A. M. 2108. A. C. 1897; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 3398. A. C. 2013. GEN. CH. xx-xxv. 11. dren took its origin from some tradition founded on the | be violated, is resolved to expose both himself and his, to history of Isaac's being offered, wherein, I pray, is either Abraham to be blamed, or God, for appointing him to this office; since, whether the custom was prior or subsequent to this transaction, God has herein taken an effectual care to discountenance it? 1 For if, as some imagine, this impious and abominable rite obtained at this time, it is evident that nothing could be better calculated to abolish it than this command to Abraham, which was a plain document to the whole world, that human sacrifices were not acceptable to God: for if they could be acceptable from any hand, they must certainly have been so from his, who, of all men in the world, stood highest in the favour of Almighty God. And therefore, when it appears in the event, that this command was only in trial of obedience; and that when it came to the point of execution, Abraham was expressly forbid to execute it by a voice from heaven; and (to show God's aversion to human sacrifices) by his appointment, a brute animal was substituted in the place of Isaac ; when all this is considered, I say, we can hardly think of a clearer monition to mankind upon this head, than God's own prohibition of that practice by a command from heaven, and a miraculous interposition of a vicarious oblation. the utmost peril, rather than those whom he had taken under his protection should come to any harm. Upon this principle he ventures out of doors alone among this lewd, licentious rabble, that he might calmly expostulate the matter with some of the chief of them, and divert them, if possible, from the violence they intended against his guests. The offer which he made them upon this occasion, namely, to give up his two daughters to their lust, seems to be a strange one; but then we are to consider, that as it was made in the utmost perplexity of mind, and out of a vehement desire to secure his guests; so may it, after all, imply no more than this," God forbid, my friends, that you should make yourselves guilty of a crime of so high a nature, as to offer the least indignity to these noble strangers whom I have received into my house, and whom I therefore cannot put in your power upon any terms whatever. Much rather had I part even with my own dear daughters, who are in my power, and who are also marriageable, than with those whom I am not authorized to dispose of. Wherefore, I beseech you, brethren, deal not so foolishly in this matter, but consider what you are now going to do; and since, of two evils, it is better to commit the less than the greater, are On the other hand, if this impious custom had not yet there not women among you whom ye may choose for the obtained, but God, in his great knowledge, foresaw that satisfying the desires of your flesh, and not sin against superstition would soon introduce it; what could be a the order of nature? But if there are none found that more effectual means, either to prevent or repress it, than can please you, and you will nevertheless persist, I prothe attestation of all Abraham's dispersed servants and test to you, sirs, I will sooner lose my own children, descendants, vouching every where with one voice, that with all that I have in the world, than even once consent God himself had prohibited their master from practising to depart from my word, which I have given to these it. And it is not improbable (from the fable of the god-worthy persons. Therefore do as you please with me dess Diana's substituting a deer in the room of Iphigenia, and mine, seeing that I am in your hand; only touch who was to be offered,) that the memory of God's prohi- not these." a This seems to be, in a great measure, biting all human sacrifices was handed down to late the purport of Lot's proposal to the men of Sodom; and posterity. yet, with all this mollification, it has not unjustly incurred the censure of St Austin. "We must not consider," says he, "the offer which Lot made to the inhabitants of Sodom, as proceeding from a wise, sober, and a premeditated design, but rather as a speech which dropped from a man struck with horror at the thoughts of the abominable sin they were going to commit, and who, by the surprise and trouble that he was in, had lost the use of his reason and discretion. For if once we lay Thus we have endeavoured to vindicate some passages in Abraham's life which seemed most liable to exception; and come now to inquire into the obnoxious part of the conduct of his nephew Lot. It is not to be doubted, but that Lot, who, by the assistance of his uncle Abraham, had done such signal services to the Sodomites, was by this time become a person of some eminence among them; had probably married a woman of a principal family, and was admitted into some considerable post of honour and authority. The Jewish doctors will needs persuade us, that he was now one of the judges in Sodom, and, as such, sat at the gate of the city, where the courts of judicature were usually held. His sitting at the gate, however, seems rather to have been (according to the hospitality of those days) with an intent to invite strangers into his house, the better to secure them from the libidinous outrage of his neighbours. Two strangers (who afterwards proved two angels) he had now under his roof, when the inhabitants, from all parts of the city, flocking together, stormed the house, and demanded the two strangers to be brought out to them, that they might abuse their bodies: whereupon Lot, deeply concerned lest the right of hospitality should Revelation Examined, vol. 2. Dissertation 8. 