses did not mean, that the River had its spring in Eden, (for that he knew and con­fesseth to be altogether irreconcileable with his description) but onely that it did pro­ceed or pass through it: Therefore he gi­veth us this Note; Non oritur quidem (nam Euphratis ortus in Caranitide Armeniae major is Praefectura est, ubi Puc-perath, id est, profusio Euphratis appellatur, non autem Pyxirates, ut legitur apud Strabonem, & Plinium libro quinto Natur. histor. cap. vi­gesimo quarto,) sub radicibus montis quem Capoten incolae nominant, sed delapsus per varios anfractus Hedenem usque procedit quatuor alveis sive capitibus, ut deinceps ostenditur. Quamobrem procedit potiùs quàm exit maluimus interpretari causâ evi­dentiae. But doubtless the Text would have been more clear if he had translated it faithfully as he found it, and not plaied the Paraphrast in stead of the Interpreter, especially in the very body of the Text. No man knew better then Junius, that the proper signification of [...] is to issue forth, as children in the birth doe out of the wombs of their mothers, whereunto (in re­gard of that proluvies, quam simul cum foetu profundere solet puerpera) God himself compareth the first issuing forth of the Sea [Page 11] at its creation, Job 38. 8. And if the native propriety of the word in this place be not sufficient to evince it, the preposition [...] following in [...] puts it out of doubt; for the proper use of that particle is to denote motum à loco, not per locum, or ad locum; nor doth the holy Ghost, when he would signifie the decourse of a River by, through, or to a place, express it by [...], but by [...], as Ezra 8. 15. True, our learned Country-man Mr. Fuller hath Miscel. l. 1. c. 4. observed 2 (and but onely 2) places in the old Testament, where [...] may seem to de­note terminum ad quem, viz. Gen. 13. 11. and 2 Sam. 6. 2. But seeing the circum­stances of the place seem to require it in the one, and an express character in the He­brew text in a parallel place 1 Chron. 13. 6. doth warrant it in the other, lest any should wrest this improper use to the prejudice of the undoubted signification of this par­ticle in other places, he subjoyns this Cau­tion: Rarus est hic usus particulae istius in Hebraea quidem lingua, in Arabica verò frequens, &c. And strange it is, that Junius having in the Text changed exit into pro­cedit, should not also have changed ex into usque; for what unprejudicate Rea­der taking his Text without his gloss, [Page 12] Fluvius autem procedit ex Hedene, but would from the obvious importance of the words collect, that the original of this Ri­ver was in Eden? certainly, exit ex can import nothing else.

CHAP. IV.
An examination of the four Channels men­tioned by Junius, and first of the upper Stream of Nahar-malca.

3. AS the main Stream is not able to wash it self from all Doubts, so neither the Channels; which are like to meet with such obstructions, as may endanger to turn them quite out of Paradise. For not to question the number of the Rivers, (though undoubtedly Euphrates had more drainings; Those flumina) Babyloniae, Psal. 137. 1. where the Captive Israelites sat, were (perhaps) none of these, especially if the testimony of Alexander Polyhistor be true, apud Euseb. Praep. Evang. l. 9. c. ult. Temporibus, inquit, Joachin, Hieremias prophetavit, qui missus à Deo, cùm Judaeos aureo simulachro, cui nomen er at Baal, sa­crificantes reperisset, futuram eis propter hoc calam it atem praedixit; unde Joachin vi­vum [Page 13] jussit cremari. Illum autem dixisse, Fo­veas ipsos à Rege Assyriorum captos juxta Tigridem atque Euphratem eisdem lignis facturos. The River Sud, Baruch 1. 4. the River Chebar, so often mentioned in Ezechiel's Visions, whether they were any of these four, and which of them, or rather none of them, I know not. Ammianus himself, quoted by Junius, tells us that one of these Rivers (viz. that which runs through Babylon) was subdivided into o­ther three, all navigable. Perfluunt has eas­dem terras, potiores ante alios omnes ij quos praediximus, & Marsias, & Flumen regi­um, & Euphrates cunctis excellens: qui tripartitus per omnes rivos navigabilis est, insulásque circumfluens, & arva cultorum industriâ diligentiùs rigans, vomeri & ar­bustis gignendis habilia facit. But because many Authors of good credit have agreed upon this number of four, especially Xeno­phon (though he mis-call Euphrates by the name of Tigris) and Geograph. Nub. who gives an exact account of them all; there­fore (with thanks to Junius for his accu­rate pains in opening to us the Chorogra­phy of this Region) we subscribe to this par­tition, as containing (though not all, yet) the most remarkable branches of Eu­phrates: [Page 14] but to accept them as the four Heads of the River of Paradise, we cannot; for a main prejudice lieth against most of them, that they are of a later date then to reach the antiquity of that place, yea some of them fall short of the age of Moses. Thus much the Authors themselves alleadged by Junius clearly testifie, acknowledging them to have been manufactitious, and drawn out of the main Stream by the in­dustry of men. To insist a little upon the particulars ordine retrogrado. The upper Stream of Nahar-malca, which falleth at Seleucia into Tigris, and from it (as Junius supposeth) borroweth the name of Hiddekel, is so inconsiderable a Rivolet, that ancient Geographers (ta­king it onely for an Aquaeduct, as in­deed it was no more) have made no mention of it among the branches of Eu­phrates, and therefore assigned that Eastern Island (where he imagineth the Garden to have been) to Mesopotamia, not to Babylo­nia. His own words are these. Chiddekel, Hededis à Septentrione terminus, propriè quidem significat Tigrin; hic autem sy­necdochicè denotat superiorem Nahar-malcae vel Basilii alveum, qui supra Seleu­ciam influit in Tigrin, & nomen ejus mu­tuatur: [Page 15] quem alveum prisci Geographi ma­nufactum fuisse rati non retulerunt inter Euphratis alveos; sed potiùs insulam quam Euphrates cum Tigri efficit à Seleucia A­pameam usque Mesopotamiae, ac non Ba­byloniae, tribuerunt. That all this is true, Ptolemy is a sufficient witness, who there­fore makes but three branches of Euphra­tes, as acknowledging this for a Pseudo-river, and not worth the mentioning. Nor is there any great likelihood (in my opini­on) of that Conjecture, that the name Hid­clito which Pliny giveth Tigris (not when it passeth by Seleucia, but at its first rise in Armenia, remote many hundred miles Northward from this place) should diffuse it self into this River, which is not of his progeny, but the degenerate off-spring of another. However (I am perswaded) it is beyond all example that one River should adopt the name of another, before it mingle its waters with it; for if so, then might Nahar-malca also put in for a title to this name, seeing that in like manner empti­eth it self into Tigris at Apamea. But if Hiddekel in Moses be the same (as in all probability it was) with that mentioned by Daniel, and where he saw some of his most famous Visions, Dan. 10. 4. then is the [Page 16] pretence of this Rivolet to that name ren­dered yet more suspicious: for Daniel tells us that Hiddekel was [...], a great River, the amplitude of which Epithet all the waters in this Channel are not able to fill; for it was not full 5 miles long, and for the most part dry, as being drawn at the first, and afterward opened, onely upon oc­casion. The first Author of it (as Ammi­anus testifieth) was the Roman Emperour Trajan, who caused it to be cut, to waft his Navy out of Euphrates into Tigris; for which cause it was opened again by Severus, and after him by Julian, when the Per­sians had stopped it up. This date falleth far short of the age of Moses, as (I think) that translation doth of his meaning, where [...] is rendered ad Orientem Assy­riam versus, for there is neither preposi­tion nor [...] local, to make room for versus in this place, nor doth that general and ambiguous note, fluere ad Orientem Assy­riam versus, (which may be said as well of other Rivers as of this) sute any thing well with the exactness of Moses's description. Therefore they that keep close to the He­brew, render it either ante Assyriam, or ad Orientem Assyriae, as doth our English Translation: which if it be true, (as for my [Page 17] part I think it is) then is this Rivolet clear­ly cashier'd out of Moses's Chorography, as whose course is wholly terminated to the West of Assyria, if yet it do indeed reach any part of Assyria at all; that Assy­ria (I mean) which the Scripture properly calleth so. For though Ptolemy draw down the bounds of Assyria as far South as Arae Herculis; yet the Scripture (when it spea­keth of the Country, not of the Kingdom) seemeth to give this name properly to that Region alone that lieth about Ninive; so doe secular Authors. Strabo l. 16. circa initium: [...], Trans Lycum Aturiae campi Ninum circumja­cent. Dion in Trajano: Romani flumen trans­eunt, Adiabeném que omnem, quae pars Assy­riae ad Ninum pertinuit, in suam potestatem redigunt: Ad haec Arbela atque Gaugame­la, ubi Alexander olim Darium superave­rat, capiunt: ea Attyria nominatur, literâ Sin Tà Barbaris commutatâ. Pliny ma­keth it altogether the same with Adiabene, l. 5. c. 12. Ultra Armeniam Adiabena, Assy­ria antè dicta. Now there is no part of Adiabene so far South as Seleucia (where this River falleth into Tigris) by ⅔ of a De­gree, that is, 40. miles, in which space [Page 18] the Campi Cauchae (as I take it) are placed by Pliny, and the Region of the Garamaei by Ptolemy; which puts off the Current of that River at so considerable a distance from the ancient Assyria, that I question how even his own Translation can be veri­fied of it, Fluit ad Orientem Assyriam ver­sus. But if this Translation could be justified to be unquestionable, Junius (in my opinion) might with much more pro­bability have made choice of another River rather then this, upon which to bestow the name of Hiddekel, viz. that which Herodotus speaketh of l. 1. n. 193. Babylonica Regio omnis (quemadmodum Aegyptiaca) disse­cta est in fossas, quarum maxima navibus transiri potest, ad Solstitium hybernum ver­gens. [...], Exit autem ex Euphrate in Tigrin alterum flumen, ad quod urbs Ninus sita erat. If his meaning indeed be, that there was such a River, as running out of Eu­phrates, emptieth it self into Tigris over against Ninive, this would sute better with his description, being (as might seem) a River of some note, and falling more ex­actly upon that point of the Compass that his Translation hath set it. But the truth [Page 19] is, this River also is very questionable, as having no other authority but the sin­gle Testimony of Herodotus to assert it.

CHAP. V.
That Nahar-malca it self was none of the Four Rivers of Paradise, but an Artificial Chanell.

2. AS the Daughter-stream is found to be far under age to claim an inheri­tance among the Rivers of Paradise, so the Mother Nahar-malca (for out of it was it drawn) will hardly come off with her title upon the same trial. The verdict of Pliny is full against it, giving us a hint of the time when it was cut, and expresly naming the party by whom, Nat. Hist. l. 6. c. 26. Sunt qui tradunt Euphratem Gobaris Praefecti opere diductum, ubi eum diximus findi, nè praecipiti cursu Babyloniam infestaret; ab Assyriis verò universis appellatum Armal­char, quod significat Regium stumen. Who this Gobares was Pliny acquaints us not: but seeing the name is Persian, and the man himself was but a Prefect, not a King, he intimates clearly enough, that this Cur­rent was cut during the time of the Persian [Page 20] Monarchy, at the charges indeed of some of their Kings, (and therefore had the name of Nahar-malca) but under the care and oversight of Gobares his Lieutenant in those parts: for had it been cut in the time of any of the Kings of Babylon, not his cost onely, but his name also (in all likelihood) would have been remembred in this work. Now it is well known that the same year in which the Babylonians came under the dominion of the Persians, the Israelites were released from their Captivity by the Edict of Cyrus, to which time from the death of Moses there had passed (by certain calculation) no less then 916 years; all which time (and long before) this River (it seems) had not existence in rerum natura, and therefore could not be taken notice of in the book of Genesis. Junius could not be ignorant how apt this scruple was to arise in the mind of the Readers, upon his producing the testimony of Pliny, and therefore seeks to elude the force of it, by suggesting a suspicion, that it was but a po­pular and uncertain Tradition; for, giving the reason of the name Nahar-malca, he tells us it was so called, quòd alveum hunc stu­dio operâque Regam fuisse ductum putaret vulgus. But sure they were not the Vul­gus [Page 21] that Pliny meant by Sunt qui tradunt, but such Authors as, having written the Description and History of those parts, he makes use of, and now and then names some of them, in his Works. For that Pliny had this report from the Natives of Babylonia, is without all warrant: and if he had, yet seeing they lived upon the place, and had reason to be acquainted with such passages happening in their own Coun­try, their deposition for the affirmative ought in justice to be received before the negative of any man whatsoever, living in an age and place so far remote. The Lear­ned Scaliger was so fully satisfied of the truth of Pliny's relation concerning the cut­ting of this River by Gobares, that he sup­poseth (by an easie change of G into C) it took from him also (as the Author) the name of Cobar, and was (in his opinion) the very same with Cebar in Ezechiel, where the captive Israelites were placed. But though I cannot (for some reasons) subscribe to this Opinion of Scaliger; yet is it far more probable then the Opinion of Ju­nius, who affirms it to be Pison; for be­twixt Nahar-malca and Pison there is no affinity, neither in sound nor signification. Nor is that surmise (for it is no more) of [Page 22] any validity at all to prove that ever this River inherited the name of Pison, because after its joyning with Tigris it gives it the name of Piso-tigris; for though divers Authors have spoken of Pasi-tigris, yet that it should receive that name from its commixture with this River, not one. The testimony of Pliny quite overthrows it, for he draws the original of this compound name, not from Tigris commixing with any Stream of Euphrates, but from the re­uniting of his own divided waters; for a­bout 125 miles to the North of Seleucia he parts himself into two, and having run all that space in several Chanels, ubi reme­avere aquae, (saith he) Pasitigris appellatur. And if we desire to know whereabout that was, that which he subjoyns intimates that it was at or about Seleucia and Ctesiphon, for presently he adds, Atque (ut diximus) inter Seleuciam & Ctesiphontem vectus, in lacus Chaldaicos se fundit: now this was near upon 60 miles above that place where Nahar-malca falls into his Chanel. And indeed if Havil [...] be Susiuna, (as Junius ex­pounds it) the name of Pison must be drawn up thus high at least, or else it will not an­swer that which Moses testifieth of it, that it compasseth the whole Land of Havila: For [Page 23] though Ptolemy (as we have said) point the North-bound of Susiana at Arae Her­culis; yet if that be true which was obser­ved, that the ancient Assyria was equal one­ly with the bounds of Adiabene, all that Region which lieth South thereof must be assigned to the ancient Susiana: but then Nahar-malca is so far from compassing it, that it washeth not much more then half part of the Western Coast thereof, and that not in an entire Chanel of its own, but as a small addition of a far greater River receiving it, which therefore may in reason challenge the honour of this mention be­fore it. But the truth is, Junius is mista­ken, in taking Susiana for Havila; for there is no authority produced, nor proba­ble conjecture alledged to approve it, save onely that there is in this Region Gold, Bdellium, and the Onyx-stone; all which because, we hope hereafter to find, with better proof, in the true Havila that Mo­ses meant, we remit the farther prosecu­tion of that question to its proper place. Onely here let us adde, that seeing these two Rivers have appeared so exceeding doubtful, Junius had no cause to accuse so many good Authors of negligence, for neg­lecting them, as approving but onely two [Page 24] natural Streams of Euphrates; Nam Mela qui­dem, Plinius, Solinus, alii, negligentiùs vi­dentur perscripsisse duos solùm Euphratis alvees, propterea quòd alios Aquaeductus magis quàm naturales alveos esse putave­runt. And they had good reason to think so, as appeareth by that which hath been said.

CHAP. VI.
Of the two remaining Chanels, and the Fer­tility of the Eastern part of this Region.

AND are the two remaining Streams then unquestionably natural, and not artificial? Doubtless they have much more to say for themselves, then the former; yet if they be called to the trial, they will not escape without some suspicion. For, to pro­ceed to the third River, which running through Babylon still retains the name of the main Stream Euphrates: Some good Authors affirm this River also to have been cut, and name us the party by whom, viz. Semiramis, when she built the City: for whereas the Plains of Babylonia were all covered with water, as Herodotus testi­fieth l. 1. n. 184. (and then sure there were none of these Rivers) Belus going about [Page 25] to lay the foundations of Babylon drained them, as Abydenus apud Euseb. Praep. Evang. l. 9. c. ult. testifies: Omnia (in­quit) illa loca aquis contecta fuisse dicun­tur. Belus autem regionem siccâsse perhi­betur, & Babyloniam condidisse. By which draining of the waters at too great a distance (as it seems) the City soon found the want of it; and therefore Semir amis rebuilding and enlarging it, (which Orosius saith she did in the 64. year from the first of Ninus) among other her famous works, she cut a Chanel for this River through the City. Thus much Pomp. Mela affirms, l. 1. c. 11. Ex operibus certè ejus insignia multa sunt, duo maximè excellunt; constituta Urbs mi­rae magnitudinis Babylon, ac siccis olim re­gionibus Euphrates & Tigris immissi. Where Olivarius hath this note; Euphrates & Tigris olim non Chaldaeam irrigabant, er at enim regio sicca, nisi curâ Semiramidis adjectis fossis ambo fluvii immissi fuissent. And Propertius seconds the same report with his testimony, l. 3. Eleg. 10.

Now though Semiramis were indeed an­cienter [Page 26] then Moses, (albeit Herodotus makes her younger, as living but five Ages before Nitocris, l. 1. n. 184. and Porphyrie apud Euseb. Praep. Evang. l. 10. c. 3. seems to make her his contemporary) yet if this River were cut by her hand, it could be no River of Paradise, which was ancienter then Adam himself. And I cannot persuade my self that by [...] ipse Perath, Moses meant any Branch, but the main Body of the great River, the River Euphrates, (as the Scrip­ture every where calleth it;) which Moses therefore forbare to describe by the Coun­tries through which it runs, because it was well enough known to the Israelites, as being one of the Bounds of their Land. So that now there remains but one native Stream to this River, (and one we must needs leave it for its ancient Chanell) which may seem by best title to belong to Naharsares, though the Etymologie of the Name render even that suspicious also: for Sares (as Junius hath observed) signi­fieth diductum sive divulsum; but then we must suppose the reason to have been, not because it self is drawn out of any other Stream, (for so the Antiquity of it should become as questionable as the rest) but be­cause it self is the main Stream out of which [Page 27] the rest were drawn; for anciently it emptied itself into the Persian Gulph in a proper Chanel of its own. Sed longo tem­pore Euphratem praeclusere Orcheni & ac­colae agros rigantes: nec nisi per Tigrin defertur in mare, saith Pliny l. 6. c. 27. And yet it seems not alwaies to have kept constant to the same Chanel; for if it be [...] in Abydenus, (as Junius saith) or Pallacopa in Arrianus, (as its distance from Babylon rendreth it very probable) it was several times obstructed or diverted in its course. Abydenus apud Euseb. Praep. Evang. l. 9. c. ult. Cùm Principatum (ait) Nabuchodonosorus accepisset, continuò Ba­bylonem triplici muro quindecim diebus munivit, & flavios Armachalem atque Acracanum ab Euphrate ortos obstruxit. And Arrianus de Expedit. Alex. l. 7. tells at large how Alexander stopped the mouth of Pallacopa, (as that Babylonian Satrapa with great labour had done before) and cut a new one. The same doth Strabo confirm out of Aristobulus, l. 16. Cùm fossam quan­dam ad paludes & lacus qui sunt Arabiam versus tendere animadverteret, habentem os intractabile, & obstructu difficillimum, propter cedentem & mollem terram; aliud novum os aperuisse 30. stadiis à priore, [Page 28] capto loco petroso, atque traducto alveo. So full of uncertainties are all things con­cerning the Rivers in this Region, that (I think) Junius could not have chosen any other, wherein with less hope of success to have travelled in search of the Garden of Eden. As for that which is alledged from so many credible Authors concerning the incredible Fruitfulness of the Eastern part of this Region, it may well enough be granted with small advantage to this cause: for that, being but a common adjunct, is predicable of other places as well as this: and though haply there may be some strength in this negative Argument, Such a place is not fruitful, Ergò it was not Paradise; yet the affirmative is but weak, Such a place is fruitful, Ergò Paradise was there. And therefore I marvel much to find so great a Logician as Alstedius was, reasoning thus: Paradisus terrestris fuit situs loco fertilissi­mo & amoenissimo: Talis autem est Aura­nitis, Encyclop. l. 20. Historic. c. 11. Can he assure us that the place where Paradise stood doth (even after the Fall, yea after the Custody of the Cherubims is removed, and the Deluge hath marr'd the face of the Earth) still retain the preeminence of fruitfulness and beauty above other places? [Page 29] Many good Authours of able judgments are of another mind. And if the decision of this Question lay upon this point, many places of the East would disdain to yield this ho­nour to any part of Babylonia, if the lavish commendations of Geographers may pass for unquestionable proofs; of which (if it were worth the while) plenty might be produced. Therefore perhaps we shall doe no wrong to Pliny, if we take his su­perlative expression (as the custom is) for a little hyperbolical. Herodotus (an eye-witness, and from whom (if I be not deceived) Pliny received this testimony) speaks more modestly and warily, confes­sing indeed that this was the fruitful'st place of the East that he had seen; but how? for wonderful store of Corn, not of Wood. The place is in Clio, n. 193. Exit ex Eu­phrate in Tigrin alterum flumen, ad quod urbs Ninus sita erat. Haec Regio omnium quas nos vidimus longè optima est, dun­taxat ferendo Frumento. [...], Nam in arbori­bus ferendis, Ficu, Vite, Olea, nequaquam de principatu contendit. Onely afterward he mentioneth some store of Palm-trees, to which Strabo addeth some Gardens of [Page 30] Cypresses, of which Alexander was ne­cessitated to make up his Navy, for want of other wood in those parts: [...], saith Strabo, l. 16. Now surely to the constitution of an Orchard (as Para­dise was) variety of Trees (especially Fruit-trees, such as the Vine, the Olive and the Figg) are as necessary, as the fatness of the Soil to bearing Corn. And that it was so in Adam's Paradise Moses assures us, Gen. 2. 9. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every Tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food: the Tree of Life also in the midst of the Garden, and the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil: nei­ther of which (I persuade my self) was either Palm-tree or Cypress. But to cut off this controversie: Suppose this part of Babylonia were as well stored with all man­ner of Trees for use and ornament, as it was fertil in bearing Corn; yet if the other parts of Moses's description sute not to it as well as this, the Argument from this alone will inferre no necessary Conclusion: for so Alstedius himself hath taught us, that a Fallacy of the Adjunct is then committed; Cùm uno atque altero Adjuncto sumptis, quo­rum vis est imbecilla, necessariun concludi­tur. Syst. Log. l. 9. c. 3.

