Imprimatur Doctissimus hic De Paradiso Terrestri Tractatus.  
Jo. Hall, Rev. in Christo Patri, Humphredo, D. Episc. Lond. à Sac. Domest. Apr. 3. 1666.   

A DISCOURSE OF THE Terrestrial Paradise, AIMING At a more probable DISCOVERY OF The true SITUATION of that happy place of our First Parent's Habitation.  
By MARMADUKE CARVER, Rector of Harthill in the County of York.  
Nescio quâ natale solum dulcedine cunctos  
Ducit, & immemores non sinit esse sui.  Ovid. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  Orac. Magic. 
LONDON, Printed by James Flesher, and are to be sold by Samuel Thomson, at the Bishop's head in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1666.   

TO The most Reverend Father in God, GILBERT, Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY, his Grace, Primate of all England and Metropolitan; and one of His MAJESTY'S most Honourable Privy Council.  
MAY it please Your Grace to vouchsafe the Patrociny of Your great and worthy Name to this mean and unpolished Discourse, framed many years ago upon a private occasion, and for private satisfaction only; but passing into the hands of divers eminently famous for their Piety, Learning, and Station in this Church, was by them adjudged not unuseful to communicate to the Public, as relating (though more remotely) to a Concern of the whole Catholic Church, (I add, the Jewish Synagogue also) in vindicating the truth of Moses' Description of the Terrestrial Paradise from the Blasphemies of Heathenish Infidels, (Celsus, Porphyry, Julian the Apostate, etc.) and the more Heathenish Christians of these later times, the Antiscripturists, who springing (as the Spartae from the teeth of the Serpent, so these) from a prodigious mixture of Pharisaism and Sadducism, epidemically raging in these last years, (under various disguises) have arrived at length to that height of superlative Insolence, as (among other their Blasphemies) to propound the History of Paradise to scorn and derision, as a mere Utopia, or Fiction of a place that never was, to the manifest and designed undermining of the Authority and Veracity of the Holy Text: the conservation of which (next under his Sacred Majesty, the great Defender of the Faith) being by the Divine Providence entrusted to Your Grace, (whom he hath extraordinarily furnished with all excellent Gifts for the Government of so eminent a portion of his Catholic Church as this is of which he hath made Your Grace Overseer) I was encouraged, and soon after emboldened, (by the experience of Your generally-known and unparallelled Clemency, Candour, and Condescension, not to have been expected by one so inconsiderable and a stranger) to advance to this presumption, to crave Your Grace's Patronage for what may herein be observed conducing to the Vindication thereof: Not altogether doubting (considering the Cause wherein I am engaged) but that he who out of the mouths of Babes and Sucklings perfecteth strength to still the enemy and avenger, may so levelly this pebble taken out of the bag of a poor Shepherd, as, if not to pierce the brow, yet to stop the mouth of that Goliath that blasphemeth the Host of the living God. For the many mistakes, errors and imperfections which everywhere will betray the weakness of the Author, as I humbly crave Your Grace's and the Church's pardon and pity, as being not only easy for me to fall into, but (considering the great disadvantages I labour under) morally impossible for me to avoid; so for the blame of them I am content (after much reluctance to the publishing of them) to charge myself with it, being not unwilling to sacrifice my own credit to save (though but in this one particular) the Credit of the Holy Scriptures. Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Great Shepherd of the Sheep, and Archbishop of our Souls, long preserve Your Grace, to the great good of his Church; and, having served Your Generation by the will of God, vouchsafe You that Crown of Glory that fadeth not away, reserved at his appearing for all that faithfully serve him: Which is the daily Prayer of  
Your Grace's humbly and affectionately devoted Servant, M. C.   

To the Judicious and Ingenuous Reader, especially the professed Divine.  
HOW many Pens have been employed in this Enquiry concerning the Place of the Terrestrial Paradise, and how much rubbish hath been digged up, and dust raised, to the great hindrance of discovering that which was so eagerly sought for by a multitude of contradictory Opinions, and some of them hardly reconcileable to Sense or Reason, is sufficiently known to all, and is too manifest by the Consequents. For while some have evacuated the Letter, to plant a Cabalistical or Allegorical Paradise of their won, others sought for Paradise under the Orb of the Moon, or far above the tops of the highest Mountains, without the verge of this habitable world; and others taking it for the whole compass of the Earth, and others for this part, others for that, some under the Equinoctial line, and some under the Arctic Pole, or Antarctick Circle, some in the East-Indies, some in the West, some in Syria, some in Judaea, and some of late in France; (and indeed where not, where a wanton fancy or an ignorant impudence is pleased to place it?) and with no less absurdities vexing the four Rivers with incredible down-falls and uprisings, in so occult passages and strange distances, that to undertake in good earnest to confute them were to be mad for company: It is come to pass that the faith of very many hath been stumbled, and in some turned to so professed a despair of finding that place, that they count it not only an impossibility, but an impiety, to attempt a discovery of it; (Impie, locum quaeris quem Deus occultum velit, saith Pererius.) Though it cannot be denied that Moses did on purpose enlarge himself in so full and exact a Topography, (the like not to be found in the Scriptures, or scarce any Secular Author) to acquaint the men of his Age, (whereto his Description is fitted) and all succeeding Generations, with the true Situation of that Place. But (which is worst of all) beside the mischief hereby occasioned to Believers, it hath opened the mouths of Atheists and Infidels, to impeach the Holy Scriptures of falsehood, who (both in former and latter days) have hereby taken advantage to propound the History of Moses to be considered at no higher a rate then a mere Romance.  
The first that I meet withal (after the Dotages of the Schoolmen upon this Question were found so far unable to occur, as rather to foment this Scandal,) was Augustinus Steuchus Bishop of Eugubium, who, by the advantage of the Vatican Library, (whereof he was Keeper) did first (as himself says in his learned Cosmopoeia upon Genesis) undertake to assert the Description of Paradise to a Consonance of Historical and Geographical verity: And herein he was followed by divers Learned men: and in Anno 1581. the Divines of Louvain set out a topographical Description and Map of Paradise, (accordingly as he had hinted) about the Confluence of Tigris and Euphrates in Babylonia. But the Learned Franciscus Junius pursuing the overture of that Discovery, but pitching the place a little more to the North in the same Region, did with so much accurateness clear this Question, that the whole Church of God is much beholden to him for this, and not a little for other his Annotations relating to Sacred Geography, wherein I know none before him, and very few since him, that are to be admitted to a Competition of the honour of that service. And if that Worthy man had been as happy in pitching upon the right place, as he was elaborate in his Description of Paradise, there would have needed no more to have been said upon this Argument, for satisfying that imbred desire we all are affected with, to know the Place of our First Parent's Habitation, or to stop the mouth of the Enemy and Blasphemer.  