3 it down for a rule, that there may be a compensation of sin (as he calls it,) that is, that we may commit less sins, in order to prevent others from running into greater, we shall in a short time lay waste all bounds, and see every manner of wickedness come rushing in upon us without control." In Gen. vol. 4. Quæst. 46; et contra Mendatium, c. 9. et c. 7. a Le Clerc, in his commentaries upon the place, assigns another reason why Lot might, with better courage, make an offer of his daughters to the Sodomites. For, supposing him to be a considerable man in the city, and his daughters both betrothed (as we find they were betrothed, Gen. xix. 14.) to two young gentlemen of eminence, he might safely propose the thing, as knowing very well that they neither durst, nor would accept of it. That they durst not, for fear of punishment from persons of their rank and authority; and that they would not, because brothers in iniquity (however outrageous they may be against others) affect always to maintain some form of decency between themselves. But it is hard to say what persons of their complexion would either have been afraid, or ashamed to do, had the bent of their inclination tended that way. impurities of the most wicked city under heaven, they had preserved their innocence and virginity; that they unanimously joined together in the same contrivance, whereas vicious intrigues are seldom communicated, and whenever they are, always occasion quarrels ; that which they did once they never repeated, and so cannot be suspected of having been incited by brutal lust; and, lastly, that they were so far from being conscious to themselves of having acted upon any base and sinful inducement, that in the names of their children they took care to perpetuate the memory of it to posterity, which they never would have done had they thought it a reproach to their father's name. A. M. 2108. A. C. 1897; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 3398. A. C. 2013. GEN. CH. xx-xxv. 11. After the destruction of Sodom, and Lot's departure presumptions to believe;-that in the midst of all the from Zoar, he retired, we are told, into a cave, where his two daughters betrayed him into the double sin of drunkenness and incest; and with what design they did it, 'the authors who would fain apologize for their conduct do generally run into this strain, namely, that these two maids having some notions of a general conflagration of the world, and seeing their own city and country consumed by fire, were fully persuaded that the divine indignation, which had consumed the Sodomites, had fallen over the face of the whole earth, and that their father was the only man left from whose body mankind was to be repropagated. They were young and inexperienced, say they, and might therefore very well be ignorant that several parts of the earth were inhabited, as well as the plain of Sodom had been. As far as their eye would reach, they saw nothing but sulphureous flames, and a wide theatre of perdition; and this they looked upon as the final catastrophe which, as they had been told, was to put a period to nature. They had unaccountably lost their mother too; so that they concluded that they and their father were the only survivors of human nature (as Noah and his family had been after the flood), and that therefore it was their duty to take care to prevent the extinction of the species. And though they knew it to be a very grievous sin in itself, to betray their own father into a carnal knowledge of themselves; yet they thought they should be more inexcusable, if they should rate the chasteness of their bodies so high, as not to part with it rather than mankind should be no more. But all this is no more than a plausible fiction, without any foundation to support it. They had lately left Zoar, and knew that it was well inhabited; and were therefore convinced that they and their father were not the only three persons left alive in the world: but this they knew very well, that there was not so much as one of all their kindred left, by whom they could raise up seed or successors to their father; those of their father's side being at a vast distance from them; and those of their mother's, every one destroyed in the conflagration of Sodom. Now, it was at that time an universal law, which became afterwards a particular one of the Jews, that marriages should be contracted within the family, to preserve inheritances, and to avoid the mixture of seeds; so that the two sisters here argued very justly upon the principles