CHAP. VII.
The Author's attempt of finding a more probable place for the Seat of Paradise. Tigris and Euphrates prov'd to rise from the same Fountain.

FInding therefore no satisfaction in this Description of Junius, lest we should seem more willing to find a fault, then to offer our best service (though we well know how worthless that is) for the disco­very of the truth; let us lift up our eyes again, and see if haply any other place may be discerned where this happy por­tion of ground, so much sought after, may with greater probability be found out. And here we must make use of the River as our faithfullest Guide; which springing out of Eden, (as Moses saith) afterward divideth it self into four Heads, of which Tigris and Euphrates (by the consent of all) were two; not any petty Streams in Babylonia, but those two famous and well-known Ri­vers, which encircling Mesopotamia give it its name. But can it ever be proved that Tigris and Euphrates spring out of the same Fountain? This indeed is the great diffi­culty: [Page 32] in discussing whereof, if the same spirit that guided the pen of Moses shall fa­vourably assist our weak endeavours, the rest of our task will become far more easie. It cannot be denied, that the seeming-concur­ring testimony of Geographers to the con­trary hath so farr stumbled some otherwise godly and learned Divines, that they have broke forth into speeches not very seemly. Luther, Tom. 6. Comment. in Gen. 2. calls this unum de maximis Scandalis in Mose; and having debated this Question of the distance of the Fountains in the vulgar way, concludes, Ergò Moses evidentissimè con­tra sensum pugnat. I will not dissemble, that the reading of this passage struck my spirit with some horrour, and often recalled my thoughts to this meditation, (which otherwise I was willing to have bestowed in more profitable matters) to try if by any means this Scandal might be removed. And why should we despair of effecting this, when even Secular Authours themselves are not at agreement in assigning the Foun­tains of these great Rivers; some finding them in one place, some in another; some at a larger, some at a nearer distance? A hopefull augure, that at length they may be found so near as to verifie the testimony [Page 33] of Moses. Strabo (that grave and learned Geographer) sets them very far asunder, viz. near upon 312 miles. [...], Fon­tes Tigridis & Euphratis distant invicem circiter M. M. D stadia: Ptolemy cuts off more then a third part of this distance, for he sets the Latitude of the Fountains of Tigris in 39^d. 40^m, of Euphrates in 42^d. 40^m, between which there are no more then 3 Degrees difference, which make but 180 miles. But Procopius may seem to draw them nearer together, for thus he writes, De Bello Pers. l. 1. Mons non valde pra­ruptus in Armeniis est, à Theodosia Civi­tate 42 stad. distans, ad Boream pertinens, unde duo exeunt Fontes totidem Flumind constituentes, Euphratem dextrorsus, Ti­grim verò sinistrorsus. What this Moun­tain was, and where this City Theodosia was situate, (5 miles ¼ to the North of which these two Rivers had their Springs) it is not easie for us (by help of that broken and imperfect discovery which we have of those Eastern parts) to determine. In the same Book he mentioneth a City of that name not far from Nisibis: Anastasia Civitas condita est ab Anastasio, ubi erat Dara in [Page 34] Mesopotamia, à Nisibi 98 stad. distans, in Romanorum Persarúmque confinibus, cui vicina Theodosia. But this, being well within Mesopotamia, could not be the same with the former, seeing it is certain that the Fountains of Tigris and Euphrates were in Armenia. More likely it was that Theodosio­polis mentioned by Eustathius in his Com­ment upon Dionysius's [...], where, speaking of Armenia, he bids us note, that the Emperour Justin divided it into 4 parts; the first and most renowned whereof was that which was called [...], whose Metropolis was Bazanis, formerly called Le­ontopolis, [...]. But neither is that so precisely bounded, that we have any thing of certainty to affirm concerning the situation of it; nor, if we had, would it be much material to the end we aim at: for though the Testi­mony of Procopius have served us to bring the Fountains of these Rivers nearer toge­ther; yet seeing he confesseth them to be distinct, this will not serve our turn. But are there any then that do affirm them to spring out of the same Fountain? Surely, if Isidorus Hispalensis do not deceive us, either he himself or S. Hierome had read some such thing in an authentick Author, [Page 35] viz. Salust the Historian; for these are his words, Orig. l. 13. c. 21. De Fluminib. Euphrates fluvius Mesopotamiae de Para­diso exsurgens. Salustius autem author certissimus asserit, Tigrim & Euphratem uno fonte manare in Armenia, qui per di­versa euntes longiùs dividuntur, spatio medio derelicto multorum millium; quae tamen terra, quae ab ipsis ambitur, Mesopo­tamia dicitur. Ex quo Hieronymus anim­advertit aliter de Paradisi fluminibus in­telligendum. Whether Isidore himself had seen this passage in the Works of Salust, (which now are lost) or S. Hierom's Works have suffered some mangling since his time, I cannot tell; but the truth is, in the Edi­tions of Hierome which we now have this Testimony is not quoted so fully, for in the place to which he relates the most material passage is left out. His own words, De loc. Heb. voce Euphrates, are these: Euphrates fluvius Mesopotamiae in Paradiso oriens: Porrò Salustius author certissimus asserit tam Tigris quàm Euphratis in Armenia fontes demonstrari. Ex quo animadvertimus ali­ter de Paradiso & fluminibus ejus intelli­gendum. That there is a considerable dif­ference betwixt these two in relating the testimony of Salust, is obvious at first sight, [Page 36] without a Prompter: for besides a larger addition in Isidore, that main clause, Tigrim & Euphratem uno fonte manare in Arme­nia, is no more in S. Hierome then, Tam Tigris quàm Euphratis fontes in Armenia demonstrari; which they might well enough be, though removed at as great a distance as some have set them. Yet can we not honestly suspect, that Isidore would falsifie either Salust or Hierome for so small a mat­ter. And the observation which Hierome makes upon Salust's words argues, that he conceived something in them remarkable above what was ordinarily to be found, for rectifying a common Errour about the Ri­vers of Paradise. Now that the Fountains of Tigris and Euphrates were to be seen in Armenia was no news, nor worthy so solemn a preface to gain credit to the Au­thor, it never being questioned by any, but obvious in every Historian as well as Salust. But if he observed and reported them to flow out of the same Fountain, (which was a Secret unto most) well might he commend the Testimony of such a credi­ble Writer to the consideration of the men of his time, as a fair way to reconcile the re­lation of Moses with the truth of History, the ignorance whereof had put them upon [Page 37] such prodigious fancies; and so his aime may seem to have been the same with ours, viz. by hinting this Testimony, to pre­pare and procure belief, that nothing was reported by Moses concerning the Original of these Rivers, which (if inquired after) might not also be made appear by the testi­mony of Secular Authours. But because this report of Salust comes to us onely at the second hand, and that also somewhat obscurely, we are content no more weight should be laid upon it then what in prudence it may be supposed able to bear: nor is there need we should, having a second at hand ready to be deposed upon the same thing, and that as clearly and fully as we can desire. This is Lucan, Pharsal. l. 3.

That he sets the common Fountain of Ti­gris and Euphrates in Persis, whereas, by the undoubted consent of all that speak ex­actly, they were in Armenia, this ought not to stumble any one that is but meanly [Page 38] conversant in Histories, who cannot be ig­norant, that it is common with Writers (especially of those times) to call by the name of Persis all those Countries that at that time lay under the Dominion of the Persian or Parthian Monarchy: But it can­not but be grateful to all such as wish well to Moses, and would rejoice to see his Au­thority vindicated, to hear a Heathen stand up thus stoutly in his defence against the general vote of Geographers, not obscurely rejecting their contrary Opinion as an Er­rour. And he might be the bolder to doe this, if it be true which is observed by an able Commentator, (though himself in­cline the other way) that he had the vulgar Creed to justifie him in it. Farnab. in locum. Ʋterque fluvius oritur ex Armeniae mon­tibus, verùm non parùm distantibus; vul­gò tamen creditum unum habuisse Fontem. And certain it is that learned Boetius (among the rest) was of this belief; for discoursing excellently (as his manner is) how casual events are guided by Providence, (which he makes the common fountain out of which they flow, and into which at length they fi­nally resolve themselves) he illustrates it by this Simile of Tigris & Euphrates, which is­suing out of the same Fountain, (saith he) and [Page 39] having enclosed a large compass of ground, at length meet together again, bring­ing their wreck along with them. His words are in his Treatise De Consolat. Phi­losoph. l. 5. carm. 1.

CHAP. VIII.
A farther Enquiry where this Fountain is. Objections answered.

THE concurring Testimonies of these Authours will (I hope) be deemed suffi­cient to support the credit of this Assertion, if we can (by good authority) discover [Page 40] what, and where this Fountain was. And hereunto that clause in the fore-cited Te­stimony of Lucan may perhaps afford us some help; Incertum, tellus si misceat am­nes, Quod potiùs sit nomen aquis. For though these words be capable of several constructions, (and Commentators have left us here to sink or swim to our selves, though oft-times they spend many lines in less needful Criticisms;) yet to my appre­hension the Poet's meaning is this, That these two Rivers after their efflux out of their common Fountain run still so near to­gether, that when they overflow their Chanels, and their waters touch each other, (as, by the supposition he makes, it seems sometimes they do) if then they should in­termingle their Streams, it would be a hard matter to determine which of the two Ri­vers should bear the name of their conjoy­ned waters. This passage suits so well (save onely the difference of a name) with that Observation which Cl. Caesar brought home with him to Rome out of these parts, when he warred in the East, (which was not long before the Poet wrote) that I doubt not but he had relation to it; and the account that Pliny makes us of that report of Cl. Caesar is the best Commenta­ry [Page 41] that we may expect upon that clause; Plin. l. 6. c. 27. Tam vicinum Arsaniae fluere eum (sc. Tigrim) in regione Arrhene Claudius Caesar author est, ut cùm intumu­êre, confluant, nec tamen misceantur, levi­órque Arsanias innatat IIII M. ferè spatio: mox divisus in Euphratem mergitur. If we had as full assurance that this Arsanias of Caesar did flow out of the same Fountain with Tigris, as his unmixed overflow doth accord with that which Lucan testifies of Euphrates, it would be no presumption to affirm that they were one and the same Ri­ver. And though this be no easie task to perform, (no Geographer (that I have met with) having undertaken to give us any account of the first Spring of Arsanias;) yet so much they have acquainted us with­all as may serve to satisfie any ingenuous mind in this matter. Plutarch, lib. De Flu­viis, tells us a strange story, (as some have construed it) though (in our opinion) not so strange as true. He saith that the River Tigris runs into Araxes, and so into the Lake Arsacis. His words are these: [...] Tigris fluvius est Armeniae, defluens in Araxem simul & Arsacidem paludem. This [Page 42] relation seems so incredible to his Com­mentator Mausacus, that he fears not to charge it back upon him for a Falshood. Falsum est quod docet hoc loco Author no­ster, Tigrim in Araxem defluere. Falsi arguere potes ex Strabone & innumer is aliis authoribus. The reason that moved him to be so bold with his Author was this then, (as I suppose) because Strabo and other Ge­ographers had told him, that though Tigris and Araxes flow out of the same Mountain, (as some say) yet their course is so directly contrary, Araxes running into the Caspian Sea on the North, and Tigris into the Per­sian Gulf on the South, that it is not imagi­nable how they should ever run the one into the other. But had Strabo or any other Geographer told him, that there were no more Rivers of this name but one? or that it was not possible for any Writer to miscall another River by that name? Him­self observes a mistake in the name of the Lake; and why might not the same be­fall the River also? That Lake which Plu­tarch here calls Arsacis, Strabo and Diony­sius After (as he notes) called Arsene and Tho­nitis, and Pliny Thespitis, which he suppo­seth ought to be read Thonitis: but there is no good warrant for that Correction, for [Page 43] The spitis is as probable a name as Thonitis, and Ptolemy calls it so, placing upon it a City called Thospia, from which in proba­bility it borrowed this name. And though Strabo make this and Arsena the same Lake, yet Pliny doth not, but sets them at a good distance; for the first Lake that Tigris runs into he calls Arethusa, Ptolemy Arsissa, (in all probability Plutarch's Arsacis) but placed by him a Degree and more to the North of Thespitis. But whether they were one or several Lakes, it is not much material to our purpose: Most likely it is that the Lake either gave or took its name from the River Arsanias flowing into it; and so did the Country about it, which Pto­lemy calls Arsea, others Arsena, but Pro­copius alwaies either Arzane or Arxane; which hath so near affinity to Araxis, that it leaves us no just cause to doubt that Plutarch's Araxis is the same River that others call Arsanias. Which being so, we have found these Rivers meeting very early together, after which their first Conjunction they seem not to part asun­der for a long time; for (so far as we can discern them) they run in the same, or a near-adjoyning, Chanel, they fall both into the same Lakes, dive into the ground [Page 44] alike, spring again alike: in a word, they sever not, (at least at no considerable di­stance) till in the Region of Arrhene (as Cl. Caesar hath told us) Arsanias floating over his fellow, for the space of 4 miles, at length leaves him, and falls into Euphra­tes. That this is true, we have a credible Author to give testimony of it, who gives us good assurance withall, that Arsanias is indeed no other then Euphrates, as Lucan called it. Cl. Marius Victor, Genes. l. 1.

In that he makes Tigris and Euphrates junctâ mole ruentes, he plainly enough in­timates the Conjunction of their Streams, after which he finds them falling together into a subterranean Gulf: this was after they had passed the Lake Arethusa, as Pli­ny writing of Tigris tells us, l. 6. c. 27. In­fluit lacum Arethusam omnia illata pondera sustinentem, &c. Fertur autem & cursu & [Page 45] colore dissimilis: transvectúsque occurrente Tauro Monte in specu mergitur, subtérque lapsus, à latere altero ejus erumpit. Locus vocatur Zoroanda. Eundem esse manifestum est, quòd demersa perfert. Their first Ef­flux after this their new birth out of their common Fountain was (as the Poet tells us) into the Forests of Armenia, and the pleasant Woods and Groves of Media, (ta­king Media largely, and so reaching those parts, though properly assigned to Armenia, as others have done.) But forthwith they fall into another Lake, viz. Thonitis, (as Strabo and Dionysius) Thospites, or Thespi­tes, (as Ptolemy and Pliny call it;) for so it follows, Alterum deinde transit Lacum, qui Thospites appellatur, (which Strabo tells us was [...], nitruous, and not potable.) Therefore Tigris hastening through it, im­mediately after it hath acquit itself, rursus in cuniculos mergitur, & post XXV. mill. pass. circa Nymphaeum redditur: which as Strabo, Dionysius and others testifie, so the former Poet hath expressed not un­elegantly.

But because in the fore-mentioned place of Lucan, that remarkable unmixed mixture of Tigris and Euphrates (or, as Pliny cal­leth it, Arsanias) is by the Series of the Poet's discourse intimated to have happe­ned betwixt their common Spring and the last Fall of Tigris, for so it immediately fol­lows,

we must understand that of Pliny, concer­ning the running of Tigris under ground for the space of 25 miles, beginning as soon as he comes forth of the Thospian Lake, (as Strabo also testifies) not of a total disap­pearing of the River, but an interruption of its Stream, so that it kept not a constant course, but was up and down, and mani­fested it self by Effusions (as it were by stealth) rather then a perpetually-visible Current. And so much (I think) Aethicus [Page 47] means. Fluvius Tigris etiam ipse de Mon­te Caucaso quasi visitur natus, cùm aestivis temporibus sub humo cum desuper Aethi­opiam currere ex viriditate superni cespi­tis prodatur, fluvius subditus latenter erum­pit, & ob hoc ortus ejus non comprehendi­tur, quoniam de obscuritate promitur. And this may probably pass for a reason in Na­ture, why, after their Confluence, the wa­ters of Arsanias float over those of Tigris, because they are not so well cleansed from the nitrous and oily matter they had con­tracted in the Thospian Lake, as those of Tigris (by coursing under ground) were. However this be, it hindreth us nothing from the thing we aimed at, viz. a sight of that Fountain we have been in search of; for now it appears to be in Armenia major, in the Region of Sophene, on the South­side of the Mountain of Taurus, in a most pleasant and delicious place; in a word, in the very place where Ptolemy places the Fountains of Tigris, (and consequently of Euphrates) in the Latitude of 39^d. 40^m.