In my younger years and first Tyrociny in Divinity, while I was yet more patient of study, (my body not being then broken with so many and great infirmities as now it is, and for many years hath been) I was desirous (according to the means that I had) to satisfy myself in this Question. For though it be not of so high a nature but that many a good Christian, holding the mystery of Faith in a pure Conscience, may be ignorant of it without hazard of his Salvation; yet I always conceived that when we speak of Theology as a Science, (which is the Profession of the Divine) whatsoever the Holy Ghost hath revealed in the Sacred Code, though of remoter concernment, belongs ex officio to our cognisance and study. The Opinion of Junius having at that time so universally obtained, and (which is rare, and an argument of the great verisimilitude that it carried with it) being both approved and improved by Learned men of both Persuasions, (both Protestants and Papists) I saw great reason to acquiesce in it, as believing it might be made good against all oppositions; until, upon a stricter examination, some Doubts did arise, and afterwards multiply, to suggest a fear whether he might not have mistaken his ground, and consequently whether it might be safe to hazard the trial of this Question upon those Evidences which the place he pitched upon might seem to afford. And hereupon being brought again under an unquiet of mind, I was enforced to cast about, and inquire whether some other place might not haply be discovered, that with greater probabilities might answer the Description of Moses: and having arrived to some satisfaction therein, it happened that, undertaking to preach through the History of the Creation before an Honourable Auditory, when that Paragraph of Paradise came in its course to be spoken to; giving an Interpretation according to the apprehensions I had entertained, which could not be without some reflection upon Junius, (but briefly, and remembering myself to be in the Pulpit) a very Worthy Gentleman of happy memory, (Sir Richard Diet, one of the Council in the North) well known and much honoured in those parts for his Prudence, Integrity and excellent accomplishment in all kind of Learning, having throughly digested the Opinion of Junius, as it is also farther managed by Sir Walter Raleigh, was pleased to entertain a debate with me about it, and for divers days to discuss the Question; till at length there was raised in him also a jealousy, that the Description of Junius was not so exactly adapted to that of Moses as he had apprehended; and thereupon desired me to draw up in writing what I had meditated upon the whole matter: which accordingly I did, having the benefit of the Library of the Cathedral-Church of St. Peter's in York, and the great happiness and exceeding great advantage (never to be forgotten by me) of daily commerce with a Reverend, Pious, and Learned Divine, who both encouraged me to the undertaking, and prevailed with me to communicate the perusal of it to some others; by which means the notice and censure of it hath come into the hands of as worthy, judicious, grave, and every-way-eminent Divines, both for Learning and Piety, as this Church hath any, (and I think it hath many not to be equalled in the Christian world.)  
It is now six and twenty years ago and upward since the first (and only) Copy was drawn up, with no intention at all as then, and long time after, (till of very late) to publish it: in which space of time I have had occasion to observe divers collateral Testimonies, which might have been inserted into the Text for confirmation and illustration of many passages in the Discourse; but that I abhor the very thought of a new task, to the certain ruin of my health, already broken even to a disability of writing, otherwise then by the hand of an Amanuensis. And for this cause I have waved the advice of some, whom I have great cause to respect, persuading me to put it into the Latin Tongue, and to divide the continued Discourse into several Sections with their Summaries, for the more accommodate use and ease of the Reader, (for the supply of that defect I acknowledge to be wholly due to the favour and pains of a Friend,) being content to exhibit and submit it as it was in the first Copy, without any alteration at all, to the Judgement of this Church in which I was born, and in which, by the Grace of God, I serve, hoping for her Indulgence in faults upon the by, so I approve mine intention in the main, which is briefly this; That there was in Armenia Major a Region called Eden, in the Eastern part whereof there was and is a River, which with one entire Channel having watered the place where the Earthly Paradise was planted, doth afterward branch itself into four Streams, each respectively running in the same Course, and through the same Countries as Moses hath set them, and the Countries themselves even in after-Ages retaining the same Names and Characters by which he hath described them. Each particular whereof if I have made good by the testimony of two or three credible Witnesses, (for the Law requires no more, and I have brought no less;) I shall acknowledge I have attained what I aimed at, and shall contentedly bear the imputation of many other failings upon the by, which were impossible for me to avoid. For under that imperfect discovery which we have of those places where the scene of this Discourse lies, none of the Ancients having furnished us with Tables but only Ptolemy, and his but imperfect ones, and few describing those Regions to any purpose, so that it was necessary to make up that defect by scattered Testimonies to be gathered here and there where I could find them, and to be managed many times by Conjectures; it will be no wonder if I become obnoxious to mistakes; and he shall forget his Interest in the common Humanity that shall be too rigorous in imputing them. Grant me, upon the Testimonies here produced, that Four such Streams as Moses speaks of were acknowledged for real in after-Ages, and if I err in the precise point of place where any of them breaks from the main Stream, or in the Decourse of it with all it its gires and windings, with the reception of other Rivers into it, and many such like, I shall willingly acknowledge such unavoidable mistakes, so the main chance be saved. And as I speak this with reference to the Map, which must serve as a Commentary to the Discourse, and was drawn by me as near as I could to the Tables of Ptolemy; so in the Discourse itself, in those larger Digressions which I make upon the Countries themselves through which those Rivers pass, I will not affirm that every Conjecture I make is infallible, or that I may not have erred in divers particulars incidental to the Illustrations which were necessary for me to prosecute: yet am I not only willing, but desirous, to see those mistakes amended. and have some hope that, by the help of those Learned men who have begun to open the treasuries of the Orient unto us, particularly the Translation of the Arabic Geographers, much light may be fetched, as for rectifying what is amiss, so for confirming much of what I have observed; which howsoever it may appear New to the men of this Generation, I perceive by such Writings as have been translated since this Treatise was finished, hath obtained the credit of ancient and received Truth in those Eastern parts. And upon this occasion I could wish, that having so great helps from the knowledge of Tongues, plenty of Commentaries, and the like, a little more diligence might be added, as for perfecting Sacred Chronology, so for improving Sacred Geography; for want of which not only many excellent Treatises have suffered some blemishes, but a good portion of the Holy Text hath lain upon our hands unimproved; yea (which is saddest of all, and therefore most to be heeded) some places of Scripture have been carped at, and made use of by the Adversary, to elevate and disparage the credit of itself: as this very place which I have to discourse upon may serve for an Instance too notorious, which through the negligence of former times, in not making out the truth of it by the help of Geography, but blanching it over with Allegorical, or impertinent and ridiculous Interpretations, hath suffered even to the imputation of a Fable, (for that is the usual style that Julian in his Blasphemous Rhetorications is accustomed to bespatter the Writings of Moses withal.) And this giveth me often occasion to wonder, whence it should come to pass (except to palliate sloth, and ignorance thence arising) that matters of this nature should be so slighted, and accounted of by very many but as mere Parerga, or things of so minute and invaluable consideration as not to deserve our study: whereas it is certain that, without the help of Sacred Geography, the immediate Literal sense of the Text (which is the Basis of all true Interpretation) cannot in many places be made out, nor the History cleared, nor the Questions obviously presenting themselves discussed; so that if any one stick morosely upon the spirit of any man unsatisfied, it is hardly credible what mischief this may amount to. For the wily Serpent, that early found a hole to creep into Paradise, if he can but get advantage upon such dissatisfaction to suggest a Temptation to discredit, or but doubt of, the truth of any Particle of Scripture, will by degrees improve it to a questioning, and at length a denying the truth of the whole. To quicken our industry to this study, we have not only the example of the Ancients, who held it to be of singular use, (as appears by Eusebius' Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which St. Hierom for that cause translated into Latin, with divers additions of his own;) but the great encouragement which these Times afford, by the favour of our most Gracious SOVEREIGN, not only countenancing, but effectually promoving, the advancement of all kind of Learning: By means whereof as the Book of Nature may seem to have received a new Edition by the farther Discoveries of the Secrets of Philosophy; so no doubt the Book of the Scriptures also may receive much light, for the farther discovery of many useful Truths, both in the History and Mystery, that have not yet been so heedfully attended to. An evident Specimen whereof we have in the Writings of the Learned Bochartus, and the hopeful Overtures already begun, and successfully prosecuted, by our alike-learned Dr. Lightfoot.  