then universally admitted, that is, upon the general law of nations. For seeing they had no brother to keep up their name and family, and their father had lost their mother, by whom he might have had other children, and they themselves their husbands, before consummation, in the common destruction, there was no apparent possibility of preserving their father's family from utter extinction after their three lives, or of averting the sad curse of excision, but by the very method which at last they concerted between them. So that they had the plea of necessity on their side, to excuse, if not to justify them; and that they were not led by any spirit of uncleanness to this action, we have these 'Origen's Hom. 5. p. 15. col. 2.; St Ambrose de Abrahama, b. 1.; and St Chrysostom's Hom. in locum. Bibliotheca Biblica, vol. 1.; Occasional Annotations, 23. Their father too, in the matter of incest, may in some measure be excused, forasmuch as he offered no violence to his daughters, but was altogether passive, and imposed upon by them; but then, it must be considered, that had he not allowed himself to drink to excess, it had not been in the power of his daughters to deceive him. The daughters indeed, without this expedient, could not have attained their end; but then the unjustifiableness of the means desecrates the end, even though it were good and laudable before. The short is, both father and daughters, in this whole transaction, were not without sin: and therefore, whatever may be said in mitigation of their faults, we mistake the matter widely if we think that the sacred history, in barely relating them, means either to approve or commend them. It cannot be denied, indeed, but that sundry difficulties occur in the character of Melchizedek, as he is described in the Holy Scriptures; but there is certainly no incongruity in his being both king and priest in one person. For if we cast our eye into any ancient writer, we shall find that, before the institution of a separate order of men, the regal and sacerdotal offices both went together; and that he who was appointed to govern the affairs of the state, had always a right to minister about holy things. This is an observation that the writings of Homer will verify in almost innumerable instances; but (to mention but one out of each of his poems) after Agamemnon was constituted the head of the Grecian army, we find him every where in the public sacrifices performing the priest's office, and the other Grecian kings and heroes bearing their parts under him in the administration: and when Nestor made a sacrifice to Minerva, Stratius and the noble Echephron led the bull to the altar; Aretus brought the water and canisters of corn; Perseus brought the vessel to receive the blood; Thrasymedes, son of Nestor, knocked down the ox; Nestor himself acted as priest, and performed the rest of the ceremony. but If we look into some of the best historians, we shall find this point more confirmed. For among the Lacedemonians, whenever they went to battle, the king, according to 'Plutarch, always performed the sacrifice; and in the army, as Xenophon informs us, his chief business was, to have the supreme command of the forces, and to be their priest in the offices of religion. In the time of the heroes, says Aristotle,' the custom was for one and the same person to be general A. M. 2108. A. C. 1897; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 3398. A. C. 2013. GEN. CH. xx-xxv. 11. of the forces, judge, and high priest, according to that | known verse in Virgil, Anius, both king of men and priest of Apollo." So that, in short, from any thing that appears in history, we have no reason to think that until some ages after Homer, mankind had any other public ministers in religion but those who were the kings and governors of the state. There were indeed, in ancient times, many little islands and small tracts of land where civil government was not set up in form; but the inhabitants lived together in peace and quiet, under the direction of some eminent person, who ruled them by wise admonitions, and by instructing them in the great principles of religion; and the governors of these countries affected a to be called priests rather than kings. But if, at any time, they and their people came to form a political society, upon more express terms and conditions, then we find these sort of persons called both priests and kings. These small states, indeed, could have but little power to support themselves against the encroachment of their neighbours. Their religion was their greatest strength: and therefore it was their happiest circumstance that their kings or governors were reputed sacred by their neighbours, and so highly favoured by God for their great and singular piety, that it was thought a dangerous thing to violate their rights, or injure the people under their protection. Such a king as this was the great Melchizedek, who came out to congratulate the patriarch Abraham: and it is no bad conjecture of some, that he was called the king of Salem, not so much upon account of Salem's being the proper name of any determinate place, the seat of his dominion, as that in general it signified peace; and that therefore Melchizedek was the king of peace,' or the peaceable king;' because the sacredness of his character secured him from being invaded by his neighbours, and his wise administration kept all things in good order, so that he was never molested by his subjects. 