Nor can I foresee what scruple of moment [Page 48] can be opposed against this whole discourse, except haply some be not yet satisfied, that Pliny's Arsanias is the same with Moses's Euphrates: who notwithstanding (I hope) will suffer themselves to be persuaded, if they consider, 1. That it is so common for Rivers to change their names, especially for ancient Rivers to receive new names, that to contend about the name, when the thing it self is evident, is but an humorous vanity. 2. Though Pliny call it Arsanias, yet Lucan, Marius Victor, &c. call it Euphrates, as Moses doth. 3. Pliny denieth the right of this name to the great River it self, till, ha­ving broken through the Mount Tau­rus, it enters Syria; whereby a liberty is granted to this River to plead its birth­right to this name, as well as to any other that, running through Armenia or Mesopo­tamia, flow together to make up its Cha­nel. Plin. l. 5. c. 24. Supra Simyram XII. M. pass. initio Pyxirates nominatus. Fluit Derxenem primùm, &c. Deinde Ele­giam Armeniae decem M. pass. acceptis flu­minibus Lyco, Arsania, Arsano. Apud E­legiam occurrit ei Taurus Mons, nec re­sistit, quanquam XII. M. pass. praevalens. Omiram vocant irrumpentem; mox, ubi perfregit, Euphratem. The like is obser­ved [Page 49] by Aethicus. Fluvius Auxius nasci­tur de Monte Armeno; transiens per Me­sopotamiam pergit: in ea verò Provincia alius ei adjungitur fluvius Pactolus, qui dicitur ex ipso Monte Caucaso nasci; & unum effecti, per Parthos transeuntes eorum cursus congregant aquas: ibi flumen Eu­phrates nomen accipit, & exinde se diffun­dens currit millia 872, & mergitur in Si­num Persicum. Here is plainly affirmed that Euphrates takes not that name till the Conjunction of these Rivers; whereof if Pactolus were Pyxirates, and Auxius Ara­xes or Arsanias, (as with good probability we may conjecture) then have we another argument to prove that this River was anciently taken for Euphrates; for so S. Am­brose tells us, that the Learned men of those parts used to call it Auxes. Amb. De Pa­radiso, c. 3. Plerique Euphratem [...] dictum putant, hoc est, à lae­tando. Causa autem cur caeteri quâ com­meant fluvii, describuntur regiones loco­rum, quâ Euphrates commeat, non describa­tur, illam accipimus, quia aqua ejus vitalis asseritur, & quae foveat atque augeat. Un­de Auxen eum Hebraeorum & Assyriorum prudentes dixerunt. Yea, Pliny himself (if we be not deceived) gives his verdict [Page 50] for this name: for how otherwise to recon­cile him with Ptolemy, and the truth of Geo­graphy, we see not. Lib. 6. cap. 9. num­bring the most remarkable Cities of Ar­menia, he writes thus: Oppida celebrantur in minore, Caesarea, Aza, Nicopolis: in ma­jore, Arsamote Euphrati proximum, Ti­gri Carcathiocerta. Now if Arsamote (which without doubt was the same that Ptolemy calls Arsamosata) were as near Euphrates as Carcathiocerta was to Tigris, it was seated upon the very banks of it: But in Ptolemy it is set well-nigh two De­grees distant; which make up so large a summe of miles, that for my part I believe this is an errour in Ptolemy, and credit ra­ther that exacter Writer Geog. Nub. who sets them about 24 miles distant. For he, (Part. 5. clim. 5.) describing the way be­twixt Meledin (in Armenia minor) to Ma­jafarecqin (in Armenia major,) tells us, that when we come to Alhama, which is opposite to the Town of Malattia on the South, (the same Town that Ptolemy calls Melitene, situate at or near upon that long Stream which Geographers usually call Euphrates) from thence there are 12 miles to Tal-Batric, and other 12 to Tal-Aresias. Now Tal-Aresias is the very same that Pliny [Page 51] calls Arsamote, Ptolemy Arsamosata, for the signification in them both [...] and [...] is neither more nor less then Collis or Mons Solis: and if we would know where that was situate, he tells us; Jacet autem Aresias ad magnum quoddam flumen, quod è montibus excurrens, tandem Euphrati se miscet infra Samosata. Which agrees so well with the description that Pliny maketh of Arsanias, that we need not doubt but that was the same River which ran by this City. Whereunto if we adde the re­port that Dion and Tacitus make, of Paetus his making a Bridge over this River, (when he made that cowardly Composition with the Parthian) there will remain no farther cause of questioning: for Dion ex­presly calls it Arsanias. [...], Parthus dimisit Paetum, priùs cum eo pactus, ut ponte sibi jungeret fluvium Arsaniam. But Tacitus calls it Arsametes, Annal. l. 15. Fluvio Arsameti (is castra praefluebat) pontem imposuit: which hath so near affinity with the Citie's name, Arsamote, that (though Lipsius think it corrupted in Tacitus, and to be amended by Dion) we may well conjecture, that the City and River gave or took their name [Page 52] one from the other, or else from some other cause common to them both. However, if Arsamote were placed near upon Euphra­tes, (as Pliny hath told us) and yet that River be evidenced by clear proof to be the same that himself elsewhere calls Ar­sanias, it will follow by his own confession that Arsanias was Euphrates; which is most true, for it was its primitive and original Stream, as Moses assures us.

CHAP. IX.
Of the first Division of the River Ti­gris after its Separation from Eu­phrates, and the various Names gi­ven to one Branch of it by several Authors.

AND now having (by God's assistance) waded through the chiefest difficulty, and discovered the Fountain of the River of Paradise, and two of its main Heads; we may (I hope) with more encourage­ment proceed to the inquiry of the rest; if onely we shall admonish this, That from henceforward Euphrates (which the Jews, subtracting the Article, call Perath, or (as Josephus hath it) Phorath, the Inhabitants [Page 53] of those parts sometimes Furro, but for the most part Frat) constantly holds this name all its Course throughout: But whe­ther Tigris (as yet) may challenge the name of Hiddekel, will better appear in this ensuing Discourse. Nevertheless we make choice of his Stream to follow as our Guide in this Search, as having formerly found, upon examination, the Streams of Euphrates altogether unable to abide the trial. And it is not long that Tigris hath run after its Separation from Euphra­tes, and last rise from its new Fountain, be­fore it come to a second Division: for ha­ving past the Gordiaean Mountains, and be­ing now about to enter Assyria, it parts its Stream asunder, and openeth its arms (as I may so say) to embrace it. Thus much I gather from Epiphanius in Anchoret. n. 58. [...], Tertius, inquit, fluvius est Tigris, qui è regione Assyriorum fluit: Quippe Orientis tractus dividens, sub terram demergitur. Qui cùm ex Ar­menia inter Cardiaeos & Armenios oriatur, [Page 54] depressus iterum emergit, & Assyriorum agros divisus irrigat. Ptolemy indeed takes no notice of this Division in the Historical part of his Geography, (which will be no wonder to those that know how many such like omissions may be observed in him;) yet (if I be not deceived) there is some­thing in his Tables that referrs this way: I mean his ancient Tables; for those set out by Gerard Mercator, promising cor­rection, are herein faulty. In the ancient Editions of Jacob. Eszlar, and Georg. Ʋbelin, and Maginus Asiae Tab. 3. (which contains the Map of Armenia major, with some other of those Regions that lay to the North of it) two Streams of Tigris are fairly drawn, (not far from its Foun­tain) the one running Westward towards Armenia minor, the other Eastward on the back of the Mountain Niphates, which bounds Assyria to the North. Indeed, if Ptolemy had intimated any such thing, these might have been taken for Rivers running into it: but seeing he doth not, we take leave (upon the grounds already, and farther to be discovered) to assign the Western Branch to Arsanias running into Euphrates, and the Eastern to this new Di­vision of Tigris intimated by Epiphanius. [Page 55] If any wonder why their Course is not drawn out to the length, the streightning bounds of the Map (which was to end with the South-bounds of Armenia) may be rendred as a good reason of this Eclipsis; and being thus cut off, (as it seems) they became neglected in the following Maps. However, that there was such a Branch of Tigris running to the North of Assyria or Adiabene, we have Pliny for a sufficient witness: for thus he states the Bounds of Adiabene, l. 6. c. 9. Adiabenen Tigris & Montium sinus cingunt: (or, as some reade it, Montium sinus invii cingunt) which that it is to be understood in relation to Armenia, the circumstances of the place evidently prove: and if any doubt should be moved of it, that other passage of his in the same Book, cap. 15. makes it clear. Adiabenis connectuntur Carduchi quon­dam dicti, nunc Cordueni, praefluente Ti­gri. Which is also attested by D. Marius Niger, Geog. Asiae, Com. 5. Juxta Cadu­siorum regionem Corduci sunt, qui quon­dam sic appellabantur, nunc verò Cordu­eni, qui Adiabenis connectuntur, medio elabente Tigri. But never did any Au­thor mention the Carduchi to the West or South of Tigris, but generally all to the [Page 56] North, in the Mountains of Anti-Taurus assigned to Armenia and Media, betwixt which and the Mountain Niphates the Val­ley lay in which this River ran. And this same River still holding on its Course, I take to be it which Josephus mentioneth, (but nameth not) as parting betwixt Adi­abene and Media, Antiq. Jud. l. 20. c. 2. Cúmque Parthus numerosas equitum atque peditum secum properè trahens copias opi­nione citiùs venisset, posuissétque castra ad fluvium qui Adiabenem à Media dirimit, Izates quoque non longè indè castra metatus est, &c. And may we not well conjecture this to be one of those three Rivers which Herodotus mentioneth under the name of Tigris? For though he deny the first and third to spring out of the same Foun­tain, yet he saith nothing to the contrary but the first and second might. Terpsic. l. 5. n. 52. But certain it is, that without the help of this River we shall never understand aright the history of young Tobit's jour­ney into Media, who parting from his Fa­ther at Ninive, (which by the greatest part of Geographers is placed upon the banks of that other well-known Stream of Tigris) yet Chap. 6. 1. it is said, that as they went on their journey, they came in the Evening [Page 57] to the River Tigris, and they lodged there. This cannot be understood of any gyre or circle of the same Stream, (as some imagine) for no such lay in their way to Ecbatane; but it was a distinct Stream by it self, and separa­ted from that other at a considerable distance. Nor will any ingenuous man think it suf­ficient to elude this Testimony, because this Author is Apocryphall; for though the Book be not Canonical, yet this Testimo­ny may be true: and none (I think) will deny it to be so, that hath attentively read the Relation that Xenophon makes of the Grecian Armie's march in these parts. For having told us (De exped. Cyri l. 3.) how they passed over Tigris into Assyria at a Town called Caenae; he farther relates how they still passed on Eastward over the Ri­vers Zabatus and Zathes; (which Mr. Ful­ler sufficiently proves to be the same that Ptolemy calls Lycus and Caprus) then ha­ving passed another Torrent, (which he names not, and therefore gives us leave to conjecture that it was that small Rivolet which Ptolemy calls Gorgas) Quod reliquum dici erat securè pergendo cùm confecissent, (saith he) ad Tigrim amnem perveniunt: (lo here another Tigris) which having passed at a Town called Larissa, after ano­ther [Page 58] daies march of six parasangs, they came to an ancient Town of the Medes called Mesphila; where turning their faces to­wards the North, they made towards the Mountains of the Carduchi, having this Stream all along on their left hand, even to its very spring; as appeareth by the end of the third and beginning of the fourth Book. Which Relation brings this Stream of Tigris about the ancient Assyria with so large a circle, that it might serve to present it to us in the form of an Island. And indeed it was so; for it was so shut in with Rivers on all sides, that there was no passage into it but by Boat. Whence it was that the Greeks fetched the reason of the name Adi­abene, as if it were so called [...], eò quod esset impertransibilis; which though Ammianus justly reject, (for it is absurd to frame a Greek Etymologie of an Assyrian word;) yet the reason rendered for it he denieth not, but confirmeth, Hist. l. 23. Juxta hunc circuitum Adiabena est, Assyria priscis temporibus vocitata, longâ­que assuetudine ad hoc translata vocabulum eâ re, quòd inter Oenam & Tigridem sita, navigeros fluvios, adiri vado nunquam potuit. And this without all question was the reason why that ancient Historian Qua­dratus [Page 59] called Assyria or Adiabene by the name of Messene, (as he is quoted by Ste­phanus [...]. voce [...].) utpote [...], quia mediam inter duo quae ibidem sunt flumina regionem occuparet. These Rivers he after nameth Tigris and Euphrates, for which he incurreth the reprehension of di­vers, who cannot see what Euphrates hath to doe with Assyria: But if they would consider how customary it is with the Wri­ters of these parts, mutually to commute the names of these great Rivers, and many times to apply them to other Rivers which have proper names of their own, they would not reject this ancient Author's Testimony, but accept it as a piece of true Geography. We have formerly noted how Xenophon calls Euphrates by the name of Tigris, and other Authors (to requite that wrong) call Tigris by the name of Euphrates. Hesych. in voce [...]. He makes Tigris to be the same which the Jews call Phorath, which we all know to be Euphrates. And the like doth Diodorus Siculus, Antiq. l. 3. c. 1. where speaking of the foundation of Ninive by Ninus, he [Page 60] saith, Ipse coactis undique viribus, & his quae adtantum opus spectarent paratis, [...], supra Euphratem flu­vium Ʋrbem condidit: which almost all besides him place upon Tigris. Now if Quadratus (and after him Stephanus) may be conceived, and might be allowed to speak according to the language of these men; supposing the Western Stream to be that which he calleth Euphrates, the other which encircleth Assyria he might call (as divers others do as well as he) by the name of Tigris; and so his expression shall be­come as excusable, as the thing it self which he affirms is true. But Ammianus (a man much conversant in these parts) hath ac­quainted us more exactly with the true and proper names of these Rivers, (learn'd (as may seem) from the Natives themselves) and therewithall, of the true Etymologie of the name Adiabene, Hist. l. 23. Nos au­tem didicimus, quòd in his terris amnes sunt duo perpetui, quos & transivimus, Diavas & Adiavas, juncti navalibus pontibus. Ideó­que intelligi Adiabenem cognominatam, ut à fluminibus maximis Aegyptus, Homero authore, &c. The names of these two Ri­vers are one and the same in their Radix, and differ no more then the same word with [Page 61] and without an Article. Mr. Fuller takes them to be those which we have heard Xenophon call [...] and [...], the Letters D and Z being so near of sound, that easily they may be (and usually are) transmuted. Besides [...] in the Chaldee and [...] in the Arabick signifie the same thing, even that by which Ptolemy hath ex­pressed the Rivers name in Greek, and that is [...]. This is both learned and pro­bable; but whether it will satisfie Ammi­anus, I cannot tell: for I observe that wheresoever he hath occasion to mention the River Lycus, he never calleth it Diavas or Adiavas, but alwaies Anzaba: and accordingly Geog. Nub. part. 6. clim. 5. calls it Zeb major, (as he doth the other Zeb minor.) Which if it may be accoun­ted sufficient to argue these to be different Rivers in the opinion of Ammianus, I should crave leave to conjecture, that these Ri­vers Diavas and Adiavas (as the Natives called them in Ammianus's time) were the same with the fore-mentioned encircling Rivers, which (as himself a little before hath told us) were anciently called Tigris and Oena. What that Oena was we for­bear to enquire at present, as pursuing some farther notice of Diavas and Adiavas; [Page 62] whose Radix if we search, we cannot (I think) more probably fetch it elsewhere then from the Chaldee word [...], or [...], which is the same with [...], and accordingly rendered, viz. Aurum; as Dan. 2. 32, 38. So that applied to the River it will make it as much as Flumen aureum, or, as the Greeks would express it, [...]. Of which name I find a River in these parts, mentioned by Aethicus, so nearly resembling this we speak of, that for my part I doubt not but they were the same. His words are these: Fluvius Chrysorrhoas nascitur in campis Assyriis de Monte Caucaso, vicinatur & ei Tigris fluvius. Fluvius Tigris etiam ipse de Monte Caucaso quasi visitur natus, cùm aestivis temporibus sub humo eum de­super Aethiopiam currere ex viriditate su­perni cespitis prodatur. fluvius subditus latenter erumpit, & ob hoc ortus ejus non comprehenditur, quoniam de obscuritate pro­mitur: nam ambo includunt Corduben­nam oppidum, & ad unum redacti, magnam faciunt coronam, & etiam alia Oppida inclu­dunt, & Thesiphon & Seleuciam curren­tes millia 882. immerguntur ad Auge op­pidum, quod est in Sinu Persico. Not to engage my self, to justifie every particular in this piece of Geography, thus much (atleast) [Page 63] may be clearly gathered from it, That this River falling into the River Tigris, and with it including the Metropolis of the Gordiaeans, (which it seems stood in a little Island) after their running some while to­gether in a conjoyned Chanel, this united Stream separateth it self again into two, so as with its encirclings it encompasseth a large space of ground: Which is so conso­nant to the former relations, that we need not doubt they all referre to the same truth, though under different names: for the name of Tigris was more famous, and bet­ter known to Strangers; but this of Diavas or Adiavas became so grateful to the Na­tives, that with it they baptized both these Streams; for I find the Western Branch called Zaba, which is indeed but the con­tract of Zahaba, (of [...] aurum, not [...] lu­pus) and so in the Chaldee Tongue was pro­nounced Dihaba, or Diavas. Paulus Diaco­nus relating the Expedition of Heraclius the Emperour against the Persian, writes thus: Kalendis Decem. venit ad fluvium magnum Zabam: & cùm hunc transisset, castrametatus est juxta Niniven. Now, wheresoever the ancient Ninive were sea­ted, certain it is that that Town which went under that name in the time of Heraclius [Page 64] was situate either upon or very near the banks of Tigris: for opposite to the Ruines of it was Mosal built in Mesopota­mia, the River onely parting betwixt them, and that also joyned by a Bridge. Benja­min in Itinerario, pag. 62. Edit. Elzivir. Ista Civitas, (sc. Al-mozal) jam indē à diebus priscis maxima, Persidis initium est, ad Tigrin flumen sita: inter quam & Niniven Pons tantùm intercedit. Haec devastata est: attamen multos pagos & arces habet. A Ninive Arbeelem usque una est parasanga. Ninive autem Tigridis ripae imminet. The like hath Geog. Nub. Part. 6. clim. 4. Mausel est Urbs ad occi­dentalem Tigris partem exstruct a, habétque territoria ampla, & provincias magnas, ac prae caeteris territorium Lino (i. e. Nini) Urbis vetustissimae, sitae ab orientali latere Tigris, è regione Mausel. And for the up­per Stream of this River, that that also was called by the Natives Diavas or Adiavas, we have the Testimony of Moses Bar-ce­phas, a Learned man, born and living about these parts, who in his Treatise of Paradise divers times makes mention of this River, (for so I fear not to affirm) sometimes cal­ling it Dijobis, and otherwhile Dijabis, as cap. 21, and 28. Whereupon though the [Page 65] Learned Masius forbears to pass his Con­jecture, yet others have not feared to call it Danubius. Which they might easily doe by the Epenthesis of a letter, and yet not vary from the true signification of the word. For the Arabian City Dizahab, mentioned Deut. 1. 1. (which comes of the same Root with this, and is accordingly rendered by the Septuagint [...], from the Gold-mines that were found a­bout it) is by some rendered Denaba. Which name Dizaba (which is near of sound to Dijabis) being applied to this River, and the Article [...] prefixed unto it, (which is usual with the Eastern Nations to doe to the names of Rivers, as [...] Dan. 10. 4.) it will become Hudizaba, or Hudizabis, which might so easily be chan­ged into Hydaspis in a Western man's mouth, that if any be found to call it so, their errour is as pardonable (while their grounds are so good) as we take that of Caesarius the brother of Nazianzen to be, who in his Dialogues makes Danubius one of the Rivers of Paradise, upon the former mistake. A considerable Truth in our opinion, howsoever others (who had never heard of another River pretending any affinity to this name, but that famous one [Page 66] in Germany) have proposed it to be derided as an idle Conceit. Now for Authority to prove that this River hath sometimes pas­sed under the name of Hydaspis, we may produce that of Virgil, Georg. l. 4.

It is strange to see how Commentators are troubled to find what this Medus Hydaspes should be; for they tell us they never read of any River of that name in Media, but onely in India: and therefore some are bold with the Verse, and, pretending to correct it, make it much worse; for they would have it read, Medus, Hydaspésve; and so it should become Versus hypermeter. Others are of opinion that it took this Epi­thete, because the Medes under Alexander overcame the Indians. Junius Philargy­rus in loc. Apud omnes satis constat Hy­daspem flumen Indiae esse, non Mediae; sed potest videri Poeta Hydaspem Medum dixisse jure belli, quòd Medi duce Alexan­dro vicerint Porum Indorum Regem, & in suam redegerint potestatem. A vain and frivolous reason, without all warrant or [Page 67] probability; for so the Poet should rather have called it Graecus Hydaspes. But if the ground of Virgil's calling this River so (which indeed ran by Media) did not come to their observation, they might have been awakened to the enquiry of another Hy­daspes, This same River Hy­daspes is that which is mentio­ned also in the Book of Judith, Chap. 1. v. 6. as ap­peareth by the Context. by that which Plutarch writes of this River; though it be usual with that Author (whosoever he was) to conjoyn, or rather confound, divers Rivers far distant, but going under the same Name, into the same Description. Lib. De Flu. c. 1. writing of Hydaspes, he tells us, [...], Indiae autem fluvius est, vehementiùs influens in Syrtem Saro­niticam. Here again Maussacus falls foul upon his Author, and tells us in plain terms, Fabula haec est, & gratum mendacium, sed non ferendum: and all because he had never read of a Syrtis Saronitica, or Sinus Saroni­cus, but in the Bay of Corinth. But haply we may find a more probable place for it, when we have resumed the conside­ration of that which Aethicus formerly related of the Out-let of the River Chry­sorrhoas, (which was the same;) for he saith, it emptied it self into the Persian Gulf ad Auge oppidum, which himself had cal­led [Page 68] before Anisauge: which Town we may in vain seek for in Ptolemy, or any other Geographer, for it is indeed a mere [...] In our modern Maps it is called Angua, though a little mis­placed. [...], (no great wonder in Aethicus) and ought to be read Augeanis, or rather (which was the true name of it) Aginis; for so Arrianus, libro Rerum Indic. calls that Town where this River emptieth it self into the Persian Lake. A Lacu ad ipsum flumen navigatio est stadiorum DC. Ibi & pagus quidam Susiorum est, quem Aginim vocant. Is à Susis distat stadiis quingentis. About which distance Ptolemy placeth a City in these parts called Saura, which to have been a City of some note appeareth by this, that the name of it is transmitted to these times; for in our Modern Maps mention is made of it, as also in Geog. Nub. who calls it sometime (after the old name) Saura, sometimes (by a new one, as it seems) Daurac, and sets it near the Persian Gulf, or at least a Bay shooting it self up into the Land, which first received this Ri­ver, and might well receive from it the name of Sinus Saronicus, or Syrtis Saronitica; it being usual with Bays to receive their names from some near-adjoyning remarka­ble City.