But I fear (courteous Reader) lest by this time I may have tired thy patience with this long Preface, which yet was requisite for me to write, and thee to read; that I might acquaint thee with the motives and manner of my proceeding in this Discourse, and thou mightest be prepared to entertain it with the more Candour: which notwithstanding I desire not to improve beyond its due bounds, or to prejudice the freedom and liberty of thy Judgement: for as I have dealt with Junius, I am content, yea desire, to the dealt withal myself. But then I must assure thee not to mistake my dealing with him: for if thou shouldst imagine that I quarrel with him upon the main matter, thou shalt wrong both him and me and thyself. I look upon Junius as the ablest Assertor of the Cause I contend for, and from whom I received the Light by which I was enabled to search into this Question: It is not the truth of the History of Paradise that I have to debate with him, but the Situation of it only in respect of the place, and the accommodation of Moses' Description to it; in which if I have found some reasons (and here thou hast them) to believe that he might be mistaken, and thereupon have been bold to transferr the materials to be set up in a more convenient place, I have but followed the example of Junius himself, (who in like manner dealt with those that went before him) and reserve a free liberty to every man to vindicate his Opinion from the Objections th●● the Adversary may be able to make against it, (which shall be most grateful to me) or himself to prompt us to a more probable place then this I have pitched upon; which though I will not assert upon so high terms as to pass my word that I have not erred, yet I have not had as yet any prevailing argument to move me to distrust but that I may have pitched upon the right. And all this may be done without giving any advantage to the common Adversary, who (how impudent so ever) can with no more pretence of reason draw this into consequence, that there was no such place as Paradise, or so situated as Moses had set it, because we are not yet fully agreed upon that very spot of ground where it was; then that there was no such City in Persia as Persepolis, destroyed by Alexander, because such as have undertaken to give us an account of the Situation of it conformable to such Characters as ancient Historians have described it by, are not yet agreed upon their Verdict, whether it was Shivaz, or Estacher; or that there were no such Colonies of the Romans here in England as Lindum, Cambodunum, and many more, because our Antiquaries are at variance in describing the places where they stood, some placing them in one place, some in another As for thy part, (Christian Reader, for such I here suppose thee to be, believing the infallible Veracity of the Holy Scriptures) it will be no point of wisdom in thee to smite thy Friends, to gratify thy Adversaries: Our Contentions are no more but a farther advance in clearing and vindicating the Holy Text, in which thou and the whole Christian (yea and Jewish) Church are equally engaged as well as we: nor had this Discourse of mine ever (with my consent) seen the light, had I not lately been provoked thereunto upon this very Question by the unsufferable Insolence and Insultation of some Antiscripturists, a Generation of men lately sprung up amongst us, and growing very numerous and exceeding bold, owing their extraction to the most virulent poison of the leven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, (the perpetual Pests of true Religion) now complying together in a mystical mixture, and much improved by the effectual working of the spirit of Antichrist in a multitude of confused Sects (both fanatics and Pro-fanaticks,) freely dominearing in these late years, and (however disagreeing among themselves) yet agreeing all together in this, to subvert the Foundation of Faith & the Power of Godliness; such as are our Familists, Antinomians, Libertines, Hobbians, Ranters, Quakers and Seekers, beside a great number of many others, who (though not so directly and immediately) have by their pernicious and seditious Doctrines contributed not a little to promote this Mystery of Iniquity, and to make way for the birth of this Monster that now begins to appear upon the stage, (a Monster more prodigious than afric ever bred) to wit, a Christian Atheist, acting all the parts of an avowed Infidel under an Hypocritical (and therefore more odious) outside of a baptised Believer, professing Religion for no other end but to jeer it, and reading the Bible for no other end but to blaspheme it; whom to discover and oppose. I doubt not but every good Christian, whose heart is touched with any zeal for the Honour of God and his Holy Truth, will take himself equally concerned to engage with me to the utmost of his power. As for those whose custom it is (as Sir Thomas More hath observed long ago) to make themselves merry upon their Alebench with the Writings of others, and think themselves extremely witty if they can break a scurrilous jest (the Evaporation of Drink and a profane spirit) either upon the Argument or the Author; as we are willing to take notice of them among the former company, so for their Censure we refer them to the Judgement of him who will take an account of every idle word that men shall speak; in the mean time wishing them more sobriety.  
And now (good Reader) I shall keep thee no longer from the perusal of this Discourse, (lately mine, but now made thine) only desiring that we may all double our Prayers to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that he would inspire continually the Universal Church with the spirit of Truth, Unity, and Concord; and grant that all they that do confess his Holy Name may agree in the truth of his Holy Word, and live in Unity and godly Love: And especially those whom he hath appointed to watch over the Souls of his people, that they may attend faithfully to the Ministry which they have received of the Lord to fulfil it, by contending earnestly for the Faith that was once delivered to the Saints, and opposing vigorously, with united hearts and hands, those overflowings of Atheism and Ungodliness that are breaking in upon us, like a mighty Torrent, and by asserting the Truth of God and his Holy Word in the evidence and demonstration of the Spirit and power, confirming such as stand, and supporting those that are ready to fall, by removing stumbling-blocks out of the way of the weak, stopping the mouth of the Adversary, and plucking up the Tares which the Enemy hath sown; endeavouring (as much as in us lieth) to present every man blameless at the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose Fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor; and gather his Wheat into his garner, but the Chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire.  