6 This, however, is no more than a conjecture; because it is certain that there were two places in Palestine which went under that name; the one, the same with that which was afterwards called Jerusalem, and the other, a town lying upon the banks of the river Jordan, not far from the place where John (our Saviour's forerunner) is said to have baptized. Here formerly were seen the ruins of the palace of this Melchizedek, which in the time of St Jerome, as he tells us, discovered the magnificence of its structure; and, upon that father's authority, several modern authors have gone into the opinion that this place was the metropolis of that prince. But since that city, even according to the testimony of the same St Jerome, was quite demolished by Abimelech, it is hardly conceivable how such remarkable remains should be of so long continuance, and yet escape the observation of Josephus, who was no undiligent inquirer into the antiquities of the Jewish nation; 1 En. iii. v. 80. "John iii. 22. and yet his express declaration is, that Melchizedek 3 was king of Solyma, which is now called Jerusalem. It is the much more probable opinion, therefore, that this palace was built by Jeroboam, when he repaired Salem, and that the inhabitants (possibly the Samaritans) in after ages, either devised or promoted a false tradition, that it originally belonged to Melchizedek. For the general consent of the ancients give it clearly for Jerusalem, as duly considering that Abraham's route, in returning from the territories of Damascus to Hebron, was directly through its coasts, (whereas the other Saleni lay devious to the north,) and that there was a kind of propriety in the mystery, and what the analogy of the thing seemed to require, that Melchizedek should be king of that very place in which the true Prince of Peace (whereof he was a type and representation) was in future ages to make his appearance. 5 Who this Melchizedek was, is still an hard question that has puzzled most interpreters. The author to the Hebrews indeed has recorded a description of him; but this is so far from giving us any light, that it has, in a great measure, been the occasion of leading some into a persuasion, that the person here called Melchizedek was an angel; others, that he was the Son of God; and others, that he was the Holy Ghost, in the shape and appearance of man; because they cannot conceive how the qualities ascribed to this excellent personage can comport with any human creature. The phrase, however, made use of by the apostle, dyɛvɛahóyntos, without descent, or without genealogy, explains what the apostle means by, without father, and without mother,' that is, without any father or mother mentioned in the genealogies of Moses, where the parents of all pious worthies are generally set down with great exactness:' so that there being no genealogy at all of Melchizedek recorded in Scripture, he is introduced at once; even like a man dropped down from heaven, for so the description goes on, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life,' that is, in the history of Moses, which (contrary to its common usage when it makes mention of great men) takes no notice at all of the time either of his birth or death; and herein he is made like unto the Son of God,' that is, by the history of Moses, which mentions him appearing and acting upon the stage, without either entrance or exit, as if, like the Son of God, he had abode a priest continually. 3 This is the common, and the best approved interpre Antiquities, b. 1. c. 11. Heidegger's Hist. Patriarch. vol. 1. Essay 2. 5 See Calmet's and Saurin's Dissert. on Melchizedek. Heidegger's Hist. Patriarch, vol. 2. From the times of Epiphanius there were names invented for the father and mother of Melchizedek. To his father was given the name of Heraclas, or Heracles; to his mother that of Astaroth, or Astaria.-Calmet's Dictionary. 7 Scott's Christian Life, part 2. c. 7. c The learned Heidegger, in my opinion, has taken the right method to explain this difficult passage of St Paul to the Hebrews. He supposes (as there really is) a twofold Melchizedek, the one historical, whereof Moses gives us an account in the 14th chapter of Genesis, as that he was the king as well as priest of JerusaaThus Jethro is called by Moses, not the king, but the lem; the other allegorical, whom St Paul describes in the words priest of Midian; and thus Chryses, the priest of Apollo at now under consideration, and this allegorical person is Christ. Chrysa, and not the king of Chrysa, though both he and Jethro The word Melchizedek, simply considered, means the king of were the governors of the countries where they lived.