CHAP. X.
A farther Prosecution of the same Argu­ment, and this Stream found at last (sutably to Moses's Description) to be Gihon.

AND now the knot is untied, and both the Head and Out-let of this River is discovered, between which so large a space of ground is interposed, that we may well imagine that in so long a Course it receiveth other waters into it besides those of its own Chanel. And so indeed it doth; for it taketh in the River Choaspes out of Media, also Eulaeus, and out of Susiana another Branch of Tigris, of which we shall speak afterwards. And thus much Strabo hath observed out of Polycletus, who affirmed, Choaspem, & Eulaeum, & Tigrim in Lacum quendam confluere, atque ex eo indè in Mare exire; yet so, as both they, and all other Rivers which they take into them, first meet together in one conjoyned Chanel, which carrieth the name of Tigris; for so he immediately notes that other had affirmed: Sunt qui affirment flumina omnia quae Susiam pervadunt, [...] [Page 70] [...], in unum Tigridis alveum illabi. And hence proceeded that diffe­rence among Authors, some ascribing that to one of these Rivers which others ascribe unto another: as, (Ex. gr.) that high esteem which the Persian Kings made of the wa­ters of Choaspes is by some ascribed to Eu­laeus, Aelian. Hist. var. l. 12. c. 40. Plin. l. 6. c. 27. p. 263. by others to Danubius; for so Giral­dus, and out of him Ortelius, Tab. Daciae & Moesiae, hath observed, Babylonios Reges ex Danubio (sive Istro) aquas inter gazas re­posuisse; De Diis Syntag. 17. Which is a remarkable passage, and gives us full assurance of the Course of this River as we have described it. For this Danubius was not Ister, (as they falsly imagine) but the same formerly spoken of, which others have called Diavas, Dijabis, Adiavas, and (Virgil and Plutarch) Hydaspis. But if any haply doubt whether Plutarch's Hy­daspis were the same with this, because he saith it was fluvius Indiae; they are to note, that the name of India is given by good Authors to divers other Countries besides that famous one vulgarly known by this name in the East: for (to omit examples not so nearly relating to our purpose) the Regions of Assyria and Susiana are (if I mistake not) by the Writers of the Empe­rour [Page 71] Trajan's Life called India. Eutrop. Bre­viar. l. 8. relating his Conquest of those parts, sets it down thus: Seleuciam & Ctesiphontem, Babylonem & Edessios vicit ac tenuit usque ad Indiae fines, & Mare Rubrum accessit: atque ibi tres Provin­cias fecit, Armeniam, Assyriam, Mesopo­tamiam, cum his gentibus quae Macedenam attingunt. But none ever affirmed that Trajan conquered the East-Indies. For though, in emulation of Alexander, he rigg'd a Navy in the Persian Gulf, (which Eutrop. (with others) calls Mare rubrum) with a purpose to assault those parts; yet it doth not appear that ever he landed his Army there, having received intelligence, while he was yet in his Voiage, that these Countries had revolted; which made him speedily return to settle those parts, as accordingly he did, and after reduced them into the form of Provinces, as Dion, Cassi­odorus, &c. testifie with Eutropius. Or if this Testimony be not sufficient, we have another beyond all exception, and that is the Testimony of Nicephorus, who con­fidently calls Adiabene an Indian Region. Hist. Ecclesiast. l. 9. c. 18. Adiabene verò Regio est Indica ampla & celebris. And hence Theophilus (a famous man born [Page 72] in this Countrey, and while he was but yet a youth sent Hostage by the Adiabenians to the Emperour Constantine, and by him sent back again as his Embassadour into those Eastern Countries, where he conver­ted many to the Christian Faith) was by the men of that age usually surnamed Theophi­lus Indus. Id. ibid. And for the same rea­son (I think) it was that this same River also got the surname of Indus: for so Plu­tarch also (though he give another fabulous reason of this Name, yet) plainly testifies that it was called Indus; loc. citat. Which is another great stumbling-block in his Commentator's way, and is not indeed easily to be removed but by the help of this ob­servation. Assuredly they that fetched the Spring of the River Indus out of the Mountains of Armenia, could mean no other River but this: and that some have done this appears by the Testimony of Sa­bellicus, Ennead. l. 1. who accordingly af­firms it; Indus in Armeniae montibus oritur. And we have farther assurance that this was the River, by the Testimony of Dionysius Periegetes, who mentioneth a River under this name running into Choaspes, (or ra­ther taking in the Stream of Choaspes into its Chanel) and with it watering the whole [Page 73] Region of Susiana. These are his words in Periegesi,

[...]. And may we not well suppose that this was the remaining Stream of that famous Ri­ver Gyndes, which Cyrus in his march from Persia towards Babylon cut into so many pieces, because it had drowned one of his beloved white Horses that drew in his Cha­riot, as it is related by Herodotus l. 1. n. 189, 190. and after him by Seneca De Ira, l. 3. 6. 21? Truely the circumstances of the Story agree so well to this River, (besides the affinity of the Names) that if it were not this, we cannot well imagine where to find it. Indeed it might move some scru­ple, that Herodotus finds the Spring of this River in Matiana, if we had not observed how confused and large the notion of Mati­ana is in his Geography; so as it may well be extended even to that place where we also believe the Fountain of this River to be. Besides, it is no unusual thing with Herodo­tus to be overtaken with that vulgar Er­rour, which we have observed to be com­mon to him with others, to mistake adven­titious In-lets for the native and original Streams of Rivers. But Stephanus speaks [Page 74] full as much to our purpose as we desire: for he (whence-soever he had it) going about to relate the famed story of Gyndes, (in voce Gyndes) prefaceth it with such a De­scription of the River as sets it right with our Observation; for thus he writes: Gyn­des, Assyriorum fluvius maximus secun­dùm Euphratem. Is cùm Cyri impetum, &c. Whether or no this River were as great as he makes it, (as like enough it might be) yet undoubtedly, if it were a River of Assy­ria, it could be no other then this that we have described. Others again have called this River Cydnus, and it appears to be the same by the Course that it runs, and Fall in like manner into the River Choaspes, (or Reception of it rather) with whose con­joyned waters it crosseth the Eastern bor­ders of Assyria; yet so, as in the way it may seem to shed out of it a little Stream, which falls into that branch of Tigris, that after we shall speak of, not far from the Rivers Lycus and Caprus: the like where­to being related by Pliny and others of the Fall of Choaspes in like manner into Tigris, it might well enough be the same, these two Rivers having before conjoyned their waters. And the observation of this is useful, to reconcile some differences to be [Page 75] found in Historians in relating the Battel at Arbela. For Q. Curtius l. 4. saith, that when Darius, being put to flight, was glad to shift for himself, Paucis fugae comitibus, ad Lycum amnem contenderet, quo trajecto, dubitavit an solveret pontem, &c. Arri­anus De Expedit. Alex. l. 4. seems to call it Bumadus, which is observed to be the same River which Ptolemy calls Caprus. But Justin plainly calls it Cydnus, Histor. l. 11. Suadentibus deinde quibusdam, ut pons Cydni fluminis ad iter hostium im­pediendum intercluderetur, non ità saluti suae velle consultum ait, ut tot millia socio­rum hostibus objiciat: debere & aliis fugae viam patere, quae patuerit sibi. And from thence (no doubt) Orosius took an occasi­on of that gross Errour, when, dreaming of no other Cydnus then that which run­neth through Cilicia into the Syrian Sea, he took boldness to write, that the last Bat­tel betwixt Alexander and Darius was at Tarsus; Histor. l. 3. c. 17. And the like mistake, arising from a like misprision, oc­casioned other Learned men to discredit another Story concerning this River, re­ported by an eye-witness out of his own knowledge. This was Diotimus, Em­bassadour from the State of Athens to the [Page 76] Persian, who delivered it with his own mouth to Eratosthenes, from whom Strabo thus relates it, Geog. l. 1. [...], Diotimum Strombichi filium, ducem Le­gationis Atheniensium, è Cilicia adverso flumine Cydno in Choaspin fluvium na­vigâsse, qui Susa alluit, ac XL dierum spa­tio Susa pervenisse; idque ipsum sibi narrâsse Diotimum. Though Eratosthenes had no just cause to except against the Cre­dit of the Relator; yet he confesses the Relation it self seemed very incredible unto him, because he could not conceive how Cydnus could possibly flow under Euphrates and Tigris, to fall into Choaspes. But if there were not onely a double Cydnus (as by this may sufficiently appear) but also a double Cilicia, (and one of them at the very place where Diotimus took Barge) then (I hope) this wonder will cease. And that there was so, the Author of the Book of Judith may serve for a sufficient witness: for relating the march of Nabuchodonosor's Army under the conduct of Holophernes towards the West, [Page 77] he tells us, Chap. 2. 21. that they went forth of Ninive three days journey towards the Plain of Bectileth, and pitched from Becti­leth near the Mountain which is at the left hand of the upper Cilicia. It is more evi­dent then can be denied, by the sequel of the history, that the Mountain which is here said to lie on the left hand (i. e. to the North) of the Region called Cilicia, was that part of Mount Taurus that boun­ded Mesopotamia and Assyria on that side; and the Plains of Bectileth are supposed by Junius to be the Plains that lay about the City Bithias not far from Samosata. But whether that were so or no, (for it may well be doubted, because Bithias lay more then three daies journey from Ninive) yet cer­tain it is, that hereabouts (and nearer Ni­nive) Ptolemy sets the Region Calacine, which Strabo calls Chalachena, and both of them might as well every whit have called it Cilicia, (for so Pliny calls some of the Inhabitants of those parts Silices, or rather Cilices) which is indeed no other then that Region whither the captive Isra­elites were translated when they were led away into Assyria, which 2 Kings 17. 6. is called Chalach, and had its denomination from the City Chalach built by Nimrod, [Page 78] Gen. 10. 11. near (as may seem) to the ut­most North-west border of Assyria, where we have formerly found this River to make its Division. And the reason why this Apo­cryphal Author calls this Region the upper Cilicia was, (in all probability) with rela­tion to that other better known in the West, that lay upon the Recess of the Syrian Sea; which had (no doubt) both its name, and the reason of it, from the same Hebrew Root with this. And so it appears plain­ly, that howsoever this report of Diotimus hath hitherto passed for little better then a prodigious Lie, yet it is indeed a remarka­ble Truth, and gives us full assurance of the Course of this River in the same man­ner that we have set it. I might here far­ther adde something concerning another name of this River, taken up (as seems) in after-times; and it is Zirma, Corma, Somra, and Samura. For Agathias finds it on the North of Assyria under the name of Zirma, Hist. l. 4. When it crosses the East of that Region, Tacitus calls it Corma, Annal. l. 12. When it runneth through Susiana, Benja­min in Itiner. calls it Somra and Samura. Which to be the same River with this we speak of, appears by the answerable Course that it held. But having already tired my [Page 79] pen in this tedious search, and come at length within view of that which was sought after, I willingly supersede from that needless labour. For who is there now that in those corrupted names of Cydnus, Indus, and Gyndes, may not easily discern the mis-shapen lineaments of the name Gihon, which Moses makes one of the four Rivers of Paradise? And if upon this ground we take leave to suppose the name Oena (which Ammianus gives it) to have been anciently either written or pronounced Geona, none (I think) can justly challenge it for an over-bold conjecture. However, certain it is that divers of the names given to this River have been by others applied to Gihon. Geog. Nub. expresly calls that River which others call Cydnus by the name of Gihon; as Scaliger also notes, who farther observes, that Gihon (a River run­ning to the South of Hierusalem, 2 Chron. 32. 30.) is also by an equipollent Synonymon called [...] Siloach, Nehem. 3. 15. which by a little corruption in after-times became [...], Jo. 9. 7. and being put into the form Pyhal becomes [...] Shullach, Obad. v. 1. So near to which both in sound and signification is the ancient name which Plu­tarch gives this River, that as they agreed [Page 80] in the one, it may well be supposed they agreed in the other also. For the most an­cient name of Tigris (as he tells us) was [...], or, as Eustathius in his Comment upon Dionys. Perieg. hath it, [...] which to have continued to this upper Stream we speak of, called by Plutarch Hydaspis and Indus, appears by the same Authour, (cap. de Indo,) where he affirms it also to be called [...] which is either no more then the former radical word with a [...] Hee­mantick prefixed before; or else it is far­ther compounded of [...] which in composi­tion as well as construction becomes [...] and is by the Aegyptians (as Josephus) and the Syrians also (as Scaliger saith) pronounced [...] or [...], and signifies Aqua, or Syn­ecdochi [...] Fluvius; so that [...] is but aqua, or fluvius Solos or Solax, or ra­ther Sulach: for that the true Radix of this word is [...] or [...], which among other acceptions signifieth Dimittere and Dejicere, Plutarch himself hath put us out of doubt, who, undertaking to interpret this word, saith that it signifies [...]. And I doubt not but this was that River Silus, which, meeting with the Streams of Eulaeus, ran together with it into the Sea. Indè flumen Silum à Montibus Persarum ve­nientem [Page 81] recipit, pòst in Mare emittit. D. Mar. Niger, Geograph. Asia Com. 5. Yea (that all occasion of doubt may be taken away) the famous name of Nilus (which was generally believed by the Ancients to be Gihon) is found also to be given to this River: For Joach. Vadianus hath obser­ved, that from the time of Moses, even to the time of Alexander, Indus was gene­rally believed to be Nilus. Upon presum­ption whereof it was, that Alexander pre­pared a Navy in Indus with a purpose to pass into Aegypt, as hoping by its Stream to sail into Nilus; as Strabo testifies Geog. l. 15. But herein was his mistake, that he sought that before him which was behind him, not knowing (as it seems) that that name was intended to this River, which by good authority we have already proved to be called Indus. The place of Vadia­nus is in his Appendix, containing an ex­plication of some places in his Commenta­ries upon Mela, which, because it is per­tinent to this purpose, we shall here describe in his own words. Sed de Indo, inquis, Moses non meminit. Geon enim, ut Augu­stin. lib. super Gen. 8. interpretatur, Nilus est per omnem Aethiopiae terram fluens. Agnosco equidem Augustini interpretatio­nem. [Page 82] Constat tamen à vetustissimis, usque Alexandri & Artaxerxis tempora, dubita­tum fuisse, diversúsne esset à Nilo Indus, an idem Amnis: id quod Aristoteles scri­ptum reliquit, &, libro 15, memoriae pro­didit gravis imprimis Author Strabo: ut rerum & humanarum & divinarum peri­tissimum Mosen eâ causâ Indum praeteri­isse existimare debeamus, quòd populari su­orum temporum historiâ in Nili nomine In­dum comprehendi videret. And (I think) Eucherius was of this mind, as he is quoted by August. Steuchus Eugub. Cosmopoeiâ in Gen. c. 2. Eucherius noster, vide quàm rectè, Phison ait est Ganges, qui nunc est Nilus. For Ganges with him is no other then Gyndes, (cut by Cyrus) even as it is noted in S. Austin also, relating that story De Mirabilib. S. Script. l. 2. in the Text it is called Gyndes, in the Margent Ganges; and was the same River with Indus; the names onely being differently pronounced by different Nations, as Epiphanius hath observed, lib. De 12 Gemmis. [...], Phison autem apud Graecos Indus, apud Barbaros Ganges vocatur. And that the name of Nilus should be given it, is nothing strange, [Page 83] not onely in regard of the amplitude of its signification, (for [...] is no more then Tor­rens or Rivus, and so may be indifferently applied to any River;) but also in regard of the great similitude that was betwixt that in Aegypt and this. For as that Nilus, not far from Memphis, parting it self into two main Branches, (out of which others were drawn) watered all that Countrey which from the form of the Greek letter is called [...]: so this River also, dividing itself into two Streams, watereth the whole Land of Assyria. Sextus Rufus in Trajano; Pro­vincias fecit Armeniam, Mesopotamiam, & Assyriam, quae inter Tigridem atque Eu­phratem sita irriguis amnibus instar Ae­gypti foecundatur. But above all other, the Testimony of Pausanias is most re­markable, who hath delivered us an ancient Tradition of the Original of Nilus so fully consonant to what we have delivered, that it self alone may not unjustly be deemed sufficient to justifie all or most that hitherto we have observed. The place is in Co­rinthiacis, sive lib. 2. Quin & Nilum fa­ma est Euphratem esse, qui ubi Paludi im­mersus diu latuerit, supra Aethiopas Nilus evadit. This is so exact a Commentary upon Moses, that no Divine (which I have [Page 84] read) hath afforded us a better. For here Nilus, (that is, in the language of the Anci­ents, Gihon, and was indeed a Stream of that River which vulgarly passed under the name of Tigris) is expresly affirmed to be the same with Euphrates; not onely be­cause the name Perath was applied to it, (as hath been observed out of Hesychius) but because, as Moses affirms, they sprung to­gether out of the same Fountain, and for some space ran so near together, that oft-times their waters touched each other; after which, separating themselves, this Ri­ver dives under fenny Lakes and Marishes, (just as the fore-cited Authors write of Tigris) and then springing up again, it takes the name of Nilus, (saith Pausanias) and watereth the Land of the Aethiopians. Could any thing have been delivered more consonant to the Sacred Story then this? For is not this the very Characteristical note by which Moses describes this River to us? Gen. 2. 13. And the name of the second River is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole Land of Aethiopia, saith our English Translation, with the Septuagint and others. And they might well enough translate [...] Aethiopia, it being well known and granted that [Page 85] Cushites and Aethiopians are the same. Joseph. Antiq. Jud. l. 1. c. 7. Ex quatuor Chamae liberis, Chuso nihil detrimenti tempus attulit. Aethiopes enim, quibus praefuit, nunc quoque tam à seipsis quàm ab Asianis omnibus Chusaei nominan­tur.

CHAP. XI.
A Confirmation of the former Assertion, by proving that the Regions through which this River passeth were anci­ently called Aethiopia.

BUT if any now begin to wonder to hear of Aethiopians in these parts, (as no doubt but this with other Observations in this Discovery will seem strange at first to prejudicate minds) I hope they will rest satisfied when they shall have heard the Testimony of so many credible Authors as have affirmed it. For howsoever the name of Aethiopia be now in a manner appro­priated to that Region of Africk which commonly goes under the name of the Kingdom of the Abassines, or Prester John; yet the ancient Aethiopians were at first Inhabitants about this River, from whence [Page 86] they passed into Africk, and no doubt car­ried their name along with them. So much is observed by S. Augustine, (or who­ever else was the Author of that Book) De Mirabilib. S. Script. l. 1. where having taken notice first of that Countrey that vul­garly goes under the name of Aethiopia, he adds, Aethiopiam alteram esse in multis locis Historiarum Scripturae describunt. De qua in Ecclesiastica Historia scribitur, quòd ex parte Indiae adhaeret. Et in Chronicis Canonicis Eusebii refertur, (viz. An. Mun­di 3580) quòd Aethiopes ab Indo flumine consurgentes, juxta Aethiopiam (juxta Ae­gyptum Euseb.) consederunt. Ex quo intelligitur, quòd terra illa in qua primitus Aethiopes habitaverunt, Aethiopia dicta esse potuerit. What that Countrey was, we may in part gather from Nicephorus Hist. Ecclesiast. l. 9. c. 18. where, among other of these Removers, he names the Assyrians, whose Countrey he had formerly in the same Chapter called India, (even as the African Aethiopians also were called In­dians) and a great part of it (as hath been said) was compassed with this River Indus: for having spoken of the Auxumita, (the most eminent Tribe amongst them) he adds, Ante hos verò ad extimum pertingen­tes [Page 87] Oceanum, Orientem versus, Assyrii: apud quos etian hanc appellationem habent, quos Alexander Macedo, ex Syria pulsos, Colonos eò deduxit. Ii ad hoc usque tempus patriâ utuntur linguâ. And seeing the identity of Language is the surest proof of the identity of Nations, we may well sup­pose that the rest of these Removers also were anciently their near neighbours, see­ing the vulgar Language of these Aethiopi­ans at this day (as themselves confess, and Scaliger delivers for certain) is no other then the ancient Chaldee; which to have been the Language of the Assyrians also, and other adjacent Regions, (with little or no variation) is more evident then can be denied. Yea, of so large extent was this title of Aethiopia, that the Chaldaeans themselves may seem to have come under the compass of it. For Tacitus, Hist. l. 5. speaking of the Antiquity of the Jews, tells us, that most Writers held them to be Ae­thiopum prolem, whose ancestors notwith­standing we all know came from Ur of the Chaldees. And in like manner Strabo notes Phoenicia by some to have been called Ae­thiopia, Geog. l. 1. [...]. Which as it is evident in the story of Per­seus [Page 88] fetching Andromeda from Aethiopia, (say the Poets) which was indeed from Joppa, where Cepheus her Father was King, and where the bones of that Monster (slain by Perseus) were to be seen many Ages after: so might Strabo, by the help of that Obser­vation, have better understood that much debated Verse in Homer, which, after long sifting, he leaves at length with a far less probable interpretation. Homer. Odyss. [...]. 81.