AMEN.   

Errata.  
Pag. Lin. 14. 25. Hededis, r. Hedenis 16. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉   

A DISCOURSE OF The Terrestrial Paradise.  

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, which toward the end of his course divideth itself 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 itself into certain Fens abounding with Frogs, which the Chaldaeans call Akrukan: and this he supposeth to be that which Moses calleth Gihen, 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' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The third is that which Pliny saith the Assyrians commonly called Armalchar, Ammianus (more truly) 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 have it read, Maja-prakta) by Pliny Massice, and running into the River Tigris at Apamea, not only mingleth his water, but his name with it, which from thenceforth is called Pasitigris, or Pisotigris, and entering the Persian Gulf 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 Rivulet mentioned (but without name) by Ammianus, which being drawn out of Nahar-malca, emptieth itself into Tigris at Seleucia and Ctesiphon,, and so runneth Eastward toward Assyria, as he rendereth 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 judgement 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 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 itself 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) 
Scimus, & hanc veniam petimúsque damúsque vicissim;  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 easy, so neither are they so usual. Besides, the name of this Region is diversely delivered out of Ptolemy, none of which much favoureth this Conjecture. Ortelius in his Nomenclator Ptolemaicus calleth it Auramitis, Maginus' 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 itself 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 babylon. Porrò Hebraei hanc esse dicunt Mesopotamiaes civitatem, quae hodie quoque vocatur Nisibi, à Lucullo quondam Romano Consul obsessam captámque, & ante paucos annos à Joviniano Imperatore Persis traditam. But I cannot assent to S. Hierom's Rabbis, that Achad built by Nimrod was Nisibis under Mount Masius in Mesopotamia, for that is out of the Verge 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 Garrison, as the name imports. Jun. in Gen. c. 10. v. 10. But this we are content shall pass for a surmise only, 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' 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 itself 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' 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 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 itself 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 wondered 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 itself. Now Geographers commonly place 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 entering Babylonia he is about to divide his Channels, (as according to Moses' description he ought) that chose 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, etc. Junius may seem to have had some foresight of this Objection as ready to encounter him, and therefore in favour of his opinion he translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Gen. 2. 10. not exi (though he ingenuously confess that is the proper importance of the Hebrew word) but procedit, as willing to persuade us that Moses did not mean, that the River had its spring in Eden, (for that he knew and confesseth to be altogether irreconcilable with his description) but only 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 potius quam 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 played the Paraphrast in stead of the Interpreter, especially in the very body of the Text. No man knew better than Junius, that the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to issue forth, as children in the birth do 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 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 signify the decourse of a River by, through, or to a place, express it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Ezra 8. 15. True, our learned Countryman Mr. Fuller hath 
Miscel. l. 1. c. 4.  observed 2 (and but only 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 subjoins this Caution: Rarus est hic usus particulae istius in Hebraea quidem lingua, in Arabica verò frequens, etc. 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, 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. IU.  
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 itself 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, cum Judaeos aureo simulachro, cui nomen er at Baal, sacrificantes reperisset, futuram eis propter hoc calam it atem praedixit; unde Joachin vivum 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 miscall 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: 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 alleged by Junius clearly testify, 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 Rivulet, that ancient Geographers (taking it only 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: quem alveum prisci Geographi manufactum fuisse rati non retulerunt inter Euphratis alveos; sed potius insulam quam Euphrates cum Tigri efficit à Seleucia Apameam usque Mesopotamiaes, 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 itself into this River, which is not of his progeny, but the degenerate offspring of another. However (I am persuaded) 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 itself 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 pretence of this Rivulet 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, only upon occasion. The first Author of it (as Ammianus testifieth) was the Roman Emperor 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) suit any thing well with the exactness of Moses' 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 part I think it is) then is this Rivulet clearly cashiered out of Moses' 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 do 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 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 than 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 itself into Tigris over against Ninive, this would suit 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 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 itself was none of the Four Rivers of Paradise, but an Artificial Channel.  
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 expressly 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 Perfect, not a King, he intimates clearly enough, that this Current was cut during the time of the Persian 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 only, but his name also (in all likelihood) would have been remembered 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 than 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 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 aught 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 easy 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 than 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 any validity at all to prove that ever this River inherited the name of Pison, because after its joining with Tigris it gives it the name of Pisotigris; 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 Channels, ubi remeavere aquae, (saith he) Pasitigris appellatur. And if we desire to know whereabout that was, that which he subjoins 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 Channel. 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 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 only 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 than half part of the Western Coast thereof, and that not in an entire Channel 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 alleged to approve it, save only 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. Only here let us add, 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 only two natural Streams of Euphrates; Nam Mela quidem, Plinius, Solinus, alii, negligentiùs videntur perscripsisse duos solùm Euphratis alvees, propterea quòd alios Aquaeductus magis quam naturales alveos esse putaverunt. And they had good reason to think so, as appear by that which hath been said.   

CHAP. VI  
Of the two remaining Channels, 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, than 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 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 amiss 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 Channel 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, ere 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.  Persarum statuit Babylona Semiramis urben, Ut solidum cocto tolleret aggere opus, etc. Duxit & Euphraten medium, quâ condidit arces. 
Now though Semiramis were indeed ancienter than Moses, (albeit Herodotus makes her younger, as living but five Ages before Nitocris, l. 1. n. 184. and Porphyry 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 than Adam himself. And I cannot persuade myself 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 forbore 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 Channel) which may seem by best title to belong to Naharsares, though the Etymology 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 itself is drawn out of any other Stream, (for so the Antiquity of it should become as questionable as the rest) but because itself is the main Stream out of which the rest were drawn; for anciently it emptied itself into the Persian Gulf in a proper Channel 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 always to have kept constant to the same Channel; for if it be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Abydenus, (as Junius saith) or Pallacopa in Arrianus, (as its distance from Babylon rendereth it very probable) it was several times obstructed or diverted in its course. Abydenus apud Euseb. Praep. Evang. l. 9 c. ult. cum 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. cum 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, 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 traveled in search of the Garden of Eden. As for that which is alleged 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 marred the face of the Earth) still retain the preeminence of fruitfulness and beauty above other places? Many good Authors of able judgements 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 do 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. Only afterward he mentioneth some store of Palm-trees, to which Strabo addeth some Gardens of 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 Fig) 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 myself) was either Palmtree or Cypress. But to cut off this controversy: Suppose this part of Babylonia were as well stored with all manner of Trees for use and ornament, as it was fertile in bearing Corn; yet if the other parts of Moses' description suit not to it as well as this, the Argument from this alone will infer no necessary Conclusion: for so Alstedius himself hath taught us, that a Fallacy of the Adjunct is then committed; cum 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 proved 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 itself 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: 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 easy. It cannot be denied, that the seeming-concurring testimony of Geographers to the contrary hath so far 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 horror, 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 Authors 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 hopeful augure, that at length they may be found so near as to verify the testimony 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 than a third part of this distance, for he sets the Latitude of the Fountains of Tigris in 39d. 40m m, of Euphrates in 42d. 40m m, between which there are no more than 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 easy 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 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' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where, speaking of Armenia, he bids us note, that the Emperor 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 authentic Author, viz. Sallust the Historian; for these are his words, Orig. l. 13. c. 21. De Fluminib. Euphrates fluvius Mesopotamiaes 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 Sallust, (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 Mesopotamiaes in Paradiso oriens: Porrò Salustius author certissimus asserit tam Tigris quam 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 Sallust, is obvious at first sight, 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 quam 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 falsify either Sallust 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 Error 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 Sallust. 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 such prodigious fancies; and so his aim 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 Authors. But because this report of Sallust comes to us only 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.  
