could arise this tradition, so probably as from its having been anciently the seat of general decision among surrounding nations? i.e. looking backward and forward, at the same time; as we have supposed is the effect of the prophecy quoted above.

The name Jehoshaphat signifies "judgment of the Lord;" and the valley of Jehoshaphat, is that through which the brook Kedron runs; which I also suppose is the "king's dale," to which Melchisedec came out from Salem to receive Abraham.

Since then, so many particulars unite, in determining the locality of these places, I shall consider what has been said as decisive, and shall resume the consideration of the history.

The king of Sodom came out, suppose from under the protection of Melchisedec, at Salem, and Melchisedec himself came out to meet Abraham in his triumphant return; toward this sacred magistrate, and this sacred fane, Abraham on his part, directed his steps, when desirous of acknowledging his obligations to Almighty God, for his success; and of paying his homage to the authorized representative of "his shield, his exceeding great reward:" I mean, when he intended publicly to manifest that ascription of glory to God, which is at once duty and honour in a

warrior.

When informed of Abraham's approach, his great ancestor advances to the edge of his station; to his tribunal; there receives him, accepts the homage of his descendant, congratulates him on his victory, confirms the divine promises of blessings to him and his, and with solemn dignity imparts whatever of benediction an old man's heart could wish. But not to receive without making suitable returns, he treats Abraham and his followers with distinguished hospitality; bestows refreshments while receiving trophies, and enjoys no less what his guests partake, than what they present. Such is the benevolence of this king of peace!

As,

This mingled triumph of Melchisedec and Abraham, affords other arguments that Melchisedec was Shem. On this we ought to observe, who the invaders were, whom Abraham had defeated? they were all of them descendants of Ham: Hamites from the east of the Euphrates, or from north of Canaan. As, 1st, Amraphel, king of Shinar: Shinar was the district where Babylon stood, and the Samaritan version renders "king of Babel:" a kingdom unquestionably Hamite. 2dly, Arioch, king of Ellasar, probably the same as Tellasar, Isai. xxxvii. 12. thought to be in Armenia. 3dly, Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, i.e. Persia. 4thly, Tidal, king of nations, goim, in the Samaritan version called "Sultan over el Hamim," or the Hamites. This is in direct op position to Jarchi: but the authority of the Samaritan version, and the nature of circumstances, justify the opposition: for what can be more natural, than to suppose that Abraham and Lot, and Shem too, would choose to dwell among their own kindred;

that the king of Sodom, where Lot dwelt, took refuge with Shem, because he was his sacred progenitor: observe also, that idolatry is not charged on this country, at this time; though other sins of the grossest nature are. Idolatry we know prevailed among the Hamites; yet from this crime, Shem had influence enough to preserve his posterity hitherto. This accounts also, why one, a Shemite, who had escaped, came and told his kindred Shemite, Abraham, the Oberite, i.e. who came from Ober-el-Nahr, of what had happened; and it illustrates the promp titude of Abraham to take arms, in conjunction with some fellow Shemites, to attack the Hamites; and, having beat them, to return triumphantly to their great ancestor Shem, by his ministry to present their acknowledgments to that Jehovah, who was their father's God, as well as their own, by profession, and by descent.

Besides the reason why Abraham visited Shem in triumph, we see why Shem takes so great an interest in his victory, which had cleared the country from such invaders; why he blesses Abraham, and treats him with such distinction; why the tithes of the spoils taken are presented to Melchisedec; why the tribunal in the king's valley is selected for the solemnities of the occasion; why Abraham takes nothing from his kindred, the kings he had delivered; and, in short, why this history is preserved in the sacred records, as being one of those remarkable events which posterity ought to be acquainted with.

an

These hints lead us to contemplate this venerable patriarch, Shem, whom hitherto we have rather considered as a king, in the character also of a priest: and that a priest of no ordinary description. We may notice his qualifications for this office; but we must not reckon among them that of natural descent; for the apostle tells us, he was "fatherless and motherless," that is, as he immediately explains himself, "without pedigree" genealogy-less. This was insuperable blemish in a Levitical priest, and inca. pacitated such from priestly privileges, vide Nehem. vii. 65. Besides this, it may be said, in conformity to the import of the tradition, that Shem had neither father nor mother, in the postdiluvian world; but was of the former world, and people; and that now pedigree, descent, was reckoned from him. I prefer, however, the Levitical idea: and suppose the apostle uses priestly terms, to express the absence of claim to the priestly office by descent, according to another expression of the same sentiment, "he whose pedigree is not reckoned from them, the Levitical orders received tithes ;" and this is the very application of these terms, "fatherless and motherless," in Euripides, Trag. Ion. act i. v. 110. also act iii. v. 837.