All which Menelaus might well doe, and yet never pass out of the Mediterranean Sea; for the truth is, all these were neigh­bour-Nations, dwelling along the Sea-coast betwixt Aegypt and Cilicia: the Aethio­pians about Joppa, the Sidonians in their own then-famous City; and the Erembi were either the Arabians, or rather the Sy­rians, whom the Scripture calleth Aramites, and were anciently known to the Heathen under the same name Aramaei, as Strabo in the same place testifies. But my purpose is not to pursue the utmost extent of this word, which alone might serve to fill a Volume, seeing, (as the same Strabo testi­fies l. 1.) anciently the better part of the [Page 89] Habitable World went under the name of Aethiopia: but confining my search with­in its due limits, it shall suffice me to men­tion those Aethiopians onely whom (as Moses and Pausanias tell us) the River Gi­hon compasseth, or courseth by. For, as Ainsworth on Gen. 2. 11. noteth, the Ori­ginal word is sometime used for turning and passing along by, though not round about; as in Jos. 15. 3. and 16. 6. where the Greek translates it [...], pass by: and so he supposeth it to be taken by Moses. Now if we take a review of this River, even from its Fountain to its Out-let, we may discover some scattered mention of Aethio­pia and Aethiopians. For as touching its Spring-head, we have heard Aethicus (be­fore cited) placing it in or about Aethiopia: Fluvius Tigris etiam ipse de Monte Cauca­so quasi visitur natus, cùm aestivis tempo­ribus sub humo eum desuper Aethiopiam currere ex viriditate superni cespitis pro­datur. The Inhabitants of Sagrus or Za­grus (a Mountain that lay to the back of this River in a good part of its Course) are observed to be a Nation of Aethiopians; for so Hesychius, [...] (lege [...]) [...]. The Province of Elymais with the adjoyning Territories ( [...] [Page 90] [...]) are by Epiphanius in Ancho­ret. n. 58. expresly placed in Aethiopia. And for the Inhabitants of Susiana, that they went anciently under the name of Ae­thiopians, we have a Testimony of as great antiquity as the evidence of any Heathen History will reach: for Memnon, who came from Susa to the aid of Priamus in the Trojan Warr, is by the ancientest Writers called Aethiopum Rex. So Hesiod in The­ogonia,

So accordingly Pindarus, Olymp. Od. 2. calls him [...], Aurorae fi­lium Aethiopem. And Pausanias, Phoc. sive l. 10. mentioning a Table in which Memnon's Picture was drawn, adds; Prope Memnonem nudus est puer ex Aethiopia; quōd nempe Aethiopum Rex fuit Memnon. Venit enim ad Bellum Trojanum non ex Aethiopia, sed à Susis Persarum urbe, debel­latis iis omnibus Nationibus quae mediae sunt usque ad Choascum (Choaspem) flu­men. And the like hath Diod. Sic. Bibli­othec. [Page 91] l. 3. c. 6. Cùm Priamus bello oppres­sus, ab Rege Theutamo praesidium, utpote Assyriis subditus, per Legatos postulâsset; ille decem millia Aethiopum, totidémque Susianos, cum ducentis curribus, duce Mem­none, ad Trojam misit. That he reckoneth the Susians apart from the Aethiopians, it is not because they also were not Aethiopi­ans, but because he had conquered some other Nations lying about Susiana, whom therefore he notes under this more gene­ral name of Aethiopians; and immediately after calls them by the like general name of Persians, for so it followeth; Erattunc Titho­nus, (Memnonis pater) Praefectus Persarum, acceptus maximè Regi. And so those Persians which the Athenians, under the conduct of Miltiades, overthrew in the Plains of Mara­thon, were pictured under the habit of Ae­thiopians, in a Viall which the Statue of Ne­mesis held in her right hand, formed by Phi­dias out of that Marble stone which the ene­mies had brought with them, and presum­ptuously designed for a Monument of their own Victorie, Pausan. Attic. sive l. 1. Which is a thing so clear, that it is strange so great an Antiquary as Pausanias was should stick at it; who dreaming onely of Aethiopians in A­frick, professes he knew not what to make [Page 92] of it. So great a lett is Prejudice to the dis­cerning of the truth. Nor is that to be neglected which Strabo notes, Geog. l. 15. that Aeschylus called the Mother of this fore-mentioned Memnon [...] which we must not take for her proper name, (for that was Aurora, say the Poets) but no­men gentilitium, taken from the Countrey where she lived, viz. Susiana. [...], (saith Strabo in the same place) Susii enim etiam Cissii dicti sunt: or rather Cossaei, as himself and other Geo­graphers call them for the most part; of whom frequent mention is made in Histo­ries, especially in the Life of Alexander, before whose time (as it may seem) they had enlarged themselves farther then the bounds of Susiana, and possessed not onely the Mountains that lay betwixt it and Per­sia, but spred themselves up Northward all along the back of this River into di­vers scattered portions of Mount Taurus, not onely Eastward as far as Media, but Westward also even to the Fountains of Tigris. Plin. l. 6. c. 27. Susianis ad Orien­tem versus junguntur Cossaei latrones. In which place Strabo also finds them, and enlarging their Bounds yet farther towards the North-east, Geograph. l. 11. [...] [Page 93] [...], Media major definitur versus Ortum Parthiâ & Montibus Cossaeorum. Sunt hi Latrociniis dediti, & aliquando sagittariorum XIII millia eduxerunt, Ely­maeis suppetias ferentes contra Susios ac Babylonios. Nearchus ait, Cùm quatuor sunt populi praedando viventes, de quibus Mardi Persis contigui erant, Uxii & Ely­maei iisdem atque Susiis, Cossaei Medis; omnes eos tributa à Regibus exegisse. Cos­saeos autem munera etiam accipere, cùm Rex aestate Ecbatanis transactâ in Babylo­niam descendit: nimiam tamen eorum au­daciam ab Alexandro fuisse compressam, [Page 94] cùm cos hyeme adortus esset. His ergò Me­dia versus Ortum definitur; ac Paraetacenis praeterea, qui contigui Persis, ipsi quoque Montana incolunt, & Latrocinia exercent. Which Testimony I have therefore recited at large, that in it we may see the warlike spirits and ancient power of this Nation, such as to impose Tribute upon the grea­test Kings, untill they were subdued by Alexander. Dionysius Afer remembreth them under the name of Cissii, (as Herodo­tus also doth oftner then once) and sets them toward the North of Babylonia, com­prehending under that name Assyria, (as others also do:)

That the Cissii or Cossaei are placed adjoy­ning to the Messabatae, is agreeable to that of Pliny, l. 6. c. 27. Susianis ab Oriente proximi sunt Cossaei; supra Cossaeos ad Septentrionem Mesobatene. Indeed Ptole­my placeth the Messabatae in Persia; but Strabo saith it was a Region of Elymaës; and haply it was adjoyning to the borders [Page 95] of them both: about which place that the Cossaei were their neighbours, is farther at­tested by Dom. Marius Niger, Geog. Asiae, Com. 5. Susianae partem Septentrionalem Cossaei tenent, regiuncula haud fertilis, tota enim montuosa est, per quam Cosaeus amnis transit. Homines sagittarii, qui Latroci­nia exercent. That Cosaeus amnis I take to be the same that in Aethicus is called fluvius Susa, which (as he describes it) in Media Provincia nascitur, bicornis; effi­citur unus: currit millia 504, descendit in Sinum Persicum. Whereupon Jos. Sim­lerus passeth this not improbable Con­jecture: Intelligo fluvium juxta quem est Susa Urbs, hoc est, Eulaeum: quem bicor­nem dicit, quoniam duos habet Fontes, unum in Susiana, alterum in Media, Zagro Mon­te, qui infra Susa in unum confluunt. And it may be Josephus meant no other River but this, when he fetched the Original of the Samaritans Ancestours à flumine Cutho. True, he sets that River in Persia, and makes the people a Persian Nation. Antiq. Jud. l. 9. c. ult. Deinde migrare jussâ Persicâ quadam gente ex eo tractu qui ab amne Cutho denominatur, sedes ei designavit in agro Samariae, caeterâque Israelitarum regi­one. Et paulò pòst; Caeterùm novi Sa­mariae [Page 96] coloni Chuthaei: sic enim tum appella­bantur, quòd à Persidis regione Chutha & flumine Chutho essent traducti, &c. But if we remember that Ptolemy also placeth Messabatene in Persis, (where farther with­in land he finds a Nation likewise of the Susaei) and consider also how largely the name of Persia was taken in the time of Josephus, this will breed no great diffe­rence. Yet I do not assent unto Josephus, that this people took their name from the River, but rather the River from them; which if it were one of the Horns of Eulaeus, or rather a Stream that fell into it, or received it, it may well seem to have been no other River then this we have discoursed upon. And that it should take the name of fluvius Chuthaeus is nothing improbable, because (as Moses saith) it watered the whole land of Chus. And indeed the Cossaei did border upon it, not onely here in Mesobatene, where they inhabited upon Mount Zagrus, but all along its Course to its Spring, upon those Mountains that lay to the back of Assyria even to Armenia; where having formerly seated themselves, they straggled afterward farther Eastward into Media and Persia, and possessed divers Mountainous places in those Countries, even to the bor­ders [Page 97] of India, (though not without some change of their Name.) So much I learn from Strabo, who, speaking of the Nor­thern parts of Media, writes thus: [...] Quod autem ad Septentrionem vergit, montosum, asperum, & frigidum est: ubi degunt Ca­dusii montani, Amardi, Tapyri, Cyrtii, aliique id genus; qui & aliunde in ista migraverunt loca, & sunt Latrones. Za­grus enim & Niphates istas gentes sparsas habent: & qui in Persia sunt Cartii & A­mardi (sic enim vocant Mardos) & qui in Armenia sunt eodem hodiéque nomine cen­sentur, eundémque habitum tenent. By which Testimony it is evident, that the Cartii and Mardi or Amardi in Media and Persia were originally descended from the Cartii and Mardi in Armenia and the Mountains adjoyning to it; where we need not doubt to find them, seeing Ptolemy, [Page 98] reckoning up the Countries that lay East to the Fountains of Tigris, nameth Gor­dene, & quae magis Orientalis Cortaea, & qui sub ipsa sunt Mardi; who yet were of the same progeny with their neighbours, though attaining this different name: which as it is well observed by learned Mr. Fuller, so it may be farther confirmed by compa­ring the Writers of Alexander's Conquest of these Nations; for those whom Arria­nus calleth Mardos, Curtius calleth Cardos. And it is very probable (which he conje­ctures) that this name was given them in stomach by their neighbours the Assyrians, because they could not conquer them: for [...] is as much as [...] deficere, and in the Chaldee [...] is Apostata or Rebellis; and such they were alwaies to the Assyrian Monarchs, who undertaking to invade them, were put to the worst, and their Armies wholly routed by them, as a Native of those parts told Xenophon. Which doubtless was the reason why Adramelech and Sha­rezer, having slain their Father Sennacherib, fled into the land of Ararat (where this Nation dwelt) for protection. As for the Cartii, which Strabo more usually calleth Curtii, as also the Cordi, Cordiaei, (and Gordiaei) Cardueni, Carduchi, &c. that they [Page 99] were originally Cossaei, their name it self (notwithstanding all this alteration) may evince. For, by the light alteration of an S into an R, Cossaei at the first became Cortii, and Curtii, and Cartii; afterward Cardi, and Cordi, and Gordii, and Gordiaei, &c. And hereof we may gather a good argu­ment from the different writing of their Countrie's name in Ptolemy. For whereas Maginus and Marius Niger have it Cortaea; Ortelius, in his Nomenclator Ptolemaicus, (with others) hath it Cotaea; which anci­ently to have been Cosaea or Cossaea none will deny that knows how customary it is in the Syriack Tongue to change S into T, (as hath already been observed.) And see­ing this Countrey lay so near the River that watered the land of Chus, and the Name answereth so exactly to it, (for how small is the difference betwixt [...] and Cotaea?) I should rather incline to believe that this might be the more likely place from whence that Colony was transplanted into Samaria; not onely because it lay nearer to those places remembred in the Catalogue of the Assyrian Conquests, as Gozan, and Haran, and Reseph, and the Children of Eden which were in Thelasar; but also because the captive Israelites (who seem to have [Page 100] changed Countries with them) were be­stowed here-abouts. 2 Kings, 17. 6. In the ninth year of Hoshea, the King of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria; and placed them in Halah, and in Habor, by the River of Gozan, and in the Cities of the Medes. As we have former­ly noted Halach or Chalach to be Chala­chena; so Habor or Chabor was either Al-Chabur, which Geog. Nub. sets in the North of Assyria, or else some Region in Mount Coathras, which in the Greek Copies of Ptolemy is called [...]. Gozan gave name to a double Region, (but both adjoyning to these parts) the one in Meso­potamia, the other in Media. And for the Cities of the Medes, I suppose not one­ly Amedon is meant, (which Geog. Nub. calls Hamadan, Benjamin Tudelensis Hem­dan, and saith (in Itinerario) that he found therein near upon 50000 Israelites) but all other Cities in that Countrey, out of which those Nations were drawn that were sent with the Chuthites to make up that Samaritan Colony, and are thus reckoned Ezra 4. 9. The Dinaei, Aparsathcaei, Tape­laei, Aparsaei, Arcavaei, Babylonii, Susan­chaei, Dehavaei, and Helamaei: which (o­mitting the Babylonians and Susanchites, [Page 101] which are well enough known without a Commentary) are expounded by Junius to be the Dennani, (or Dani, or most com­monly Daii, joyned with the Mardi by Herodot. l. 1.) the Paraetaceni, the Tapyri, the Persae, the Araceni, (or Inhabitants of Oracana, a City of Media in Ptol.) the Daritae, called also Zapovorteni, (or rather the Debae, so called by contraction for De­habae) and the Inhabitants of Elymaïs, the ancient neighbours of the Cossaei. Nor am I any thing deterred from this opinion by that of Abrabaniel, who makes Cuth or Cutha a City of the Chaldaeans: [...], Cuth est Civitas alia in Chaldaeorum regione. For as the name of Chaldaea is found given to other Regions beside that which lies upon Baby­lonia; so this in which the Curdi dwelt is commonly known to the Arabians by that name. Leunclavius, Pandect. Turc. nu. 232. A vicinis Persis & Turcis ea Regio Cur­distan appellatur, quam nunc quoque Keldan vocant Arabes, id est, Chaldaeam. And so much Stephanus [...]. had observed: Chaldia, Regio Armeniae. Incolae Chaldi. But other Chaldi in Armenia there are none but the Cardi, formerly called Cartii and Curtii, and at the first Cossaei. [Page 102] As for the name of Scythae, which Heathen Authors give this Nation, as it was sutable enough to them in regard of their often flitting and wandring, (for Historians repre­sent them to us like right Nomades, and therefore they are not unjustly called by Strabo [...]) so no doubt but it was taken from their well-known name [...], as the City Bethsan, which was re-edified and re-peopled by them, is famously known by the name of Scythopolis. Plin. l. 5. c. 18. Scythopolin, antea Nisam, Libero Patre, sepultâ Nutrice ibi, Scythis deductis; id est, Chuthaeis. And so the Countrey from whence they came is from ultimate Anti­quity remembred by the Heathen under the name of Scythia, being indeed Cotaea or Chutha; which lying so near (as it doth) to the Mount Gordiaeus, where the Ark is said to rest after the Deluge, I doubt not but it might be made appear by good proof, that this was that Scythia Saga, in qua renatum ferunt mortale genus: Cato in Frag. But the clearing of this would lead us into too large a Digression; and there­fore I forbear it, and proceed to the prose­cution of the subject in hand. Seeing the Radical Letters in the Original were the same (save the different pronunciation of a [Page 103] Vowel) in all those several names of Cissii, Cossaei, Cuthaei, and Susii; we need not doubt to affirm, that these were indeed the true and primitive Aethiopians, whom the In­habitants of Asia (as Josephus hath told us) called Chusaei. And hence it appears that their Etymologie is false that have derived the name of Susiana from [...], which in the Persian Tongue (they say) as well as the Hebrew signifies a Lilly. I will not deny but Sushan the Palace, and haply Susa the City (whence those Susanchites Ezra 4. 9.) might take their denomination from that Root; but certainly that Region whose ancient name was Cissia, (still continuing to a part of this Province in Ptolemy's time) and the name of the Inhabitants not onely Cissii but Cossaei, could have no other ori­ginal of their denomination then [...]. And hereof the Inhabitants themselves give us good assurance, who (even to this day) call their Countrey, not Susiana, but Cusistan, which is neither more nor less then the Country of Chus. Benjamin in Itin. calls it [...] Cuzestan; others call it Cure­stan, even as Chus the son of Cham is by Berosus called Cur. Dom. Mar. Niger, Geog. Asiae Com. 5. Susiana Provincia se­quitur, quam quidam in partem Persidis [Page 104] ponunt, nomen à Susa Urbe clariss. deducens; nunc à Barbaris patriâ linguâ Chus dici­tur. And no marvel it should take its name from him, who with his posterity seated himself here very early after the Floud, even before the building of Babel. For if Nimrod the son of Chus, when he went with his rebellious Associates into the land of Shinar to build that Tower, journeyed from the East, as Moses saith they did, Gen. 11. 2. then in all probability the place from whence they set out was Susiana, which lies next East to Babylonia. Indeed Chus had a numerous posterity, whence it was that his name spred so far. Some of them passed into Arabia over the River Tigris, which I should chuse for a more probable Bounder of the Eastern and Western Aethiopians mentioned in Homer, then the Arabian Sea, or Mare Rubrum; though I know also that many Secular Wri­ters have comprehended the Persian Gulf under that name. Of the Western or Arabian Aethiopians many Commentators have written learnedly: and if they had turned their pens to enquire after these in the East also, I doubt not but they might have found out a better interpretation of many places of Scripture then ordinarily [Page 105] hath been given. As (Ex. gr.) where Chus and Elam are joyned together, Esay 11. 11. Paras, Chus, and Phut, Ezek. 38. 5. as for­merly Paras, Phut, and Lud, Ezek. 27. 10. For as Paras and Elam are well known to be Eastern Nations, (to whom the Cossaei were near neighbours;) so we should not alwaies need to goe into Africk and Asia minor for Phut and Lud, but find them nearer at hand, if we did well consider that place in Judith, 2. 23. And whether any help may hence be had for the better under­standing of that obscure Prophecy, Esay 18. 1. I leave to better judgments to enquire. But surely it was not without cause that in that parallel Prophecy, Zeph. 3. 10. the Chaldee Paraphrast renders Trans flumina [...] Aethiopiae, by E Regionibus ultra flumina [...] Indiae: whether thereby he meant the less noted India that we have by the way touched upon, or that other more famous and better known Region removed farther towards the East: for even there also were Cushites or Aethiopians. The Israelites in Nisebor by the River Gozan are said in bellum proficisci ad Regi­onem Cusch per viam deserti, Benj. in Itin. And Herodotus clearly distinguishing the Eastern Aethiopians from the Western, joins [Page 106] them with the Indians, Polymn. sive l. 7. [...], Aethiopibus quidem qui sunt ultra Aegyptum & Arabibus prae­erat Arsames: qui verò ab ortu Solis erant Aethiopes (bifariàm enim militabant) or­dinati erant cum Indis. And not onely long after did Philostratus find Aethiopians about the River Indus, but Homer long be­fore had set them as far East as the rising of the Sun. And whether the River Gihon might not anciently compass even these also, I cannot certainly affirm: but the confounding of this River not onely with Indus but with Ganges also (by so many good Writers) might seem to intimate, as if they were believed anciently to have communicated in their Streams. And their opinion falls not far short of this, who have found the Fountain of Ganges in the Moun­tains of Media; as Artemidorus, that anci­ent and famous Geographer, is said to have done: and that of the fore-cited Benjamin, if we were certain it were true, might render it probable, who finds a Stream of Tigris emptying it self into the Sea over against the Island Nikrokis, which Constantine [Page 107] L' Empereur supposes to be Zeilan, former­ly called Nanigeris; an Island once famed with an opinion of Paradise, a River where­of Ganges is still held to be, by the native Indians, who yearly testifie that credulity by many superstitious Ceremonies. But the most remarkable Testimony is, the Draught of this River in that famous Ta­bula Itineraria antiqua lately set out by Peutinger, wherein the Head of it being set much about the place where we have found it, it is drawn quite through the East, and falls into the Oriental Ocean, having taken in by the way the River Ganges. If any ask how it should come to pass then, that the Course of it now should be intercepted, (if indeed it be wholly intercepted;) I answer, they will cease to wonder, if they consider not onely what Strabo hath related of a great Earthquake, whereby a great change hap­pened among the Rivers in those parts, Geog. l. 1. [...], Et Duris re­fert Rhagades, quae in Media sunt, nomen indè habere, quòd Terrae-motibus rupta fu­erit terra apud Caspias portas, complurésque [Page 108] eversae Urbes & Pagi, ac Fluviorum variae inciderint mutationes: but remember also what formerly hath been noted of Cyrus cutting the Stream of Gyndes into so many Chanels as might well suffice to exhaust the greatest River. But I do not take up­on me to maintain this, nor is there any need that I should, it being not much ma­terial to our purpose; seeing that Course of this River which we have formerly asser­ted from so good authority, is abundantly sufficient both to clear and justify the Geo­graphy of Moses.