Quâque caput rapido tollit cum Tigride magnus  
Euphrates, quos non diversis fontibus edit  
Persis; & incertum, tellus si misceat amnes,  
Quod potius sit nomen aquis.—  
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 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 Error. And he might be the bolder to do 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 justify him in it. Farnab. in locum. Vterque 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 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.  
Rupis Achaemeniae scopulis, ubi versa soquentûm  
Pectoribus figit spicula pugna fugax,  
Tigris & Euphrates uno se fonte resolvunt,  
Et mox abjunctis dissociantur aquis.  
Si coëant, cursúmque iterum revocentur in unum,  
Confluat alterni quod trahit unda vadi,  
Conveniant puppes, & vulsi flumine trunci,  
Mistáque fortuitos implicet unda modos.  
Quos tamen ipsa vagos terrae declivia casus,  
Gurgitis & lapsi defluus ordo regunt.  
Sic quae permissis fluitare videtur habenis,  
for'rs patitur fraenos, ipsáque lege meat.   

CHAP. VIII.  
A farther Enquiry where this Fountain is. Objections answered.  
THE concurring Testimonies of these Authors will (I hope) be deemed sufficient to support the credit of this Assertion, if we can (by good authority) discover what, and where this Fountain was. And hereunto that clause in the forecited Testimony of Lucan may perhaps afford us some help; Incertum, tellus si misceat amnes, Quod potius sit nomen aquis. For though these words be capable of several constructions, (and Commentators have left us here to sink or swim to ourselves, though ofttimes 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 Channels, 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 conjoined waters. This passage suits so well (save only 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 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 cum 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 easy 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 withal as may serve to satisfy 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 relation seems so incredible to his Commentator Mausacus, that he fears not to charge it back upon him for a Falsehood. 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 aught to be read Thonitis: but there is no good warrant for that Correction, for 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 Arsaces) 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 always 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, Channel, they fall both into the same Lakes, dive into the ground 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 withal, that Arsanias is indeed no other than Euphrates, as Lucan called it. Cl. Marius Victor, Genes. l. 1.  
Tertius hinc rapido percurrens gurgite Tigris  
It comes Euphrati, junctâ quos mole ruentes  
Tellus victa cavo sorbet patefacta bar athro;  
Donec in Armeniae saltus ac Medica Tempe,  
Quos non sustinuit, nec jam capit, evomit Amnes.  
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, etc. Fertur autem & cursu & 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 testify, so the former Poet hath expressed not unelegantly.  
Sed Tigris, nigro tanquam indignatus averno,  
Prosilit athereas motu majore sub auras;  
Et rursus spelaea subit, mersúsque cavernis  
Intus agit fremitus; & fortior obice factus  
Multiplicatur aquis, atróque citatior antro  
Exit, & Assyrios celeri secat agmine campos.  
But because in the forementioned 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,  
At Tigrim subito tellus absorbet hiatu,  
Occultósque tegit cursus, rursúsque renatum  
Fonte novo flumen pelagi non abnegat undis:  
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 itself by Effusions (as it were by stealth) rather then a perpetually-visible Current. And so much (I think) Aethicus means. Fluvius Tigris etiam ipse de Monte Caucaso quasi visitur natus, cum 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 hindereth 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 39d. 40m. 
Haec domus, hac sedes, haec sunt penetralia magni  
Amnis—   
Nor can I foresee what scruple of moment can be opposed against this whole discourse, except haply some be not yet satisfied, that Pliny's Arsanias is the same with Moses' 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 itself is evident, is but an humorous vanity. 2. Though Pliny call it Arsanias, yet Lucan, Marius' Victor, etc. call it Euphrates, as Moses doth. 3. Pliny denieth the right of this name to the great River itself, 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 Channel. Plin. l. 5. c. 24. Supra Simyram XII. M. pass. initio Pyxirates nominatus. Fluit Derxenem primùm, etc. 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 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 for this name: for how otherwise to reconcile him with Ptolemy, and the truth of Geography, we see not. Lib. 6. cap. 9 numbering 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 sum of miles, that for my part I believe this is an error in Ptolemy, and credit rather that exacter Writer Geog. Nub. who sets them about 24 miles distant. For he, (Part. 5. climb 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 calls Arsamote, Ptolemy Arsamosata, for the signification in them both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is neither more nor less than 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 add 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 expressly calls it Arsanias. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Parthus dimisit Paetum, prius 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 city'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 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 only we shall admonish this, That from henceforward Euphrates (which the Jews, subtracting the Article, call Perath, or (as Josephus hath it) Phorath, the Inhabitants 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: Quip Orientis tractus dividens, sub terram demergitur. Qui cum ex Armenia inter Cardiaeos & Armenios' oriatur, 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 refers 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. Vbelin, 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. If any wonder why their Course is not drawn out to the length, the straightening bounds of the Map (which was to end with the South-bounds of Armenia) may be rendered as a good reason of this Eclipse; 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 read 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 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, etc. 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 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 itself, 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 Apocryphal; 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 Army'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 Rivulet which Ptolemy calls Gorgas) Quod reliquum dici erat securè pergendo cum confecissent, (saith he) add Tigrim amnem perveniunt: (lo here another Tigris) which having passed at a Town called Larissa, after another days 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 Etymology 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 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 do 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 saith, Ipse coactis undique viribus, & his quae adtantum opus spectarent paratis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, supra Euphratem fluvium Vrbem 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 itself 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, (learned (as may seem) from the Natives themselves) and therewithal, of the true Etymology 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, etc. The names of these two Rivers are one and the same in their Radix, and differ no more than the same word with 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 Arabic signify the same thing, even that by which Ptolemy hath expressed the River's name in Greek, and that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This is both learned and probable; but whether it will satisfy 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 always Anzaba: and accordingly Geog. Nub. part. 6. climb. 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' time) were the same with the forementioned encircling Rivers, which (as himself a little before hath told us) were anciently called Tigris and Oena. What that Oena was we forbear to inquire at present, as pursuing some farther notice of Diavas and Adiavas; 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, cum 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 myself, to justify every particular in this piece of Geography, thus much (atleast) 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 conjoined Channel, this united Stream separateth itself 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 refer 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 baptised 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 Emperor against the Persian, writes thus: Kalendis Decem. venit ad fluvium magnum Zabam: & cum 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 was situate either upon or very near the banks of Tigris: for opposite to the Ruins of it was Mosal built in Mesopotamia, the River only parting betwixt them, and that also joined 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. climb. 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 Learned Masius forbears to pass his Conjecture, yet others have not feared to call it Danubius. Which they might easily do 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 do 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 error 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 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.  