But how was it that Shem had no right by descent to the priesthood? It is customary to put him first in enumerating the sons of Noah; for we usually

say, "Shem, Ham, and Japheth;" and, in FRAGMENT, No. 19, I had asserted this, as the proper station of Shem, according to the authority of the Indian Puranas: but it really is very remarkable that there is the same confusion in the Indian records as in the Mosaic; and Shem is sometimes spoken of as the eldest son of Noah, sometimes as his second son. This coincidence is extremely curious, and leads to important consequences, especially in connection with some other errors of a like nature. I take the fact to be, that Japheth was the eldest by birth; whence his name, and his double portion as befitted his birthright. But Shem being appointed to the priesthood, received an official precedence, and being accustomed to this, he is, in consequence, named, among his own descendants, at least, before his brother Japheth, though not born before him, nor naturally entitled to this distinction. The sentiments of CALMET, art. SHEM, in Dict. are, that Shem was the second son of Noah; and the numerous classes of learning and duty, which the Jews attribute to him, may be seen in that article. They are as well political as sacred.

We have now, I believe, considered all those particulars which have usually been thought perplexing, except that one which is admitted to be the most perplexing of all: what can be intended by perpetual, unchangeable, priesthood? by his still living? by the power of an endless life? how can one man be a priest to perpetuity? what is this unchangeable

priesthood? unchangeable, by reason of the continued life of him who possesses it? Providence has kindly interposed, to help us in answering this question also: and when our usual stores of learning are exhausted, has opened fresh repositories from whence to disentangle this hitherto embarrassing inquiry. In what sense is it said of Shem that he is living? Observe, the apostle uses a word which does not imply strict demonstration of this: but a report which is generally believed: "it is witnessed," not by myself, nor by any person to whom I refer confidence: but, it is admitted, which I think may be taken as the import of the word used. But how is even this to be justified? I must answer by producing from the Puranas the following extract; for no one in our part of the world would ever have imagined the contents of it.

NOAH. "Atri for the purpose of making the Sacred Vedas, known to mankind, had three sons: Books. or, as it is [elsewhere] declared in the Pura

nas, the Trimurti, or Hindoo Triad, was incarnated in his house. The eldest called SHEM. SOMA, or the Moon in a human shape, was a portion, or form, of Brahma. To him the sacred isles in the West were allotted. He is still alive though invisible, and is acknowledged as the chief of the sacerdotal tribe to this day," Asiatic Researches, vol. v. p. 261.

Shem the eldest son of Noah.

Melchisedec's mother was the moon.

He was priest of Most High God.

The land of Canaan fell to the posterity of Shem.
Of him it is witnessed that he liveth.
Consider how great this man was:
Superior to Levi, superior to Abraham.

In short, the parallel is exact and assists us even beyond what appears at first sight. No wonder now, that this great patriarch was king of peace, and too sacred a character to be molested by war: nor that Abraham, and in him Levi, paid tithes, &c.

The multiplicity of names for the same person in the East is notorious: Vishnuh has a thousand: Siva also has a thousand: other ancient characters in proportion so that we are not to doubt of Atri's being Noah, on account of any dissimilarity in the names. The name Soma is known as Sem, or Shem in other writings indeed the LXX constantly use Sem, or perhaps Sēm.

We cannot avoid making several inferences from this curious history, thus brought to light, from a far country: as,

1st, The apostle says, many things might be uttered respecting Melchisedec; but they were hard

Soma the eldest son of Atri,
Was the moon in a human shape.

Was a portion, or form, of Brahma.

To him the sacred isles in the West were allotted. He is still alive, though invisible.

He is acknowledged as chief of the sacerdotal tribes.

to be understood: this seems to hint at various reports concerning him, which, not improbably, were known among those Hebrews to whom the writer addressed his epistle, "it is witnessed," not by Scripture, but by report, as you know.

2dly, This may shew the propriety, and the bearing of the Psalmist's expression, " a priest for ever," to perpetuity, like Melchisedec; like him, who is still alive, though invisible; and chief of the sacerdotal tribe, though not acting as such now in a public capacity, [but thought to continue his office in heaven itself.]

3dly, The priesthood of Shem continuing to be exercised in his person during 500 years, suggests almost naturally, an idea of perpetuity; but, no doubt, it was transmitted from him to some one of his descendants; so that the priesthood itself was considered as unlimited, endless. Who was his successor, in whom

this dignity survived? Was Adonizedek of his posterity? was he also king and priest? or was he, not Melech, king, but only Adoni, lord, of Zedek, i.e. by conquest? &c. Did any of Shem's family remain in Salem? if so, consider the character of Araunah, in connection with what we have hinted on the sacredness of Jebus, or Salem, 2 Sam. xxiv. 23. where he is called "king," and offers to David a royal present: but David stipulates expressly for purchase, &c. as if he were dealing with an equal, in some respects, at least.