CHAP. XII.
Another Division of Tigris; and the River Hiddekel with good Evidence found out.

AND now there remains but one Di­vision more, fully to compleat the number of the four Heads; and this we have occasionally touched upon before in producing the testimony of Pliny, who gives us a clear account of it, Hist. l. 6. c. 27. Tigris ex Armenia acceptis fluminibus cla­ris, Partheniâ ac Nicephorione, Arabas, Aroeos Adiabenósque disterminans, & [Page 109] quam diximus Mesopotamiam faciens, lu­stratis Montibus Gordyaeorum circa Apa­miam Mesenes oppidum, citra Seleuciam Babyloniam CXXV. M. P. divisus in alveos duos, altero Meridiem ac Seleuciam petit, Mesenen perfundens; altero ad Septentri­onem flexus, ejusdem Gentis tergo Campos Cauchas secat. The same Division is also remembred by Stephanus [...]. who findes the point of it in the same place that Pliny doth, viz. about Apamia: the Nor­thern Stream he calls by the name of Tigris minor; and the Southern Delas, which is but a contraction of Dehelath, or (as other­while it is written) Degelath and Diglath, and Tegelath and Tiglath, and is the same no doubt with the Hebrew word [...], ( [...] being pronounced like G, as in Gomorrha) and in Greek is as much as [...], in Latin Aquaeductus, and accordingly is translated in 1 Kings 18. 32. Geog. Nub. calls it Dogiail, part. 6. clim. 4. where in like manner he makes mention of this Division agreeable to the former. Tacrit est ex Ur­bibus Mausel, jacétque ab Occidente Tigris, & opponitur illi in mediterraneo Urbs Hatdher. Prope Tacrit separat se à Tigri flumen Dogiail, quod ejus terminos secans excurrit ad dominium Sora-man-rai, illúd­que [Page 110] alluit usque ad partes vicinas Baghdad. If any haply think this an inconsiderable Division, because not long after their par­ting these Streams meet again, viz. at or before they attain Seleucia and Ctesiphon, as Pliny intimates loc. cit. where he imme­diately subjoyns, Ubi re-meavere aquae, Pasitigris appellatur: Postea recipit ex Me­dia Choaspem; atque (ut diximus) inter Seleuciam & Ctesiphontem vectus, in Lacus Chaldaicos se fundit: To this we answer, That it is more then probable that Pliny was deceived by the homonymy of the word Tigris, which River shedding se­veral Streams from it, and all still carrying the name of the original Stream, he might easily mistake one for another. Truly I think he will hardly persuade any that hath attentively considered the Chorography of these parts, that the River Choaspes fell into that Stream of Tigris that runs by Seleucia and Ctesiphon; and yet it fell into Tigris too: for even this Stream we are in search of was (even now) by Stephanus called Ti­gris minor; and with this it fell, not into the Chaldaean Lakes, (as Pliny saith, for no part of Tigris fell into them, but they were wholly made by the effusion of Euphrates) but into the Lakes of Susiana, (whose Coast [Page 111] towards the Persian Gulf was very fenny, as Strabo notes) and in particular that very Lake whereinto we observed the former River to fall, as will immediately appear. But be it so, that some of the waters of this Northern Stream fell into the Southern at the same place where Pliny saith they did; yet certain it is that it was not the whole body of the Stream, but some small Chanel drawn out of it, which served not­withstanding to make the inclosed portion of ground a perfect Island, and is therefore by Pliny himself, as well as Stephanus, called Mesene. But that the main Stream held his Course still farther on towards the North-east, we have the warant of Pliny himself to assure us, who finds a Town situate upon the Banks of it at so large a distance from Seleucia, as will forbid us to think it could in any probability run back again unto it: for thus he writes in the fore-mentioned Book and Chapter: In Sep­tentrionali Tigris alveo Oppidum est Baby­tace. Abest à Susis CXXXV. M. pass. Ibi mortalium soli aurum in odio contrahunt; id defodiunt, nè quo cui sit in usu. If Babytace were removed but 135 miles from Susa, it was removed at a far greater distance from Seleucia; for betwixt that and Susa himself [Page 112] a little before had set no less then 450 miles, out of which if we deduct 135, there re­mains still 315 miles; all which this River having run before it attained Babytace, it is altogether incredible that the main Stream should ever turn back again so suddenly, as to fall into Tigris about Seleucia: and indeed it did not, but held its Course still on forward even to Susa it self, having first met with the former River Gihon, and Cho­aspes with it, and afterward the River Eu­laeus; by which access of Waters it be­came a mighty Stream, and flowing on still towards the Persian Gulf it carried all these Rivers along with it under its own name of Tigris, as we have learned before out of Strabo. And hence it is that Benjamin in his Itinerary calls the River that passed through Susa Tigris, upon a Bridge where­of, that joyned the two parts of the City, he tells of a memorable Monument of Glass hung up in iron chains, made at the cost of a Mahometan Prince in honour of the Prophet Daniel, if we may believe him. Nor is the name which this River holds at this day much dissonant from its ancient appellation: for in our modern Maps the River which runs by Susa is called Tiritri, which Constantine L'Empereur in his [Page 113] Notes upon the place of Benjamin suppo­seth to have been corrupted from Tigris. And no doubt but this Tigris was it whose Chanel Eumenes filled with the slaughtered bodies of Antigonus's Souldiers attem­pting to force a passage over it: for so it is expresly called by Diodorus Siculus, who notwithstanding had already told us of their quiet and uninterrupted passage over ano­ther Tigris long before they attained the place of this Defeat: for that was within a daies journey of Susa, where Eumenes had his Head-quarters, having fortified the passages of this Tigris that flowed by it, while Antigonus was yet in Babylonia re­cruiting his Army, and framing a Bridge of Boats over that other Stream of Tigris that ran by Seleucia; which accordingly he did, and passed his Army over by it into Su­siana without any lett or hindrance, finding no opposition, till, attempting the passage of this Tigris, he received that remarkable Overthrow. An evidence so clear of this Stream of Tigris which we now speak of, that it is a wonder some good Chronologers should not hereby rather have been led on to the observation of it, then so unjustly (as they do) to charge Diodorus with a con­tradiction of which he is no way guilty, [Page 114] save only through the default of their own mistake. Now if Tigris were the same that Moses calleth Hiddekel, as Vatablus saith is agreed upon by all, we need not doubt to affirm this to be the third River of Paradise, as finding it not onely passing under that name, but holding a Course so answerable to the Description of Moses as might serve alone to exclude all doubting. Gen. 2. 14. And the name of the third River is Hiddekel; that is it which goeth toward the East of Assyria. And such and so agreeable to the same point of the Com­pass is the Current of this Stream as Pliny hath set it, that we cannot desire a better Commentary. For if (as we have heard him say) this Stream, after its breaking from the other at Apamia, ran upward to­wards the North, (ad Septentrionem flexus) then it must of necessity bend its Course towards the East of the ancient Assyria: so that howsoever it watereth also the South side of that Region; yet this intimation of its inclination towards the North brings it up also to the East, with so large a bend as may well satisfie as much as the word [...] doth require. And indeed that Testimony of Pliny doth represent to our minds the Cur­rent of this River at a higher draught to­wards [Page 115] the North, then we know well how to express in a Map, keeping any tolerable correspondence with the Tables of Ptolemy. Besides, the Prophet Daniel hath abun­dantly secured us that this River was Hid­dekel, by the circumstances of that famous Vision which he saw upon the Banks of it, Dan. 10. where v. 4. he calls it the great River, which is Hiddekel. For if at the time when he saw that Vision he was President of Susiana, and ordinarily resident upon his charge in the Metropolis of that Province, or the place where the Royal Court used to be kept, viz. Sushan the Palace, (as may be gathered from Dan. 8. 2. and is suffici­ently proved by Scaliger, both in his Pro­leg. in lib. De Emend. Temp. and in his Notae ad Frag.) then there is no more doubt to be made that Hiddekel in him is the same Stream of Tigris which Secular Writers have found flowing through Susiana, then that Ulai is the same River with that which by them is usually called Eulaeus: ibid. And here also it is much to consider what mis-shapen resemblances of the true name of this River have been continued to posterity even amongst Heathen Authors. For while it runs through Susiana in its own proper Chanel, and hath not yet mingled its waters [Page 116] with the River Eulaeus, it is by Pliny cal­led Hedypnus, l. 6. c. 27. Recipit amnem Hedypnum praeter Asylum Persarum veni­entem, & unum ex Susianis. Some have written it Hedypus, but Jo. Boccatius calls it (in like manner as Pliny doth) Hedypnus, lib. de Fluminib. Hedypnus fluvius est Su­sianorum Persarum in Eulaeum flumen de­currens. Strabo is observed to call this same River Hedyphon, or, as others write it, Helyphon, Geog. l. 16. [...], Capta est eti­am prope flumen Hedyphontem Seleucia magna Civitas, quae priùs Soloce vocaba­tur. Now how easily these corrupted names of Hedypus or Hedypnus, Hedyphon or He­lyphon, might be formed out of the true and proper name of this River Hiddekel, I think none will unwillingly grant, that hath been but lightly acquainted with the many far more unlikely changes of foreign (or, as they used to call them, barbarous) words, made usually both by Greek and Latin Writers.

CHAP. XIII.
Proving the other Branch of this Divi­sion to be Pishon.

AND as we doubt not but this Stream was Hiddekel; so there is no more doubt to be made that the remaining Stream was Pishon. And this we are the more embol­dened to affirm, because here we fall in with company: for not onely Junius, but di­vers other Learned men both before and after him, have been awakened to the ob­servation of this, by the name Pasitigris, or Pisotigris, given it by Pliny and others; being indeed no other then its own pro­per name compounded with the common and vulgar name of this River. Where­unto we may adde the Testimony of Xeno­phon, who calls this River Physcum amnem, (by an easie mistake for Phison) De Expe­dit. Cyri lib. 2. A Tigride verò quartis castris M. pass. LXXX. confectis, ad Phys­cum amnem pervenere. Hujus latitudo pass. erat XX. Ponte is jungebatur. Nec longè aberat ampla Civitas, Opis nomine. If any prejudge this Testimony as imper­tinent, because Xenophon saith that they [Page 118] had passed Tigris already, and left it 80 miles behind their back, before they came to the River Physcus: let them but consult the History, and they shall be forced to ac­knowledg, that Xenophon had often before this called the Branches of Euphrates by the name of Tigris; and that this Branch which they now had passed from was Na­har-malca, the uppermost of its Streams, from which directing their march towards Assyria, (which afterward they entered in­to not far from the River Lycus, having first passed the former Stream of this Di­vision of Tigris at a Town called Caenae, after they had marched with it on their left hand some while in the Campi Cauchae, or, as he calls them, Solitudines Mediae) this Physcus amnis, which they met withall in the mid way, could be no other then the remaining Stream of the same Division, which Moses calleth Phison. And that it was a part of Tigris, we have farther assu­rance from the City Opis situate so near un­to it, and lying a little above the Bridge where they passed over it. For in the same manner hath Strabo also described the De­course of the River Tigris by this City, Geog. l. 11. In intimo Paludis recessu Ti­gris in voraginem incidens, longóque spatio [Page 119] infra terram labens, apud Chalonitidem emergit: indè ad Opin & Semiramidis mu­rum procurrit. Quintus Curtius is obser­ved several times to call the River Tigris by the name of Phasis, (being so taught by the Natives of those parts) which D. Marius Niger imputeth as an Errour to him, Geog. Asia Com. 3. Curtius Tigrim Fluvium Phasim incolas vocare ait; nescio an erro­re inductus, quemadmodum de Tanaï fecit. But if he erred no more about Tanais then he did about Tigris, our charity will easily absolve him from much guilt, and judge him not onely worthy of a pardon, but of thanks, for acquanting us so honestly (though not without some little imperfection) with the testimony of the Natives touch­ing the name of this River in their own language: for better witnesses then these we cannot desire; and we have great presum­ptions to believe, that howsoever it seemed to sound Phasis in his ears, yet it was Phi­son in their mouths, the true and ancient name of this River. The same pardonable mistake is noted in Pasitigris for Phisoti­gris: and some have observed the like in the Praenomen of the City Charax, built not far from the mouth of this River, where it emptieth it self into the Persian Gulf. For [Page 120] whereas Dion in the Life of Trajan calls it [...], and so doth Stephanus [...]. in Pliny l. 6. c. 27. it is Pasines; Junius thinks it ought to be read Phisonis Charax, as taking denomination from this River. But because those Authors agree that it took that name from Spasinus or Pasines, (a petty King in those parts) who re-edified it, we will not press that Con­jecture too far; but rather, turning our eyes from the Out-let of this River to its Fountain, take notice of that Field that lay near about it, which hath retained the name of this River so entirely, that, not­withstanding the succession of so many Ages, no corruption hath eaten into it. Procop. De Aedif. Justin. l. 1. Martyro­poli ad Solem occidentem locus adjacet Phi­son appellatus. If this place (whatsoever it was) lay to the West of Martyropolis, it lay not far from the Fountains of Tigris; so that in all likelihood its Stream ran either through or by it, and (as may be supposed) gave it this name. Whereupon will far­ther follow, that though this name of Phison be properly due to this fourth and last Di­vision of the Streams of Tigris, yet that it shed it self also through the whole Cur­rent of this River, even to its Fountain: [Page 121] and this (perhaps) was the reason why the uppermost and greatest of these Streams (which we have found to be Gihon) was by the Ancients commonly called Phison. Yea Moses himself may be supposed therefore to have named Phison the first amongst those Rivers, because it was the main Stream out of which the rest did flow.

CHAP. XIV.
Of the Land of Havilah, where there is Gold, Bdellium, and the Onyx-stone.

AS for the Land of Havilah, Chavilah, Evilah, and Evilath, (as it is different­ly written by several Writers) which this River compassed, Gen. 2. 11. we shall bet­ter determine what and where it was, when we have taken notice that Moses, Gen. 10. makes mention of two men under this name, both Heads of Families, and giving denomination to their several Countries. The one was Havilah the son of Joctan, whose posterity are said to inhabit from Mesha as thou goest to Sephar, a Mount of the East, v. 30. Both which bounds Ju­nius finds in Mesopotamia; taking Mesha [Page 122] for Mount Masius, and Sephar for Sippha­ra, a City that stood upon the upper­most Stream of Euphrates. But this Interpretation may well be suspected as doubtful, because to justifie it he is con­strained to adde a preposition more into the Text then Moses will own. For whereas in the Original it is [...] (id est, ad verbum) Ingrediendo te Sepha­ram montem Orientis; Junius renders it, Quâ venis Sepharam, ad montes Orientis usque. Which liberty, how tolerable or necessary soever it may be elsewhere, is not easily to be allowed here, there being no other just cause of this swerving, but a pre­judicate opinion that Sephar, was the name of a City, which Moses expresly makes the name of a Mountain. Much more pro­bable I take to be the interpretation of Josephus, (followed by so many of the An­cients, Euseb. Hieronym. &c.) who gives us this Commentary upon Moses's words, Antiq. Jud. l. 1. c. 7. Hi à Cophene flu­mine Indiae ad Assyriam usque habitant: so it is in Gelenius's Edition, but certainly corrupted; for S. Hierom, quoting that Testimony two several times, (lib. De loc. Heb.) hath it, Jeriam regionem: But the Greek Copy of Eusebius lately set out by [Page 123] Bonfrerius hath (no doubt) still retained the true reading, and gives us the best account of Moses's meaning: [...], Sophira mons Orientis juxta Indi­am, apud quem habitârunt filii Jectan, filii Heber, quos ait Josephus à Cophene fluvio & Regione Indiae usque ad ipsam Seriam oc­cupâsse. Whereby it is evident that the corrupted name of Jeria and Assyria in Josephus was indeed Seria, or the Coun­trey of the Seres, who had their name from [...] that signifieth Oriens, because they were Inhabitants of the utmost part of the known world Eastward: between whose Coun­trey and India lay Mount Sephar, (the East bound of the sons of Joctan) which by Arrianus (in his Periplus Erythraei maris) is called Pyrrhus Mons, in Ptolemy Bepyr­rus, but in Mercator's Tables Sepyrrus, or rather Sephyrrus; and was no other then that long ledge of Mountains that, taking rise from near the Indian Ocean, stretch themselves far up to the North, and sepa­rate betwixt Indostan and the Kingdom of China to this day. And for the Western Bound, the River Cophen, that being well [Page 124] known to be the first of those Rivers West­ward that make up the full Stream of In­dus; Mesha in Moses is either the famous Mount Nysa, (where India begins) called also (perhaps) Mysa, even as Paropanisus (the same Mount, but compounded with a­nother word) is by divers called Paropami­sus and Paropamissus; or else it was the Re­gion of the Assaceni lying under it, whose true name indeed was Massaceni, as appears by their Metropolis Massaca, (or rather Mas­sacara, i. e. Massa civitas) situate near the River Cophen, as Arrianus testifies lib. Re­rum Indic. in initio. And that Havilah should have a dwelling betwixt these Bounds, is very credible from Moses's joy­ning him with his brother Ophir, Gen. 10. 29. whose Seat was so near this Mountain, that Eusebius (and after him S. Hierom) confound their names, or rather derive the Mountain's name from the Man's, affirming that the Gold which Solomon's Navy brought from Ophir, was from this Mount Sophera, loc. citat. & suprà in voce Ophir: and so Hesychius; [...]. But Tzetzes hath retained its right name Ophyr, finding it about the same place; and gives us particular notice, that it was the same [Page 125] Countrey with that which in Ptolemy and others is called Chersonesus Aurea, a Pen­insula lying betwixt Sinus Gangeticus and Sinus Magnus, (or rather Mangus) called at this day Malacca.