-Shuck-righteousness; and from this sense of the word, in its appellative ford's Connection, vol. 2. b. 6. acceptation, and the remembrance of this person's being a priest A. M. 2108. A. C. 1897; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 3398. A. C. 2013. GEN. CH. xx-xxv. 1}. tation of the apostle's words; but still the question returns upon us, to whom can this character, even with this comment, belong. The Jews are generally of opinion, and herein are followed by some Christians, that Melchizedek was the same with Shem, one of the sons of Noah, whom they suppose alive in the days of Abraham, the only person upon earth, say they, who could, with justice, be called his superior, and whom the description of the apostle could, in any tolerable manner, befit, as being a person of many singularities, born before the deluge, having no ancestors then alive, and whose life had been of an immense duration in comparison of those who came after him. But not to dispute the fact, whether Shem was at that time alive or no, it seems very incongruous to think that Moses, who all along mentions him in his proper name, should, upon this occasion, disguise his sense with a fictitious one; and very incompatible it is with what we know of Shem, that he should be said to be ' without father,' and 'without mother,' when his family is so plainly recorded in Scripture, and all his progenitors may, in a moment, be traced to their fountain-head in Adam. Besides, had Melchizedek and Shem been the same person, the apostle would hardly have made him of a family different from Abraham, much less would he have set him in such an eminence above the patriarch, or thereupon broke out into this exclamation concerning him: Consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of his spoils!' These arguments seem to evince, that Melchizedek and Shem were different persons; and much more reason have we to suppose that he and Ham, that wicked son of Noah, were so. For who, upon deliberate thoughts, can believe, that this cursed person was the priest of the most high God, from whom Abraham so joyfully received the sacerdotal benediction, that he returned it with the 'Bochart's Phaleg. b. 2. c. 1. as well as a king, the apostle took occasion to draw the comparison between him and Christ, in order to show the pre-eminence of the Christian above the Aaronical priesthood; and what he ascribes to the historical Melchizedek, upon this account, is only to be understood in an imperfect and improper sense, that is really and literally true only in the person of Christ. The apostle was minded, in short, to illustrate his argument with some comparison; and writing at this time to the Jews, (who were well acquainted with this allegorical way of arguing,) he could meet with none, in the whole compass of their law, so commodious for this purpose, as this Melchizedek; and therefore as Christ, the heavenly Melchizedek, was without father, without mother, without descent' here on earth, in respect of his divinity, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life;' so the like properties may, in some measure, be applied to the earthly Melchizedek; forasmuch as, in the book of Genesis, wherein all great men's genealogies are supposed to be recorded, there is no mention made, either of his birth, family, or death; only he was invested with a royal priesthood, which assimilates him to Christ. He had a father and mother, no doubt, and was born, and died like other men; but because these things are not related by Moses, the apostle looks upon them as though they had never been: so that the whole hinge of comparison turns upon the silence of the sacred historian, who, in a book (wherein it might be expected otherwise) makes no manner of mention, either of the beginning or ending of Melchizedek's life or priesthood; and it is for this reason, that he who wrote by the guidance of the blessed Spirit was directed to conceal these matters: that, in this situation, this same Melchizedek might be a more proper type of so sublime a thing as that of the priesthood of Jesus Christ.-Hist. Patriar. vol. 2. Essay 2. payment of his tithes? And much less can we believe, that one of his ill character was the type of the blessed Jesus. Jesus, indeed, himself, if he be taken for Melchizedek, appearing to Abraham in an human shape, (as he is often supposed to do in Scripture,) will answer all the character which the apostle gives of this extraordinary person: but then the wonder is, that the historian should never give us the least intimation of this; that Abraham should express no manner of surprise upon such an interview; and (what is more) how the type and the antitype can possibly be represented the same. For this is the case: here Melchizedec was a representative of our Saviour, according to that of the apostle, 'Jesus was a priest after the order of Melchizedek,' which he explains in another place, after the similitude of Melchizedek there ariseth another priest;' as much as to say, Melchizedek and Christ were like one another in several things, and thereupon one was designed to be a fit type of the other; but as it is unreasonable and absurd to say, that a person is like himself, so we cannot rationally imagine that Christ, who, as St Paul says, was after