Praeterea Regem non sic Aegyptus, & ingens  
Lydia, nec populi Parthorum, aut Medus Hydaspes  
Observant—  
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 only 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 Epithet, 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 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 conjoin, 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 Outlet of the River Chrysorrhoas, (which was the same;) for he saith, it emptied itself into the Persian Gulf ad Auge oppidum, which himself had called 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 itself 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 itself 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 (suitably to Moses' Description) to be Gihen.  
AND now the knot is untied, and both the Head and Outlet 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 Channel. 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 conjoined Channel, which carrieth the name of Tigris; for so he immediately notes that other had affirmed: Sunt qui affirment flumina omnia quae Susiam pervadunt, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 falsely 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 Emperor 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 rigged 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 Voyage, 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, etc. testify 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 in this Country, and while he was but yet a youth sent Hostage by the Adiabenians to the Emperor Constantine, and by him sent back again as his Ambassador 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 Channel) and with it watering the whole Region of Susiana. These are his words in Periegesi, 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Simul ad ortum Solis cunctae gentes, concussae bello, quae inter Indum & Euphratem amnes inclytos sunt; atque imperati Obsides Persarum Regi nomine Cosdroe. Sex. Aur. Victor, in vita Trajani.   〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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? Truly 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 Error, which we have observed to be common to him with others, to mistake adventitious Inlets for the native and original Streams of Rivers. But Stephanus speaks 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 cum Cyri impetum, etc. 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 than 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 conjoined 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 conjoined their waters. And the observation of this is useful, to reconcile some differences to be found in Historians in relating the Battle 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, etc. 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 Error, when, dreaming of no other Cydnus then that which runneth through Cilicia into the Syrian Sea, he took boldness to write, that the last Battle 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, Ambassador from the State of Athens to the 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 itself 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 only 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, he tells us, Chap. 2. 21. that they went forth of Ninive three days journey towards the Plain of Bectileths, and pitched from Bectileths near the Mountain which is at the left hand of the upper Cilicia. It is more evident than 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 Bectileths 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 than three day's 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 than 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, Gen. 10. 11. near (as may seem) to the utmost Northwest 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 than 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 add something concerning another name of this River, taken up (as seems) in aftertimes; 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 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 misshapen lineaments of the name Gihen, 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 overbold conjecture. However, certain it is that divers of the names given to this River have been by others applied to Gihen. Geog. Nub. expressly calls that River which others call Cydnus by the name of Gihen; as Scaliger also notes, who farther observes, that Gihen (a River running to the South of Jerusalem, 2 Chron. 32. 30.) is also by an equipollent Synonymon called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Siloach, Nehem. 3. 15. which by a little corruption in aftertimes 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 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 Author, (cap. de Indo,) where he affirms it also to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is either no more than 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 Egyptians (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 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 Gihen) 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 Egypt, 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. 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 quam rectè, Phison ait est Ganges, qui nunc est Nilus. For Ganges with him is no other than 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 Margin Ganges; and was the same River with Indus; the names only 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, not only in regard of the amplitude of its signification, (for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no more than 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 Egypt and this. For as that Nilus, not far from Memphis, parting itself into two main Branches, (out of which others were drawn) watered all that Country 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 itself alone may not unjustly be deemed sufficient to justify 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 read) hath afforded us a better. For here Nilus, (that is, in the language of the Ancients, Gihen, and was indeed a Stream of that River which vulgarly passed under the name of Tigris) is expressly affirmed to be the same with Euphrates; not only 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 ofttimes their waters touched each other; after which, separating themselves, this River dives under fenny Lakes and Marshes, (just as the forecited 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 than 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 Gihen: 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 Cushites and Aethiopians are the same. Joseph. Antiq. Jud. l. 1. c. 7. Ex quatuor Chamae liberis, Chuso nihil detrimenti tempus attulit. Aethiops enim, quibus praefuit, nunc quoque tam à seipsis quam 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 prejudicated 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 afric 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 they passed into afric, 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 Country 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 Country 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 Country 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 Oceanum, Orientem versus, Assyrii: apud quos etian hanc appellationem habent, quos Alexander Macedo, ex Syria pulsos, Colonos eò deduxit. Two 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 than 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 than 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 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. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
Aethiopes adii, tum Sidonios' & Erembos'.  All which Menelaus might well do, and yet never pass out of the Mediterranean Sea; for the truth is, all these were neighbour-Nations, dwelling along the Sea-coast betwixt Egypt 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 Habitable World went under the name of Aethiopia: but confining my search within its due limits, it shall suffice me to mention those Aethiopians only whom (as Moses and Pausanias tell us) the River Gihen 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 Outlet, we may discover some scattered mention of Aethiopia and Aethiopians. For as touching its Springhead, we have heard Aethicus (before cited) placing it in or about Aethiopia: Fluvius Tigris etiam ipse de Monte Caucaso quasi visitur natus, cum 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 adjoining Territories (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) are by Epiphanius in Anchoret. n. 58. expressly 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 War, is by the ancientest Writers called Aethiopum Rex. So Hesiod in Theogonia,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  
Ast Aurora parit Tithono Memnona fortem,  
Aethiopum Regem—  
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; quond 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. l. 3. c. 6. cum 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 Vial which the Statue of Nemesis held in her right hand, form by Phidias out of that Marble stone which the enemies had brought with them, and presumptuously designed for a Monument of their own Victory, 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 only of Aethiopians in afric, professes he knew not what to make of it. So great a let 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 forementioned Memnon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we must not take for her proper name, (for that was Aurora, say the Poets) but nomen gentilitium, taken from the Country 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 than the bounds of Susiana, and possessed not only the Mountains that lay betwixt it and Persia, but spread themselves up Northward all along the back of this River into divers scattered portions of Mount Taurus, not only 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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, cum 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, cum Rex aestate Ecbatanis transactâ in Babyloniam descendit: nimiam tamen eorum audaciam ab Alexandro fuisse compressam, cum eos 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, until they were subdued by Alexander. Dionysius Afer remembreth them under the name of Cissii, (as Herodotus also doth oftener than once) and sets them toward the North of Babylonia, comprehending under that name Assyria, (as others also do:)  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
At supra Babylona vides Aquilonis ad oras  
Cissos, Messabatásque, Chalonitásque feroces.  