4thly, The access of Abraham to the Divine presence by means of this royal priest, and the communications this patriarch might make to Abraham, deserve our netice. When Abraham was divinely directed to quit Kedem, was Shem the messenger? When he offered up Isaac, was it near the Salem of Shem? When Rebekah inquired of the Lord, was it by Shem? did he inform her, "two nations are in thy womb," &c.

Was Shem the only person reported to enjoy endless life? did rumours of a translation like that of Enoch, or that of Elijah, circulate concerning him? [What could those brethren mean, who reported concerning the apostle John, that he should not die? What knowledge had they of "witnessings" resembling their report, in other instances?]

It may be proper to say a word in justification of the chronology of Shem's life: that patriarch lived, by the shortest computation, till Isaac was 50 years of age: but, other computations add 40 or 50 years to his life. At the shortest period, however, he outlived his father Noah, 152 years: and his son Arphaxad, 61 years; consequently, no chronological difficulty attends the principles we have been considering.

If it be asked, but why does not Moses in Genesis, or the apostle in the Hebrews, call Melchisedec by the name of Shem? we may answer, because he was much better known at that time, and in that country, by his title of "king of justice." I say he was bet ter known: for though we find him called Shama, Sharma, or Soma, in India, yet that name has not been preserved in the West. Melech signifies king; admitting this title of office, we observe, 1st, Sanchoniatho, a Canaanite, or Phenician writer, places together Misr and Sydyc; the first is referred to the father of the Mizraim, Egyptians: of the second, he says, "Sydyc found out the use of salt;" not, as I suppose, the culinary use, but the religious use of salt for that salt was used as an oath, vide FRAGMENT, No. 155, and this sacred use of salt, combines perfectly with the character of Melchisedec, as king of justice, and judge of all around him. The name Sydyc is evidently the Hebrew sedek, justice: and so Philo Biblius, translating Sanchoniatho, renders, dixaos, "the just." Moreover, Bochart says, p. 784. The Orientals called the planet Jupiter by

the name Sedek, in honour of Shem; as appearsby the old Jewish writings. Indeed, that Jewish tradition considered Shem, as being the same with Melchisedec, we learn from the Targums of Jonathan, and of Jerusalem, the Midrash Agada, as cited by Rabbi Solomon: and the cabalists in Baal-haturim. Now, if this was an article well known and admitted among the Jews, we see at once the reason why it needed no elucidation; probably too, the inhabitants of Jerusalem would have been highly offended with any doubt on the subject, or any question whether the Salem of this king was their own Jerusalem. Is there any allusion to the title of this king, in 2 Sam. xxiii. 5; Isai. xli. 26; Acts iii. 9; vii. 52; James v. 6? The apostle tells the Hebrews, that he had much to say concerning Melchisedec; but it was of very difficult interpretation: it is evident, the writer himself understood his subject: but he refrained; because it was too recondite, and could only be comprehended, and relished, by consummate learning and intelligence. Moreover, if Peter has this passage in view, when he mentions, using the same word as the writer to the Hebrews, "things hard to be understood," in the writings of the learned apostle, which he also unites with complaints of those who are “unlearned and unstable," considering these things, we ought to be very cautious in our determinations on the subject: but it will not follow that British Christians, who are further advanced in the doctrines of their religion, than the half Judaizing Hebrews, may not study with advantage those deeper matters which the prudence of the apostle withheld him from entering at large into.

It is but fair to apprize the reader, that the principles we have been discussing, lead to very important consequences for, as we have elsewhere thought, that the art of writing was extant, even in ages so early as that of the Abrahamic migration, and this art being confessedly among the priestly duties, it will follow, that Shem might bring into the West, and there communicate to Abraham, and to others of his family, &c. the then extant parts of that volume which we esteem sacred. He might, indeed, communicate much other information, and further predictions; but it may be, that only those which referred to the land allotted to Abraham and his posterity, are come down to us: those referring to other nations being less assiduously preserved. This has great effect on the authority of that system of which Moses was the minister. It supersedes tradition; and does not allow of any interval of time wherein the books written could become obsolete, or even difficult to a skilful linguist, like Moses, &c. This accounts also for the knowledge spread in Canaan, that this country was authoritatively, i.e. divinely, allotted to the Hebrew nation, &c.