And if this were the Region of Ophir, no question but the Evilaei, remembred by good Authors as dwelling near about the same parts, were the true posterity of his brother Havilah. Vetus Orbis Descriptio, (lately set out by Gothofredus) reckoning up the Nations which lay next to the West of the Seres, nameth first the Brachmani: [...], Post hos ab alio latere est regio Evi­laeorum; qui & ipsi Regum expertes sunt, & penè Deorum vitam viventes. Horum terra est mansionum triginta duarum. In that [Page 126] he describes them penè Deorum vitam vi­ventes, he may seem to intimate their Sa­cred Function, inasmuch as out of this Tribe were their Hierophantae chosen among the Indians; as may appear also by Epiphani­us, who in like manner joyneth them with the Brachmans, Exposit. Fidei Cathol. num. 12. [...], Indorum verò, Evilaei appellati & Brachmanes; Graecorum Hierophantae, & Aedituorum Cynicorum turba. And we may well presume that from them that double Region took name, which he calls [...], In Anchoret. n. 58. Through both which see­ing he finds the River Phison flowing, his Testimony might well enough save us far­ther labour in this search, if Phison were the same to him that it is to us. But seeing it is manifest that he (as divers of the An­cients besides) calls that Stream of this Ri­ver by the name of Phison which we have found to be Gihon, (and is extended by them as far as Ganges;) we having bestowed this title upon Pasitigris, are bound to find another Land of Havilah besides this in the East-Indies, much farther removed to­wards [Page 127] the West. And we doubt not but the second Havilah will help us herein, who being the son of Cush, Gen. 10. 7. his dwel­ling may be presumed not to be far remo­ved from Susiana. For though we have denied that Countrey to be Havilah, as finding no good warrant to assert it, and willing to reserve it to his Father Chus, to whom of right it did belong: yet seeing divers of his Brethren passed over into Ara­bia, which was the next-adjoyning Coun­trey to the West, and separated from it at no greater distance then the Stream of this River, which compassed a good part of it, in such manner as Moses intimates; we need not despair to find him there amongst his kindred, and his dwelling seated in such wise as Moses hath described it. And hereof we have the Testimony of Moses himself to assure us, who describing the dwelling of the Ishmaelites, (the known Inhabitants of Arabia the Desart) sets their Western Bound at Sur, which lies in the way to Aegypt, and the Eastern at Havilah, ly­ing in the way to Assyria. Gen. 25. 18. And they dwelt from Havilah to Shur, that is before Aegypt, as thou goest toward Assy­ria. And in the same position did Saul many Ages after find them, when he was [Page 128] sent to make war against the Amalekites. 1. Sam. 15. 7. And Saul smote the Amale­kites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Aegypt. And though no question but in after-times they underwent the same Changes that the rest of their neighbours the Arabians did; yet they still continued a Nation of such note, that Heathen Authors also have made men­tion of them. For Strabo speaking of the way betwixt Petra in Nabathaea and Baby­lon, (which he makes [...] stadia) sets out the passage of that journey in this wise: [...], Tota au­tem via versus Ortum aestivum [tendit] per adjacentes Arabum gentes, Nabataeos scilicet, Chaulotaeos, & Agraeos. Where, that by the Chaulotaeans are to be under­stood the posterity of Chavilah, there is no more question to be made, then that by the Agraei he meant the Hagarens or Haga­rites, who in Psal. 83. 6. are joyned with the Edomites, Ishmaelites, and Moabites: and in 1 Chron. 5. 19, 20. it is plainly in­timated, that their Countrey lay to the East of the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half Tribe of Manasses: farther East [Page 129] of which those Chaulotaeans dwelt, even as far as the Stream of Phison. So that where­as Strabo, in that Journal betwixt Petra and Babylon, sets the Chaulotaeans next to the Nabathaeans, and before the Agreans; it is not because the Agreans dwelt more East then the Chaulotaeans, but because the Chaulotaeans dwelt farther to the South then the Agreans, possessing some part of the Countrey that lay betwixt them and the Nabathaeans in the way to Babylon. And so is Dionysius Afer to be understood, who in like manner remembreth both these Na­tions, save that the Chaulotaei in Strabo are by him called Cablasii, in Perieg.

And this gives some probability to the [Page 130] Conjecture of August. Steuchus Eugub. Cosmop. in Gen. c. 2. that the Chauchabeni, which Ptolemy sets along the Current of Euphrates and to the South of Babylonia, were indeed Chaulatheni (Λ being changed into χ and θ into [...], which was easie.) How­ever, no man can well deny that those Evaleni mentioned by Glaucus, an ancient Historian, (l. 2. Arabicorum, as he is cited by Stephanus [...].) were the true poste­rity of this Havilah. And so were those Bliulaei placed by Ptolemy in Arabia, (Tab. Asiae 6.) for that they were indeed Evilaei Pliny persuades us, who calls the Hills that lay about them Montes Eblitei. And if any object that these were without the compass of the River Phison, because they are in Arabia Felix, whereas this River emptied it self into the Persian Gulf at Te­redon, (now called Balsara:) I answer; It is true, Ptolemy indeed finds the end of its Course about that City, but we have cause to believe that Ptolemy is herein defective: for not onely Philostorgius apud Niceph. Hist. Ecclesiast. l. 9. c. 19. makes the Island Messene, which lies betwixt the two jaws of this River emptying it self into the Sea, much larger then Ptolemy's description will bear; but also Geog. Nub. finds a Stream [Page 131] (at least) of this River flowing still on to the South, and upon the bank of it two great Ci­ties, Manbeg and Madar. And Petrus Texei­ra (a learned man, and an expert Traveller in those parts) assures us that it reached as far South as Catifa near unto Baharen: for thus he writes in his Itinerary, relating his passage up Tigris after they had sailed the Persian Gulf; Ubi octo aut novem leucas adverso flumine ascenderis, dividit se Flu­vius in duo brachia; quorum unus labens versus meridiem Sinum Persicum ingredi­tur in Katifa juxta Barhen, ità ut à Conti­nente veluti dividat regionem quae in lon­gitudinem patet supra octoginta leucas. Which large measure as it might alone as­sure us that the Island made by this Stream took up a great part of the Western coast of the Persian Gulf; so it is farther confir­med by the situation of Baharen, (near which was the mouth of this River) for it is placed by Ulughbekius in the Latitude of 23 Deg: whis is almost as far. South as the Western bottome of the Persian Gulf in Ptolemy: All which long Course of this River being anciently inhabited by Havilah, (the Au­thor of a populous Nation, aad spreading far) it will now be no hard matter to find within the compass of this Countrey all [Page 132] those precious things mentioned by Moses, Gen. 2. 11, 12. viz. Gold, Bdellium, and the Onyx-stone. For who hath not heard of the Gold of Arabia? And whereas Moses seems to denote some excellency in it above ordinary, by adding, And the Gold of that Land is good: so also doth Diodorus Siculus, whose words are a sufficient Com­mentary, Biblioth. l. 3. c. 12. Effoditur in Ara­bia Aurum, quod non igni decoquitur, ut apud alios consurvit; sed evestigio effossum, nucibus id castaneis simile reperitur: colore est ità lu­cido, ut pretiosos lapides ab artificibus auro inclusos splendidiores reddat. Not to menti­on the Gold of Parvaim, 2 Chron. 3. 6. which Junius supposes to have been fetched from Barbatia, which was a City in this part of Arabia, as appears by Pliny l. 6. c. 28. And as for [...], though there be difference amongst Expositors what they were; some taking the former (Bedolach) for a precious Stone, others for a Tree, and the most for a precious Gumme issuing out of that Tree, in colour white like unto Manna, Num. 11. 7. Exod. 16. 31. and the latter (Sho­ham) some translating the Onyx, (as our En­glish and others) some the Beryll, as the Chal­dee Burla, and the Arabick al Belor, and the Septuagint [...], in Exod. 28. 20. [Page 133] whatsoever they were, (if they were any of these) they were undoubtedly to be found in this Coast. For if Bdellium were a sweet Gumme, (as is most likely) the Tree that yielded it grew in this soil, as Dioscori­des witnesseth lib. 1. cap. 69. Bdellium alii Bolchon appellant, alii Madelcon: lacryma est Saracenicae arboris, (and the Countrey of the Saracens we well know was taken in his time to be here.) Or if it were a kind of Pearl, Benjamin assures us it was to be found about Catifa, (near which we have found the Out-let of this River.) And for the Beryll and Onyx and other precious Stones, this Countrey is so well known to yield them even to this day, that it is altoge­ther needless to produce the testimony of the Ancients: onely (because it serves so well to clear the words of Moses) let us take notice of the report that Nearchus (Admiral of Alexander's Fleet) made of the Western Coast of the Persian Gulf, which lay upon the land of Havilah. Strabo Geog. l. 16. [...], &c. Dicit autem in Persicae orae initio Insulam esse, in qua multi & pretiosi Uniones gignantur: in aliis verò clari & pellucidi lapilli. In In­sula quoque ante Euphratem arbores Thus redolentes nasci, quarum radices fracta [Page 134] succum effundunt. As in this latter clause, among those odoriferous Trees that yiel­ded such excellent juice we may well be­lieve Bdellium was not wanting: so in the former, amongst those Unions and precious Stones, we may be as sure that there was both the Beryll and the Onyx. And that it was thus in the In-land, as well as about the Sea-coast, Diod. Siculus is a competent witness, from whom those that desire it may receive farther satisfaction, loc. citat. And hence it was that this Countrey growing famous for those rich Commodities, (as it appears to have been of old by Moses ta­king notice of it) this part of the Land of Havilah was by Secular Geographers as­signed to that part of Arabia that vulgarly (and not undeservedly) goes under the glo­rious title of Arabia Felix.

CHAP. XV.
An Enquiry where the Region of Eden lies.

HAving thus finished the Description of the River with its four Heads, it re­maineth now that we turn our eyes back again, to see if we can discover any thing [Page 135] more perfectly concerning the Region of Eden, and the Situation of Paradise in it. And though we well know how obnoxi­ous to exceptions such particularizing is; yet having ingaged our selves thus far, and already discovered some marks in Moses to guide us in this search, we shall not refuse to doe our best endeavour to finish that also. As for the Limits of Eden, I think it lies not in the wit of any man at this day to set us out punctually and exactly how large or narrow the compass of that Countrey was in Moses's Chorography: yet seeing himself hath told us that the Spring of this River was in Eden, he hath left us assured that it was either the same, or at least a part of that Countrey which Secular Geogra­phers call Sophane, lying betwixt the Moun­tains Masius and Anti-Taurus, which did so overshadow it on both sides, (though it self also were full of lesser Hills) that from thence it seems to have taken its denomina­tion: for [...] or [...] (for Eustath. Comment. in Dionys. Perieg. calls it [...] for [...]) is as much as obtegere vel obum­brare; and so this name was therefore gi­ven it, eò quòd verticibus Taurinis umbra­tur, as Ammianus speaks in the description of Amida a famous City of this Province, [Page 136] lib. 18. And it is not unlikely but we shall find the place we seek for in these parts, if we call to mind in what manner and with what words Cl. Marius Victor hath for­merly described unto us the nature and quality of that part of this Region where we have already discovered the Fountain of this River, calling it Armeniae Saltus ac Medica Tempe: which is so exact a Para­phrase of Eden, and so fully consonant to the words of Moses, that no Poet could have given us a better. Besides, the name An­themusia given to this Region, if we pursue it to its first Original, hath much pregnan­cy in it to evince this. For if we translate [...] out of Greek into Hebrew, (which was very near the vulgar language of the Natives of those parts) what other word could we chuse to render it by but [...]? Truly their significations differ no more then a flowery and fragrant place doth from a place of pleasure. And that this name was anciently appropriated to the Re­gion of Sophene, as it is easie to gather out of Strabo, so it is observed to our hand by D. Marius Niger, who limits it out with the very same Bounds, Geog. Asiae Com. 3. Sub Basilisena, inter Anti-Taurum & Ma­sium Montes, jacet Sophena in convalle [Page 137] quadam, Regio felix. And the very same was the situation of Anthemusia: Idem, Com. 4. Praeterea Regiones in Provincia sunt Anthemusia, inter Casium (al. Masi­um) & Taurum Montes ad Armeniam, &c. Yet in Ptolemy's time and after (as we may gather from Ammianus) it may seem to have stretched its name so far South into Mesopotamia, as to reach the places about Edessa; for Batne municipium (so highly extolled for the admirable delightfulness of the place by the pen of Julian the Apostate) is by Ammianus seated in Anthemusia. And that the Grecians (after they had con­quered the East) did in this manner change the old name of this Countrey into another of their own language, (yet the same in sig­nification) we may be assured from Corne­lius Tacitus, who, mentioning some of the Cities within this Province, (and a­mongst the rest Anthemusias, remembred also by Pliny under the name of Anthemu­sia, lib. 5. c. 25. and Anthemus, lib. 2. c. 26. which we may well suppose was the same City with that which Ezek. 27. 23. is cal­led Eden) observes by the way, that they had formerly other names, till the Greeks changed them. Annal. lib. 6. At Tirida­tes volentibus Parthis Nicephorium & An­themusiada, [Page 138] caeterásque Urbes, quae, Mace­donibus sitae, Graeca vocabula usurpant, Ha­lúm que & Artemitam Parthica Oppida re­cepit. However, there can be no doubt but that the children of Eden which dwelt in Thelasar, 2 Kings 19. 12. were true and native Inhabitants of this Region: for not onely other circumstances of the Text do persuade it, but the names of the places re­membred with it do assure it, viz. Gozan, Haran, and Reseph; all which Cities are placed by Ptolemy in the North parts of Mesopotamia, and some of them (if I be not deceived) within the compass of Anthe­musia largely taken. And though it be not easie to design the very place where Telasar was seated, nor indeed what it was, whether a Castle, a City, or a Coun­trey, (or perhaps all;) for Eusebius, and af­ter him Hierom, give us no more notice of it then that it was [...], Regio Sy­riae, by which no doubt they meant Assyria, and understood it in no other sense, then that it was conquered and after possessed by the Assyrians: yet even that is sufficient to satisfie us that it stood not near Aden in Arabia Felix, where Benjamin dreamed that he had found it. Nor is there any great probability in the opinion of Junius, [Page 139] that it was Thilutha, a Castle seated in an Island of Euphrates not far from the borders of Babylonia: for beside the difference of the names, the removing of it at so far a distance from the forementioned Cities as the South Bounds of Mesopotamia are from the North, renders it very improbable. Nor can I subscribe to the Hierosolymitan Paraphrast, who affirms Resen (built by Nimrod in Assyria, Gen. 10. 12.) to be Telasar; adding this farther for the better designation of the place, that it was situate betwixt Ninive and Harjath, [...], Telasar inter Niniven & Harjath. For this affords small help to us that know not what that Harjath was, whe­ther Charchathiocerta, (the Metropolis of Sophane) as Junius supposeth, or rather that Harra or Arra, whose Territory is remem­bred by Geog. Nub. to lie within Assyria; betwixt which and Ninive if Telasar stood, in all likelihood it was no other in the Para­phrast's meaning then some place of strength in the Island of Eden, (famous among the Eastern Christians to this day) lying but twelve miles above Mosal: whereto the Opinion of Epiphanius may be accommo­dated, who calls Resen [...], by which (I suppose) he meant Labbana, which Pto­lemy [Page 140] placeth upon the banks of Tigris, at or near about this Island. But though I will not deny that Telasar in after-times might be called Resen, yet surely Resen in Assyria was none of the places which Sennacherib boasts of in his Conquests; for they were belonging to other Nati­ons that had other Gods, whereas this was in his own native Countrey, and near his Royal City: and if it should be supposed that he might re-conquer it after some Re­volt, yet if Telasar had been Resen in Assy­ria, it should in reason have challenged the first mention in the Catalogue of his Vi­ctories in that order wherein they are set down, and not after Gozan, Haran, and Reseph. More likely therefore it is that Resen, which was Thelasar, was that men­tioned by Geog. Nubiensis amongst the Ci­ties of Diar-Rabiaa, and placed betwixt Amed and Majafarecquin; Part. 6. Clim. 4. De Provinciis Diar-Rabiaa sunt Nisibin, Azun, Amed, Rasaain, Majafarecquin, &c. Nor yet doth he mean thereby the Rhisina mentioned in Ptolemy, as appears not one­ly by the situation of it, but also because he afterward remembreth that Rhisina by the name of Ras-alain, ibid. though it is true, the signification in them both is the [Page 141] same, viz. Caput, seu Fons aquae. And as that Rhisina or Ras-alain took that name because it stood near the Fountain of the River Cobar; so might this haply take the same appellation because it stood near the last Spring of Tigris; for so it must needs doe if it stood South of Majafarecquin, and North of Amida, which, as Ammianus notes lib. 18. è latere quidem Australi ge­niculato Tigridis meatu subluitur propiùs emergentis. And if this Resen were Te­lasar, we may well conjecture that the children of Rasses, Judith 2. 23. conque­red by Nabuchodonosor, were the same with the children of Eden that were in Telasar, formerly subdued by some of the Assyrian Kings: for that that Rasses was either this Ras-aain, (or some place near it) the circumstances of the history plainly prove. Or if we imagine it to have been some strong Hold or Castle, it might in likelihood be seated upon that Hill out of which Tigris last riseth, and where the strong Hold of Amida after stood, re­membred by Ammianus, and in Geog. Nub. called Tur-aamdin, and Propugnacula A­med, which stood a considerable distance to the North of the City, as appears by the ci­ted Authors, and more plainly in Not. Prov. [Page 142] Or if we rather suppose it to have been a City, it is as likely to have been Thalima­sus as any other, which Procop. De Bel. Persico lib. 1. sets 40. stad. distant from Amida: for the Letter (M) with its fore­going Vowel being rejected, (which in forein words often proves Epentheticall) it will become Thalasus, which might easi­ly be corrupted from Thalasar. Howso­ever, it is certain that the Children of Eden possessed the Confines of Armenia and Me­sopotamia, and their Countrey took up part of both. So much we learn from Aethi­cus, who twice makes mention of it under the name of Adonis, (by the like change of the word as the Garden of Eden was by the Poets fictitiously represented under the Gardens of Adonis.) Once he names it among the Provinces of the East, (where his Com­mentator Simlerus knows not how to ex­pound it otherwise then by Eden in Moses;) and afterward among the Rivers: For spea­king of a River which he calls Armodius, he describes it thus Fluvius Armodius nascitur in Aethiopia, inlustrans Regionē Adonis & Mesopotamiam; currit mill. 724, & accipitur Sinu Persico. Here it is evident that Adonis and Mesopotamia are neighbour Regions, and that Adonis lay more to the North, through [Page 143] which this River flowing, that it should find its Head in Aethiopia will not seem strange, if we remember what hath been noted before, and that Aethicus a little af­ter finds Tigris also rising in the same Ae­thiopia: and in that it is said after so long a Course to empty it self into the Persian Gulf, it is apparent that it falls in by the way either with Tigris or Euphrates, but rather Euphrates, which we have before observed to pass under a name so near to this, that we may well suppose them to be the same: For as by most it is called Arsanias, so by Tacitus it is called Arsametes, which so cor­rupt an Author as Aethicus is might easily change into Armodius. Or if this Con­jecture please not, then supposing Ar to be the contract of Nahar, i. e. Fluvius, (as in Pliny Armalchar is Nahar-malca) then the remaining part Modius is very little different from the old name of Euphrates, which (as Plutarch tells us) was Medus: for so he, Lib. De Flu. [...], Euphrates Parthiae Fluvius est juxta Babylonem urbem, qui antea dictus est Medus. So that Armo­dius is no other then the primitive and original Stream of Euphrates, or else some [Page 144] Rivolet running into it. And as this Te­stimony of Aethicus gives us a true and ex­act intelligence of the Region of Eden, both in its name and situation: so no less clear is the Testimony of Sextus Rufus, who remembreth it under the same name, and in the same place, among the Conquests of Lucullus. His words are these: Tigra­nocertam, maximam Armeniae Civitatem, expugnavit; Adenam, optimam Armeni­orum Regionem, obtinuit; per Melitenam ad Mesopotamiam descendit; Nisibin cum Fraate Rege capit, &c. This Adena, that lay in the way of Lucullus returning from Tigranocerta to Melitene, and from thence passing into Mesopotamia to Nisibis, could be no other then this Region of Eden. In­deed in some Copies it is Madenam; but in the Impression of Jansonius (which is the latest and best corrected) it is, as we have written it, Adenam: and we may sup­pose that in the original Manuscript it was Hadenam (with an aspirate,) which by chan­ging H into M was made Madenam; though even that reading will not offend those that remember how Marius Victor hath called the places hereabout Medica Tempe; and Q. Curtius, nothing the Decourse of Tigris betwixt the Cordiaci (i. e. the Carduchi) [Page 145] and this Region, calls it Mediam, l. 5. As for the title of optimam Armeniorum regio­nem, it is the same Encomium that this Author afterwards in the Life of Trajan gives to Anthemusia, calling it in like man­ner optimam Persidis regionem: which as it may argue (what we have noted) that Adena and Anthemusia were the same Re­gion; so it gives us farther to note how fully it did make good the signification of both these names, being a place of that de­lightfulness, that no Region of the East was able to hold compare with it. And we may well believe it was so, not onely from the temperature of the Climate in which it was seated, (viz. betwixt the Latitude of 37 and 40 Deg.) but also by the many rare and precious things that Geographers and Historians report to be found here. For not onely was it a most fruitful Soil, yielding increase at almost an incredible proportion; but it yielded precious Stones also and Gold mines, (as after will appear.) It was stored with all sorts of Trees both for use and ornament, emulating a perpe­tual Spring, yielding many rare and delicious Fruits; besides many medicinable Herbs, Plants and Druggs, not elsewhere to be [Page 146] found of like virtue or worth. [...], Nam Regio pa­scuis laeta est ac germinibus; adeóque etiam fert quae semper virent, & de aromatibus Amomum. Est etiam leontopodifera, & gig­nit Naphtham, & Gagatem lapidem, qui ser­pentes fugat; Strabo Geog. l. 16. From which plenty of choice Commodities we may learn the reason why, amongst those that traffick­ed at Tyre, three Cities of this Region are remembred by Ezekiel, ch. 27. 23. Charan, Channe, and Heden. Of Heden there can be no doubt, and something may be intima­ted of the situation of it afterward. Chan­ne, or Canne, was either Caini, which in Notit. Provinc. is placed a little below Amida; or rather that City which gave name to the Countrey where Tigris had its last rise, which in some Copies of Strabo is read Chalonitis, but by Casaubon Chaoni­tis, and Strabo himself acknowledgeth a Region of that name adjoyning to Assyria. And for Charan or Haran, it was not that which lay so far to the South in Mesopota­mia, where Abraham dwelt; but the City [Page 147] Corra in Ptolemy, whence the Region Cor­rinaea, which Pliny (rejecting the aspirati­on) calleth Arrhene, and lay about the place where the River of Eden first divides its Streams: and the same (I think) was that Haran, before mentioned, which adjoyned upon the Children of Eden which were in Telasar. And hereof the Amomum men­tioned by Strabo may give us assurance, which grew within the territories of this City: So much I learn from Josephus, An­tiq. Jud. l. 20. c. 2. Accersitum igitur silium maximo affectu excepit, eique dona­vit Regionem quae dicitur Caeron, Amomi feracissimam. In ea servantur Arcae reli­quiae, quâ Noe fertur evasisse Diluvium; ostenditúrque ibi hodie quoque videre vo­lentibus. But that is generally believed to have been about Gordiaea; adjoyning to which was this Region of Chaeron or Cha­ran, which being for the most part under the dominion of the Kings of Assyria or Adi­abene, (as Josephus there testifies) hence it was that Virgil called it Assyrium amo­mum, though growing indeed in Armenia, (as Dioscorides testifies) Eclog. 4. Assyri­um vulgò nascetur amomum. And seeing it cannot be doubted, but such Aromati­call [Page 148] plants and herbs must needs perfume this Countrey with such an odoriferous and fragrant smell, as might well enough reach those parts of Mesopotamia and Assy­ria through which Alexander's Army mar­ched; I am inclinable to believe that this Countrey was it which Q. Curtius calleth by the name of Arabia, lying on their left hand in their journey to Babylon. Eunti­bus aperit se laeva Arabia, odorum fertilita­te nobilis Regio. Campestre iter est, in­ter Tigrim & Euphratem, tam uber & pin­guis soli, ut à pastu repelli pecora dicantur, nè satietas perimat. And here by the way we may correct an error in the former Book of the same Historian, who having told us of Alexander's passing his Army over Eu­phrates, and thereupon refreshing them for a few daies, adds, Igitur quarto die praeter Arbella penetrat ad Tigrim. It is not easie to conceive what this Arbella should be, that Alexander marched by in his pas­sage through Mesopotamia unto Tigris; for it is certain that Arbella where he gave Darius his last defeat was not onely beyond Tigris, but the River Lycus also. There­fore I fear not to affirm that, in stead of praeter Arbella, it ought to be read praete­ritâ [Page 149] Arabiâ: and so Pliny frequently calls the Inhabitants of Mesopotamia (especially that part which lay about the Mountains, and adjoyned upon Armenia) by the name of Arabes; and at this day it is called Azemia, or Ayaman, the same name which they give to Arabia Felix. I might here adde something farther out of Strabo, con­cerning the strange plenty of Hony dropping down from the leaves of the trees, (like that 1 Sam. 14. 26.) the huge clusters of Grapes, and excellency of the Wines in the adjoyning parts of Mesopotamia and Armenia: but (not to insist upon particu­lars) if we desire the exact [...] of such a place as in every respect fully de­serves the name of Eden, let us take that description which Dionysius Afer hath made of this Countrey about the Lake Thonitis, and the distance betwixt the Streams of Tigris and Euphrates.