That the Cissii or Cossaei are placed adjoining 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 adjoining to the borders 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 Ancestors 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 coloni Chuthaei: sic enim tum appellabantur, quòd à Persidis regione Chutha & flumine Chutho essent traducti, etc. 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 than 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 only 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 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 Mardoes) & 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 adjoining to it; where we need not doubt to find them, seeing Ptolemy, 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 always to the Assyrian Monarches, 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 dwelled) for protection. As for the Cartii, which Strabo more usually calleth Curtij, as also the Cordi, Cordiaei, (and Gordiaei) Cardueni, Carduchi, etc. that they were originally Cossaei, their name itself (notwithstanding all this alteration) may evince. For, by the light alteration of an S into an R, Cossaei at the first became Cortii, and Curtij, and Cartii; afterward Cardi, and Cordi, and Gordii, and Gordiaei, etc. And hereof we may gather a good argument from the different writing of their country'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 Country 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 only because it lay nearer to those places remembered 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 changed Countries with them) were bestowed hereabouts. 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 adjoining to these parts) the one in Mesopotamia, the other in Media. And for the Cities of the Medes, I suppose not only 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 Country, 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, which are well enough known without a Commentary) are expounded by Junius to be the Dennanis, (or Dani, or most commonly Daii, joined 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 dwelled 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 Curtij, and at the first Cossaei. As for the name of Scythae, which Heathen Authors give this Nation, as it was suitable enough to them in regard of their often flitting and wand'ring, (for Historians represent them to us like right Nomads, 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 Country from whence they came is from ultimate Antiquity remembered 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 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 Etymology 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 only 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 Country, not Susiana, but Cusistan, which is neither more nor less than 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 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 Flood, 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 spread so far. Some of them passed into Arabia over the River Tigris, which I should choose for a more probable Bounder of the Eastern and Western Aethiopians mentioned in Homer, than 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 inquire 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 hath been given. As (Ex. gr.) where Chus and Elam are joined 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 always need to go into afric 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 judgements to inquire. 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 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 only 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 Gihen might not anciently compass even these also, I cannot certainly affirm: but the confounding of this River not only 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 forecited Benjamin, if we were certain it were true, might render it probable, who finds a Stream of Tigris emptying itself into the Sea over against the Island Nikrokis, which Constantine 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 testify 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 only 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 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 Channels 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 complete 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, & 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 remembered by Stephanus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. who finds 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. climb. 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 separate se à Tigri flumen Dogiail, quod ejus terminos secans excurrit ad dominium Sora-man-rai, illúdque 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 subjoins, 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 than 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 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 Channel drawn out of it, which served notwithstanding to make the enclosed 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 warrant 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 forementioned 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 a little before had set no less than 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 itself, having first met with the former River Gihen, 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 joined 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 Notes upon the place of Benjamin supposeth to have been corrupted from Tigris. And no doubt but this Tigris was it whose Channel Eumenes filled with the slaughtered bodies of Antigonus' Soldiers attempting to force a passage over it: for so it is expressly 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 day's journey of Susa, where Eumenes had his Headquarters, 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 let 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, than so unjustly (as they do) to charge Diodorus with a contradiction of which he is no way guilty, 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 only 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) than 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 satisfy 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 the North, than 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 Precedent 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.) than 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 misshapen 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 Channel, and hath not yet mingled its waters 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 prius Soloce vocabatur. Now how easily these corrupted names of Hedypus or Hedypnus, Hedyphon or Helyphon, might be form 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 only 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 than its own proper name compounded with the common and vulgar name of this River. Whereunto we may add the Testimony of Xenophon, who calls this River Physcum amnem, (by an easy 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 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 acknowledge, 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 withal in the mid way, could be no other than 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 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 Error 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 than he did about Tigris, our charity will easily absolve him from much guilt, and judge him not only 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 itself into the Persian Gulf. For 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 Outlet 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 itself also through the whole Current of this River, even to its Fountain: and this (perhaps) was the reason why the uppermost and greatest of these Streams (which we have found to be Gihen) 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 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 justify it he is constrained to add a preposition more into the Text than 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 prejudicated opinion that Sephar, was the name of a City, which Moses expressly 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. etc.) who gives us this Commentary upon Moses' words, Antiq. Jud. l. 1. c. 7. Hi à Cophene flumine Indiae ad Assyriam usque habitant: so it is in Gelenius' 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 Bonfrerius hath (no doubt) still retained the true reading, and gives us the best account of Moses' 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 Country 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 Country 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 than 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 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' joining 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 Ophir, finding it about the same place; and gives us particular notice, that it was the same Country 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.  
Insula est Indica quam (Poetae) Auream vocant;  
Alii verò Peninsulam dicunt, sed non Insulam.  
Hebraei autem Ophyr linguâ suâ vocant.  
Habet enim metalla auri & lapides omnifarios.  
Excellenter magis verò Prasinum lapidem.  
And if this were the Region of Ophir, no question but the Evilaei, remembered 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 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 joineth them with the brahmin's, 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 Gihen, (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 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 Country 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 Country to the West, and separated from it at no greater distance than 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 Desert) sets their Western Bound at Sur, which lies in the way to Egypt, and the Eastern at Havilah, lying in the way to Assyria. Gen. 25. 18. And they dwelled from Havilah to Shur, that is before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria. And in the same position did Saul many Ages after find them, when he was 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 Egypt. And though no question but in aftertimes 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 joined with the Edomites, Ishmaelites, and Moabites: and in 1 Chron. 5. 19, 20. it is plainly intimated, that their Country lay to the East of the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half Tribe of Manasses: farther East of which those Chaulotaeans dwelled, 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 dwelled more East than the Chaulotaeans, but because the Chaulotaeans dwelled farther to the South than the Agreans, possessing some part of the Country 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.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Verùm enimvero primi ultra declivitatem Libani  
Divites habitant cognomento Nabataei.  
Prope autem Chablasii que & Agrei; quos juxta tellus  
Chatramitica incolitur; è regione Persicae terrae.  