We have seen the kings, east of the Euphrates, war against those of the west; in later ages we see Nebuchadnezzar, and other kings of Nineveh, and Baby

lon, war against even Egypt, and overrun it, by the same way. Did the ancient Palli, or shepherds of India, conquer Canaan and Egypt: and of this people was that "king who knew not Joseph?" Admitting this supposition,

Observe, how it justifies that passage of the Mosaic writings which has been thought demonstrative against their being written by Moses: "the Canaanite was then in the land," meaning the original natives of Canaan, not their conquerors: and if the reader will keep in mind, in perusing Scripture history, that Canaan was peopled by a mixture of the descendants of these natives, and of those of their conquerors, at various times, he will find reasons for attributing actions to one of these classes of inhabitants which would be very improper if attributed to another. For instance, if we suppose Rahab the zoneh, not kedeshah, harlot; hostess, at most, to have been one of these Canaanites; we see how she might wish to delude the Palli king of Jericho: how her faith led her to believe the appointment of Canaan to the Hebrews, in which all Shemites surely acquiesced; "I know that the Lord hath given you the land," &c. See also why some Canaanites might be left undestroyed in Judea, if not unmolested, &c.

Observe, how sacrificing the beeve kind was "an abomination to the Palli Egyptians; that animal being sacred in India to this day. This explains also the respect paid to the Nile, and the sanctity of that river, it being assimilated to the Indian Ganges; and being characterized as holy in the Indian accounts of it, such as they now appear.

Observe, that the Praw, or Parau, of India, the Porus of the Greek writers, is the same as the Parho, or Pharaoh of Egypt.

There is also another passage of Scripture, on which this principle sheds considerable light, a passage which has been a very thorn in the sides of commentators, "out of Egypt have I called my son ;" or, "when Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.'

Observe, how the comparison stands between Israel and Christ. Israel was sent down from Canaan into Egypt, by Divine Providence; and during the residence of Israel in this country, the Palli overran Canaan, conquering all before them: but Israel escaped this destruction, being safe in Egypt; though in process of time the Palli conquered this country also, whereby Israel became subject to many adversities even there, to slavery and to severity. In like manner Jesus, being sent by Divine interposition into Egypt, escaped the bloody fury of Herod; being in safety, though certainly accompanied by many inconveniencies. Israel was brought up out of Egypt, safe, undestroyed; so was Jesus: the parallel, therefore, is complete; since both were preserved for future services, according to the Divine appointment. What

can more clearly justify the evangelist's accommodation? As to this conquest of Egypt, by the Palli,

A passage from captain Wilford's Puranic history of Egypt, seems to allude to such an event; "Sharmastan received its name from Sharma: his descendants being obliged to leave Egypt, retired to the mountains of Ajagar, in Abyssinia, .... Forced to emigrate from Egypt, or compelled to seek refuge in the mountains, during the reigns of Sadi and Rahu; they are said to be a quiet and blameless people, to have subsisted by hunting wild elephants, of which they sold the teeth, and ate the flesh," p. 66. "The children of Sharma travelled after the building of Babel, from the Euphrates to Egypt," p. 68. Asiatic Researches, vol. iii. This accounts for the ready journey of Abraham to Egypt, where he went among his own kindred: also, how the same language obtained in these countries. The same of Jacob. It eases the suddenness of Joseph's promotion also, he being of the same Shemite stock. In after ages, it shews in some degree, whence arose the interest of the queen of Sheba, in Solomon's grandeur, and her desire to institute the same worship, &c. she being also a Shemite. But we cannot enlarge on this.

Observe, also, how this abates the charge of wanton cruelty in Israel toward the people of Canaan ; for it was not so much the truly ancient Canaanites, against whom Israel fought, as against the same Palli nation in Canaan, which in Egypt had so barbarously treated the Hebrews. Since, then, those in Egypt had behaved so cruelly, we need not doubt, that their compatriots in Canaan practised the same enormities, and were justly punished for them. Nor should we forget, that, as we have seen the Hamites and Shemites war against each other, in the days of Abraham, so the same rancour was continued among their posterity: for Israel was a Shemite people; but the Palli were Hamite. This gives a reason too for the conduct of Moses, in "refusing to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;" as that would have been exchanging his Shemite descent, for a Hamite adoption. It shews, too, how he "preferred before all the riches of Egypt, the reproach of the expected Messiah," who was to issue from the family of Shem, according to the predictions made to Shem and to Abraham. It shews, too, with what truth, though mingled with falsity, the Gibeonites deluded Israel, by pretending to be from a far country, and exhibiting those signs of remote residence, which might well enough have become their ancestors. It shews, too, what, and who, were the Philistines, who so long maintained themselves against Israel; not Cretans, not Greeks, exclusively, but the descendants of those Palli, who, inhabiting the sea coasts, could always be recruited by means of their ships. Nor let us forget, that this shews too, the reason why the deities of In