the similitude of Melchizedek,' was in reality the same person with him. Thus we have looked into a some of the chief conjectures concerning this great man, which seem to have any plausibility in them; and after all must content ourselves with what the Scriptures nakedly report of him, namely, that this Melchizedek was both a king and a priest (for these two offices were anciently united) in the land of Palestine, in the city of Jerusalem, descended, not improbably, from wicked and idolatrous parents, but 2 Edward's Survey of Religion, vol. 1. a The sole question concerning the person of Melchizedek would supply matter for a whole volume, even though one should do no more than recite the catalogue of the different opinions to which it has given rise, and the reason upon which each conjec turer has endeavoured to establish his own. The Melchizedekians, a sect in the early times of the church, maintained that he was a certain divine power superior to Christ; Hieraxes the Egyptian, that he was the Holy Ghost, because compared to the Son of God; the Samaritans, and many Jews, that he was Shem, the son of Noah; M. Jurieu, (in his Hist. Critique des Dogmes, &c. b. 1.) of late, that he was Ham, another son of his; Origen, that he was an angel; Athanasius, that he was the son of Melchi, the grandson of Salaad; Patricides, that he was the son of Phaleg; Irenæus, that he was king of Jerusalem; St Jerome, that he was king of Salem in Scythopolis; and a certain anonymous author, that he was a man immediately created by God, as was Adam. And because he is said to have had no relations, some have given out, that the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them all up; whilst others, because he is said to have no end of life, suppose that he was translated, and is now with Enoch and Elias, in a state of paradise.-Heidegger's Hist. Patriar. vol. 2. Essay 2. But all these opinions are at present reduced to these two: whether this Melchizedek was a mere mortal man, or the Son of God in human shape; which the reader may find supported with arguments on both sides, in both Saurin's and Calmet's dissertations upon this subject. 6 Those who make him to be the son of Melchi, an idolatrous king, and of a queen named Salem, have an ancient tradition, that Melchi, having resolved to offer a sacrifice to his gods, sent his son Melchizedek to fetch him seven calves, that he might sacrifice them; but that, as he was going, he was enlightened by God, and immediately returned to his father to remonstrate to him the vanity of idols. His father in wrath sent him back to fetch the victims, and while he was gone, offered up to his gods his own son, who was the elder brother of Melchizedek, with a great number of other children. Melchizedek returning, and conceiving a great horror at this butchery, retired to mount A. M. 2108. A. C. 1897; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 3398. A. C. 2013. GEN. CH. xx-xxv. 11. himself a person of singular virtue and piety, the priest | unaccountable branches of his character) he will be a of the most high God,' but perhaps the first and the wild man,' or a man like a wild ass;' this (from the last of his race who was so, which might give occasion known properties of that creature) several interpreters to the apostle to describe him under such ambiguous have resolved into these qualities,-fierce and cruel, terms for the whole of these (according to the judgment loving solitude, and hating confinement of any kind. of a learned author) a may not improperly be reduced to this single proposition,' that Melchizedek was the most illustrious of his family, and had neither predecessor nor successor in his employ. We readily grant indeed, that there is something very strange and uncommon in the prophecy relating to Ishmael; but the question is not concerning the singularity, but the reality rather, of the matters contained in it. If these are explicable in themselves, and upon examination found to be true, then is the prophecy so far from losing its credit upon the account of its strangeness, that for this very reason it demonstrates its divine origin; because nothing but an omniscient mind could foresee things so strange and unaccountable; and nothing but an almighty power and providence could bring these things to pass, and make the event exactly agree with the prediction. Now, in order to explain the prophecy itself, and thence to observe how perfectly it has all along been fulfilled, it must be remembered, that (according to the known style of the Old Testament) what is here said of Ishmael must be chiefly understood of his descendants, in the same manner as what Jacob predicts of Judah and the rest of his sons, was to relate to their posterity, and be indeed the characteristic of their several tribes. And therefore (to take notice of two of the most odd and 2 Tabor, where he lived for seven years without clothes, and without any other food but wild fruits, or any other drink but the dew that he sucked up from the plants; till at length Abraham, by the direction of God, went up to the mount, found out Melchizedek, clothed him, and brought