And this gives some probability to the 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 easy.) 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 itself 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 only Philostorgius apud Niceph. Hist. Ecclesiast. l. 9 c. 19 makes the Island Messene, which lies betwixt the two jaws of this River emptying itself into the Sea, much larger than Ptolemy's description will bear; but also Geog. Nub. finds a Stream (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 bottom of the Persian Gulf in Ptolemy: All which long Course of this River being anciently inhabited by Havilah, (the Author of a populous Nation, and spreading far) it will now be no hard matter to find within the compass of this Country all 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 Gum 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 beryl, as the Chaldee Burla, and the Arabic all Belor, and the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Exod. 28. 20. whatsoever they were, (if they were any of these) they were undoubtedly to be found in this Coast. For if Bdellium were a sweet Gum, (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 Country 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 Outlet of this River.) And for the beryl and Onyx and other precious Stones, this Country is so well known to yield them even to this day, that it is altogether needless to produce the testimony of the Ancients: only (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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 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 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 beryl and the Onyx. And that it was thus in the Inland, 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 Country 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 more perfectly concerning the Region of Eden, and the Situation of Paradise in it. And though we well know how obnoxious to exceptions such particularising is; yet having engaged ourselves thus far, and already discovered some marks in Moses to guide us in this search, we shall not refuse to do 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 Country was in Moses' 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 Country which Secular Geographers call Sophane, lying betwixt the Mountains Masius and Anti-Taurus, which did so overshadow it on both sides, (though itself 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, 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 choose to render it by but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Truly their significations differ no more than 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 easy 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 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, etc. 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 Country 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', remembered 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, 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 dwelled in Thelasar, 2 Kings 19 12. were true and native Inhabitants of this Region: for not only other circumstances of the Text do persuade it, but the names of the places remembered 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 easy to design the very place where Telasar was seated, nor indeed what it was, whether a Castle, a City, or a Country, (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 satisfy us that it stood not near Aden in Arabia Felix, where Benjamin dreamt that he had found it. Nor is there any great probability in the opinion of Junius, 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 remembered 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 placeth upon the banks of Tigris, at or near about this Island. But though I will not deny that Telasar in aftertimes 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 Country, 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, etc. Nor yet doth he mean thereby the Rhisina mentioned in Ptolemy, as appears not only 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 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 do 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 Rasaain, (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, remembered 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. 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 foreign 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 Country 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 Regionem 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 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 itself 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 Are 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 than the primitive and original Stream of Euphrates, or else some Rivulet 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, etc. 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 than 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) 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 only 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 only 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 Drugs, not elsewhere to be 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 remembered 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 Can, was either Caini, which in Notit. Provinc. is placed a little below Amida; or rather that City which gave name to the Country 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 adjoining to Assyria. And for Charan or Haran, it was not that which lay so far to the South in Mesopotamia, where Abraham dwelled; but the City 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 adjoined 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 No fertur evasisse Diluvium; ostenditúrque ibi hodie quoque videre volentibus. But that is generally believed to have been about Gordiaea; adjoining 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 Aromatical plants and herbs must needs perfume this Country 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 Country 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 days, adds, Igitur quarto die praeter Arbella penetrate add Tigrim. It is not easy 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 only 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 Arabiâ: and so Pliny frequently calls the Inhabitants of Mesopotamia (especially that part which lay about the Mountains, and adjoined 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 add 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 adjoining 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 Country about the Lake Thonitis, and the distance betwixt the Streams of Tigris and Euphrates.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Which Rhamnius Fannius the Grammarian hath translated in Latin thus:  
Hoc tamen omne solum fluvius quod cingit uterque  
Indigenae populi pro re dixere Medamnem,  
Quòd medias amnes has terras flumine cingunt;  
Agricolis pariter, pastoribus atque feracem:  
Ubere tam laeto florenti semina cuncta  
Herbarúmque thoris & gramina laeta virescunt,  
Et variis rami complentur fructibus alti.  
Gens quoque praefulget claris in laudibus illa:  
Nam peperit multos celsâ virtute potentes,  
Atque adeò similes Diis immortalibus illos.  
Which Description suits so well to Adam's Paradise, both in regard of the excellent Pasturage, the plenty of all manner of Fruit-Trees, the admirable Fertility of the Soil, and the flowery 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 Country 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 Country where the Garden of Eden or Paradise itself was seated, though it might be deemed to trench too near upon Curiosity 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 Channel; and then, having past it, broke itself 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 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 Sodom, 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 Flashing 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 entered into my thoughts at my first onset upon this Question, as taking it then to be a Secret beyond 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 only 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 traveled 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. And others have called it Bagradena and Bagadena. Secondly, Procopius usually calls the Country that lies about the Thospian Lake, and stretches itself 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 Country adjoining to it Syspereitis, or more frequently (rejecting the superfluous S prefixed 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 Northwest 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 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 alleged) 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) etc. 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 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, etc. 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 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 flowery Meadows of this Region, we need not doubt, seeing that name also is to be found hereabout. For not only have we the River Nymphaeus, (so often remembered in Procopius, and called by Pliny by a correspondent name Parthenia;) 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 than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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, so this was no other than a delicious Valley abounding with all the choice rarities and delights of Nature, where Emperors and Kings had their retiring Palaces and Houses of pleasure. We might justify this by that Nymphaeum in the coasts of Apollonia, remembered by Strabo lib. 7. Plutarch, in Vita Syllae, etc. as also that about Stagira mentioned by the same Plutarch, in Vit. Alexand. Ludum eyes & studii locum Nymphaeum prope Miezam assignavit; ubi & hâc aetate sedes Aristotelis lapideas, & ambulationes umbrosas monstrant. But I shall content myself, only 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 ipsum describit his verbis: Quum dies aliquot (Imperator, Joannes sc. Ducas Vatatzes) Phlebiis exegisset, Clyzomenen profectus, (hoc loco nomen est) ibidem tentoria figi jussit. Name isthic Imperatores è Nymphaeo digressi commorari solent, majorémque Veris partem transigere. Quip 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 men's tongues and pens have stuffed it with; I mean the double S, which seems to have thrust itself 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 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' 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 itself into words whereof it is not Radical: 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 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, etc. 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 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 Emperor, were kept) seems by Strabo, and is by D. Marius Niger expressly 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 show themselves pertinacious, whom we must not presume to persuade to accept such arguments for Apodictical Demonstrations: yet if 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 Topics, 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,  

Conveniunt rebus nomina saepe suis)   
they will give us leave (I hope) to make use of it to as much service as here we intent to apply it to. For it is not the Etymology of a few names only 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 hereabout 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 Impostor Aladeules engaged so many seduced persons to his service, and thereby rendered himself formidable to the mightiest Monarches of his time. A story well known in the Turkish Annals, and touched upon by those who have written the Life of Selimus, and is related at large by our Countryman 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 Flood, at what time S. chrysostom 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. Name & 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, 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 Parent's 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, etc. a larger freedom from other employments 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 than in any other place yet discovered) find out the true place of the Situation of the Terrestrial Paradise.   
FINIS.