Which Rhamnius Fannius the Grammarian hath translated in Latin thus:

Which Description suits so well to Adam's [Page 151] Paradise, both in regard of the excellent Pasturage, the plenty of all manner of Fruit-Trees, the admirable Fertility of the Soil, and the flowry Meadows, that by that [...], Hominum stirpem pulcherrimam & immortalibus similem, we might suppose the Poet had a mind to represent before our eyes our First Parents inhabiting this happy place, while yet in their Innocency, created after the image and similitude of God. So that all this being laid together, we may well believe Ab. Ortelius had good reason for what he did, when he set the Countrey of Eden just in this place, Tab. 1. Geograph. Sac.

CHAP. XVI.
A more particular Consideration of the very place of the Situation of the Gar­den of Eden.

AS for the particular place of this Coun­trey where the Garden of Eden or Paradise it self was seated, though it might be deemed to trench too near upon Cu­riosity [Page 152] to be too inquisitive after it; yet seeing Moses hath not neglected to give us some notes whereby to find out the Bounds of it, we need not fear to follow such a Guide, so long as we keep close to his footsteps. Gen. 2. he plainly intimates that the Garden-place was betwixt the Foun­tain of the River and the division of its Streams: for these are his words, v. 10. And a River went out of Eden to water the Garden, and from thence it was parted, and became into four Heads. If that [...] ab indè be to be taken with its nearest refe­rence, viz. the Garden, and not the more remote, viz. Eden, (as in all reason it ought to be taken) then the observation of Danaeus (formerly cited) is most sound and true, that the River immediately after its efflux out of its Fountain watered the Garden with one entire Chanel; and then, having past it, broke it self into these Streams. Whence it followeth, that, see­ing the first Division of its Stream was (as Pliny hath told us) in the Region of Arrhe­ne, (the same which Ptolemy calleth Corri­naea) the place of the Garden was betwixt Corra (or Charan) and the Fountains of Tigris, in the midst whereof, and upon the [Page 153] bank of the River, stood the Tree of Life, as may be gathered from Gen. 2. 9. Rev. 2. 7. and 22. 2. Just about which place when we see in Ptolemy the nitrous Lake Thospites overflowing, it might not a little stumble us, if we did not remember, that as the Land of Sodome, which before its over­throw was like the Garden of God for deliciousness, Gen. 13. 10. was for the sin of the Inhabitants turned into a Sulphureous Lake; so might God in like manner change the most remarkable place of the Earthly Paradise for the sin of our first Parents. And this Conjecture (for I esteem it no more) may (I hope) pass with as good probability as theirs, who have imagined those fiery Flashings issuing out of some Lakes about Assyria or Babylonia, still to remain as testimonies of the Cherubims fla­ing sword turning every way, to keep the way of the Tree of Life, Gen. 3. ult. But as this Conjecture helpeth us little, so neither doth it hinder us from searching (and haply finding) some remaining memory of the Garden about this place. And though I confess this attempt never entred into my thoughts at my first on-set upon this Que­stion, as taking it then to be a Secret be­yond [Page 154] discovery, and being ready to rest sa­tisfied if I could but find out the true De­scription of the River with its Heads, and the Region of Eden: yet having upon far­ther search more seriously weighed the names which Secular Authors give this part of the Region of Eden, and finding them very significant and argumentative to this purpose, I did not onely receive farther sa­tisfaction about this particular doubt, but was filled with admiration also, that such pregnant Testimonies should so long time have escaped the observation of so many learned pens as have travelled in this Questi­on. Three names are given by several Au­thors to that portion of ground which fell within the bounds of the Garden, as Moses hath set them. The first is that of Ptole­my, who calls that Region which lay next to the East of the Fountains of Tigris by the name of Bagrandavene, for so it is in the Edition of Maginus, Lib. 5. Tab. 3. Ab Oriente verò fontium Tigridis Bagrandave­ne est: and yet in the Map of the same Edition it is called Bajavandena. Ortelius in his Nomenclator Ptolemaicus calls it Ba­gravandena. D. Mar. Niger, Geogr. Asiae Com. 3. calls it Bagrandana, and Bagrada­vena. [Page 155] And others have called it Bagra­dena and Bagadena. Secondly, Procopius usually calls the Countrey that lies about the Thospian Lake, and stretches it self East­ward to the River Nymphaeus, by the name of Arzane or Arxane: others call it Arsea, and Arsene, (even as the Thospian Lake is by Strabo called Arsena palus.) Thirdly, Strabo himself calls the Countrey adjoy­ning to it Syspereitis, or more frequently (rejecting the superfluous S praefixed to the beginning of the word, and serving for no other use but to obscure the true Ety­mology of it) Hyspereitis, and Hysperatis; and constantly placeth it betwixt Armenia and Calachena, which lay North-west of As­syria. For lib. 11. recording the fable of Armenius born at Armenium near the Boe­beian Lake in Thessaly, and peopling this place under the conduct of Jason, he adds, [...]. The like also he hath afterward in another place of the same Book, in which he farther tells us of a Town called Cambala, from whence Alexander sent Memnon to fetch great store of Gold. [...] [Page 156] [...], Sunt & auri metalla in Hyspiratide apud Cambala, ad quae Mem­nonem misit Alexander: allata sunt autem ab incolis. Now if we had the true names of this Region set clear from all ambiguity, I doubt not but we might spell out of them some broken remembrance of the Garden of Eden, and of Paradise. For to examine the first, Bagrandavena, or ra­ther (as most write it) Bagravadena or Ba­gradena; who easily discerns not that it is a compound word, and that the latter part of its composition was Adena? so that haply in its own proper language it was written [...], and what is this in effect but [...] as Moses calls it? For [...] amongst the Rabbins is pubescere, and [...] applied to the description of a place is as much as ager pube variorum seminum laetus, as Ammianus describes a Garden-spot near Seleucia; which very place (if I mistake not) Xenophon calleth [...]. And hereto accords the Hebrew word [...] (from whence no doubt the Rabbins had their [...]) which, as applied to mankind it sig­nifies Juvenis, Ezek. 9. 6. so applied to [Page 157] a place it is lectus, electus, selectus: and so that Valley in Mount Libanus, where the House of Eden, mentioned Amos 1. 5. and the City Paradisus, mentioned by Ptolemy, stood, is by Guilel. Tyrius called Vallis Bac­car and Vaccar. And of the same impor­tance is the name Macedena, which Eutro­pius (formerly alledged) applieth to this place, as appears by the places mentioned with it, and the reducing it into the form of a Province by Trajan, with the Nations that lay about it, viz. Anthemusium, the Arabians, the Quinque Regiones Transti­gritanae, (so often mentioned in following Histories) &c. Now what is Macedena, but [...]? and is all one in signification with Bagradena or Bacaradena, and in them both as much as pretiosissima vel selectissi­ma portio Hedenis: and what else was that but the Garden? Or if we may suppose Eutropius called it Macedena in stead of Bacedena or Bagedena, extricating the R, (and so it is written by some) even this also comes up to our purpose, and fully speaks out the thing we seek for, viz. Hortus Edenis. For the Eastern Nations even to this day call a Garden Baga, as Petrus Texei­ra in his Itinerary tells us: For dicoursing [Page 158] of the Original of the name of that famous City Bagdat, he affirms that it took this denomination from hence, because it was formerly a Garden-spot. Nomen autem in­venisse putatur à Baga, Persis Horto, qùia primò tantùm Bagadaden, id est, Horti, ibidem fuerunt. And in all likelihood they derived this word from the Hebrew [...] which signifieth esca, praeda, cibus: and by changing Gimel into Tzajin it is made [...] Ezek. 7. 21. from which [...] or [...] I sup­pose the corrupted word Bajavandena re­ceives most properly the former part of its composition. So that which way soever we turn it, the memory of the Garden of Eden may be retrived from this name. And no less clearly may it be gathered from the second name given by others to this Region, viz. Arzane, Arsane, Arsea, &c. For what more apt Radix can we find for it then [...], which among the Rabbins sig­nifies Hortus, even as [...] signifieth Hor­tulanus, as Buxtorfius teacheth us in his Lexicon Rabbino-Philosophicum? and so accordingly Hesychius interprets [...] and what [...] is himself after tells us, that it is [...], locus flori­dus: and yet in the next word [...] he [Page 159] tells us also that it signifies [...]. Both which significations how well they may be applied to the place we now discourse of, will appear, if we consider that this Region was a part of Sophane, which among other significations is also translated [...], Sep­tentrio, Ezek. 47. 17. And for those [...] he speaks of, that they are to be found [...], in the flowry Mea­dows of this Region, we need not doubt, seeing that name also is to be found here-about. For not onely have we the River Nymphaeus, (so often remembred in Pro­copius, and called by Pliny by a correspon­dent name Parthenias;) but the same Pliny tells us also, that the place where Tigris riseth again (after it hath run some space under ground) is called Nymphaeum, which renders it very probable that the same name was attributed to the Region that lay about it. Now if we would take the notion of Paradise under a Heathen word, we cannot have a better then [...]. For the description that is given of it is so suitable to that which they make of a Persian Para­dise, that we may safely affirm they are but Synonyma's of the same thing: for as that, [Page 160] so this was no other then a delicious Valley abounding with all the choice rarities and delights of Nature, where Emperours and Kings had their retiring Palaces and Houses of pleasure. We might justifie this by that Nymphaeum in the coasts of Apollonia, re­membred by Strabo lib. 7. Plutarch, in Vita Syllae, &c. as also that about Stagira menti­oned by the same Plutarch, in Vit. Alexand. Ludum eis & studii locum Nymphaeum prope Miezam assignavit; ubi & hâc aetate sedes Aristotelis lapideas, & ambulationes umbrosas monstrant. But I shall content my self, onely to transcribe the observation that Leunclavius hath made upon this word, which is abundantly sufficient to give us the true importance of it. Pand. Hist. Turc. n. 153. Praetor Graeciae noster cu­jusdam regii vel imperatorii palatii memi­nit, cui nomen dat Nymphaeum. Ab eo non procul dissitum describit locum, tali Teggiurum vel Imperatorum Prato rebus omnibus simillimum. Alicubi de. Nym­phaeo: Michael, ait, Palaeologus Imperator Nymphaeum pervenerat, quo loco recreare se solebant Imperatores, postquam Constan­tinopoli (à Flandris) in exilium ejecti fu­erant. Alibi verò Planitiem vel Pratum [Page 161] ipsum describit his verbis: Quum dies a­liquot (Imperator, Joannes sc. Ducas Va­tatzes) Phlebiis exegisset, Clyzomenen pro­fectus, (hoc loco nomen est) ibidem tento­ria figi jussit. Nam isthic Imperatores è Nymphaeo digressi commorari solent, ma­jorémque Veris partem transigere. Quippe totus ille locus mera planities est, quae gra­minis copiam, compluribus equis sufficien­tem, producit. Aquis etiam irrigatur, ac in propinquo multos pagos & Civitates ha­bet, à quibus ad victum necessariae res co­piosè subministrantur. But what shall we say to the third name which Strabo gives this Region, viz. Syspereitis, and other­while Hysperatis? is there any thing in that also sounding this way? Yes very much, if we purge it from those superflui­ties which the fault of some mens tongues and pens have stuffed it with; I mean the double S, which seems to have thrust it self into this word in the same manner that it hath done into the name of our neighbour-Kingdom of Spain. For as that at the first was Pania, (as Pliny testifies l. 3. c. 1.) after by the addition of an S it became Spa­nia, (and so S. Paul calls it Rom. 15. 24.) and at length by prefixing an article it was [Page 162] made Hispania: so it might (and we are persuaded it did) befall this word, from which if we reject the superfluous letter, it will become Hypereitis or Hyperatis, or rather, as it was written in its own native language, [...]; and what (I pray) is this but Ipse Paradisus? And I am the more confirmed in this, because Strabo in like manner calls that place in Libya where those Gardens (so much famed by the Poets) were supposed to be situate, Syspereitis, which by others are commonly called Hespe­rides Horti: and that they took their name from [...] is as credible, as it is cer­tain that they took their conceit from some broken notions of Moses's Paradise. And I hope I may be excused if upon this ground I take liberty to conjecture, that the City Pherendis, which Ptolemy placeth near about the Fountains of Tigris, was ancient­ly written Pheredis; it being so common for the letter N to thrust it self into words whereof it is not Radicall: and so this also in its own proper character should be [...], which perhaps was the Metropolis of this Region, and communicated in the same name with it. And I am the rather em­boldened to write this, because near about [Page 163] the same place was the City Heden seated, if Petrus Bizarus misinform us not; for he placeth it nigh Mount Cordan, (or, as he calls it, Cortestan) which is the right si­tuation of this City in Ptolemy. Hist. Pers. lib. 12. Sunt etiam haec loca infrascripta, videlicet Combalechum, Bastemum, Mula­sia, Vanla, Dresherinum, & Saltamatum; quae loca sita sunt in regione vulgò Chi­meldata, & ut plurimùm posita inter Eu­phratem & Tigrim, ad latus Montis quem incolae Cortestanum, nos Taurum appella­mus. His quoque adjiciunt Adenam, Ur­bem praeclaram & divitem, in qua sunt plu­rimae textrinae lini gossipii, & jacet ad la­tus ejusdem Montis, &c. Indeed Stepha­nus [...] mentioning a City about these parts which he calls [...], (from Edda­nus a Captain, as he imagined) finds it sea­ted upon Euphrates, and inhabited by Phoe­nicians: but the name Euphrates is ambi­guous, (as hath been noted) and it might well be there were more Heden's then one in this Region, even as Pliny also remembreth both Anthemus and Anthemusia. As for the store of Gold that Alexander is said to find at Cambala a City of Hysperatis, that will seem nothing incredible, if we remem­ber [Page 164] what was formerly said of the River Chrysorrhoas, which taking its spring about this Region, had that name given it from its golden streams. Nor is it to be neglected, that the Region called Mithracina (where the famous breed of Nisaean horses, year­ly sent by the Satrapa of those Territories to the Persian Emperour, were kept) seems by Strabo, and is by D. Marius Niger ex­presly affirmed to be about this place: which as it is an argument of the Fertility of this Soil, in regard of the pleasant Meadows and excellent Pasturage here to be found; so it testifies in what high esteem they held this portion of ground, in that they enti­tled it to their great God Mithra, (to whom also Horses were sacred, 2 Kings, 23. 11.) for [...] is as much as Ager vel pos­sessio Mithrae. And this also corresponds very well to another title usually given to Paradise in the Scriptures, wherein it is di­vers times called [...] Hortus Domini. But I am very sensible how obnoxious these Grammatical Criticisms will be to the cen­sure of such as are willing to shew them­selves pertinacious, whom we must not pre­sume to persuade to accept such arguments for Apodictical Demonstrations: yet if [Page 165] they will consider, that these are as good Arguments as the nature of the Subject we handle will well afford or bear, and that Notation is one of our Logical Topicks, from which sound Arguments may sometime be drawn, (forasmuch as Nomen may prove Notamen, the natures of things otherwhile agreeing with their names, according to that of the Poet,

they will give us leave (I hope) to make use of it to as much service as here we intend to apply it to. For it is not the Etymology of a few names onely that hath induced us to this belief, but we have farther for the confirmation of it a constant Tradition suc­cessively continued in these parts, that here-about was the place of Adam's Paradise. The firm belief whereof gave (no doubt) great advantage of credulity to that jocula­tory Paradise, (seated in some Valley a­mongst these Mountains,) by the allure­ments whereof that notable Impostour Ala­deules engaged so many seduced persons to his service, and thereby rendred himself formidable to the mightiest Monarchs of his time. A story well known in the Turkish Annals, and touched upon by those [Page 166] who have written the Life of Selymus, and is related at large by our Countrey-man Mr. Cartwright in his Travels through those parts. Nor was this Opinion brought in by the Turks, but entertained long before by the Christians, yea (if my authority fail me not) even in the times before the Floud, at what time S. Chrysostome was persuaded the place of Paradise was well known. The Author that affirms this is Methodius: a fabulous Author, (I confess) and full of dross, among which notwithstanding some grains of Gold may be found; so that if his Traditions be well sifted, they may some­times become helpful to us to spell out divers useful Antiquities, which we may in vain seek for in many a better Writer. Now this ancient Author (in lib. Revel.) speaking of the death of Seth, and the se­cession of his posterity from the posterity of Cain, hath among other things this re­markable passage: Mortuo Seth separavit se Cognatio ejus à sobole Caini, redierúntque ad natale solum. Nam & Pater eorum vi­vens prohibuerat nè miscerentur. Et ha­bitavit Cognatio Seth in Cordan monte, Paradiso terrestri proximo. If the terre­strial Paradise were near the Mount Cor­dan, [Page 167] and that Mount Cordan or Gordiae­us stood in the same place where Ptole­my hath set it; then we may rest se­cured, that the happy seat of our First Pa­rents Habitation was at or about the very place that we have described. And now to conclude: Though all these evidences laid together (which surely are as great as well may be expected in a Subject of this nature) have not raised our confidence to such a height as some have attained to, (and, as we suppose, upon far weaker grounds;) yet we verily believe that if they whom God hath blessed with abler parts, more skill in the Tongues, History, Geography, &c. a lar­ger freedom from other imployments and distractions, with a more plentiful supply of Books, and other accommodations for such a study, (all which we want) would resume this Argument, and apply their pens to the farther search of this not-unnecessary Question, they might here (sooner then in any other place yet discovered) find out the true place of the Situation of the Terrestrial Paradise.