him down with him. But those who would have him be the son of Phaleg, relate a still stranger story, namely, that Noah, upon his deathbed, charged his son Seth to take Melchizedek, the son of Phaleg, with him, and go to a place which the angel of the Lord should show them, and there bury the body of Adam, which he had preserved in the ark during the flood: that in that place Melchizedek should fix bis habitation, lead a single life, and entirely addict himself to the practice of piety, because God had made choice of him for his priest, but allowed him not to shed the blood of any animal, nor to offer any other oblation to him, but that of bread and wine only; that Seth and Melchizedek did as Noah had enjoined them, and buried Adam in the place which the angel pointed out; that apon their parting, Melchizedek betook himself to the monastic course of life which Noah had prescribed him; but that twelve neighbouring kings, hearing of his fame, and desirous of his acquaintance, consulted together, and built a city, whereof they constituted him king and governor, and, in honour to his merit, How far this part of the character was verified in Ishmael, who lived in the wilderness, and became an expert archer, his very condition of life shows us; and how properly it belongs to his posterity, the Arabians, who in every nation have very justly obtained the appellation of wild, a small inspection into history will inform us. 3 To this very day (as 3 modern travellers inform us) great numbers of them live in the deserts, and wander about from place to place, without any certain habitation. They neither plough the ground, nor apply themselves to any kind of husbandry, though there are several fruitful places in the wilderness that would repay their pains. Their whole occupation (besides spoiling their neighbours) lies in hunting and killing wild beasts, in which there are but few that make use of fire-arms. The much greater part of them make use of the bow, and do herein imitate their great progenitor, that they are the most exquisite archers in the world. Before the introduction of Mahometanism, they were as vagrant in their lust, and as little restrained in the use of females, as the brutal herd: and even now, they take as many wives as do the Turks, that is, as many as they can keep, whom they purchase of their parents, use with indifference, and dismiss at pleasure. They rove about like the fiercest beasts of prey, seeking continually whom they may devour; insomuch that the governor of Grand Cairo is forced to keep a guard of four thousand horsemen every night on the side of the city next the wilderness, to secure it against their incursions. Nor is the wilderness only the scene of their depredations. They rove all over the southern and eastern seas, visit every creek, and coast, and island, and (as the 4 historian compares them) come sousing like a hawk, with incredible swiftness, upon their prey, and are gone again in an instant. And as they have always thus preyed upon mankind, the necessary consequence is, that they have always been at variance and hostility with them; and therein have made good the other branch of Ishmael's character, His hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him.' There is not the least hint in Scripture, nor any manner of reason to believe, that Ishmael dwelt in a personal state of hostility with his brethren; nor is it conceivable how he could have maintained himself against their united called it Jerusalem.-See Selden de Jure Nat. b. 3. c. 2.; and forces, had he so done; and therefore this prediction Heidegger's Hist. Patriar, vol. 2. Essay. The same learned author, who makes the Melchizedek spoken of in Scripture, in one sense to be historical, and in another allegorical, defines the historical in these words. "He was a real and mere man, descended from Adam and Noah, by his son Ham and grandson Canaan-a king of Jerusalem, priest of the true God, regenerated and sanctified by the grace common to all the faithful-sealed up both to a happy resurrection and an eternal life." And the allegorical in these of St Paul,- Who was king of righteousness and peace, without father, without mother, without descent, a priest abiding continually and having a testimony of no end of life. All which kings as we have affirmed, says he, agree with Melchizedek in a more minute and allegorical sense, but more emphatically and really correspond with Christ."-Hist. Patriar, vol. 2. Essay 2. can not otherwise be understood, than as it relates to his posterity, the Arabians. Now, that any one nation should be of so singular and perverse a character, as to set themselves in open opposition to the rest of the world, and live in perpetual professed enmity with all mankind; and that they should continue to do so, not for one age or two only, but for four thousand years together, is surely the strangest and most astonishing prediction that ever was read or heard of. And yet, if we attend a little to the history of these people, (as soon as history takes See Rauwolf's Travels, part 2. c. 3. Bruce's Travels, Clark's, Lord Valeutia's, &e. 'Ammianus Marcellinus. Y |