hovah God of Israel: In Auver-he-naher your fathers dwelt anciently, Terah and Abraham," &c. This is no doubt the Maher-ul-nere of major Rennell, and this certainly agrees with the principle, that Abraham came from Bactriana, i.e. Kedem. Nor is this principle weakened by the geographical note inserted Gen. x. 23, 30. Aram had a son named Mesh, who might probably give name to "Mesha, as thou goest unto Sephar, a mount of Kedem," the East, BactriMesha has very probably its representative in the present city Meshed, which is situated east of the Caspian sea, toward Bactriana, in the province of Chorasan. It was to this city Hanway was travelling, when his caravan was plundered, vol. i. p. 129. It was designed to have been the emporium of the Caspian trade.

ana.

The city Balk is the ancient Bactra, which gave name to the province of Bactriana, or, in the language of Persia, "the East," in Hebrew, Kedem. As this country is far east of our Map, we do not further pursue this argument; but suggest it, merely, as an apology for introducing Abraham at once, in Hamedan, the ancient Ecbatana, in the way from Kedem to Nineveh. We have, however, drawn a line, which serves to hint his journey from the East, and, instead of placing him in Mosul, the present Nineveh, we direct it to Eski Mosul, ancient Nineveh, whose name we also observe is Bel-ad: i.e." Baal the Lord." As Baal is the sun, whose representative on earth is fire, I conceive that this is the same as Ur, or Aur, i.e. "fire of the Chaldees;" and, as it still retains the name of "Lord Fire," Bel-ad, there can be little doubt that here was the seat of the ancient national worship of that deity. Some say, that Ur, or Ura, in Mesopotamia, two days journey from Mosul toward Nesibin, was the Ur of the Chaldees; I rather think this confirms our notion, than confutes it, as Bel-ad is up the Tigris, about that probable distance from Mosul, toward Nesibin; and all Eastern traditions agree, that Abraham lived where the royal court of the king was established, i.e. apparently, in old Nineveh, Eski Mosul. From Bel-ad the road leads to Nesibin, and from Nesibin to Roha, but Abraham designing to settle for a time, or perhaps altogether, took a lower course, to Haran, where Terah his father died, Gen. xi. 31.

From Haran trace this patriarch's journey to Hamah, or Hamath; which is very properly described as "the entering in," Josh. xiii. 5. et. al. for so indeed it was

1st, as being the regular course of travel from Chaldea; 2dly, as being the first town on the Syrian side of the river; so that here travellers entered in to that province; i.e. the land of promise. Accordingly we find, verse 6. Abraham passed through, or over, the land, to Sichem and Moreh.

We shall not trace this patriarch's movements in Canaan; or his journey to Egypt; the relative situations of these countries appear so distinctly on our

Map, as to supersede the necessity of it. But, in an inverse order, observe the journey of Eliezer, Abraham's servant, to fetch Rebekah, Gen. xxiv. The same of Jacob, who went from Beersheba toward Haran, Gen. xxviii. 10. which he reached, chap. xxix. 4. and which, observe, is called "the land of the people of the East," verse 1. probably because the family of Terah, &c. migrated from the East, had here established their residence.

Observe, how, taking Haran for the central point, it arranges the story of Jacob's flight from Laban. Laban set three days journey between himself and Jacob, chap. xxx. 36. say to the East of Haran, toward Nesibin: Jacob residing west of Haran. When Laban went to shear his sheep, i.e. to his flock, east of Haran, Jacob took the opportunity to commence his journey for Canaan, westward, by the regular track," and he rose up, and passed over the river," the Euphrates, at el Bir; "and came to mount Gilead;" the first station, probably, where a large flock of sheep could be pastured for a length of time: this was now in a different government from that where Laban lived, and beyond the Chaldean dominion.

The journey of Jacob down into Egypt, and the return of his tribes from thence, need no illustration here.

To apply the directions given the prophet Jonah, to visit Nineveh, to this passage northward from Syria, is so obvious, that it also might have been omitted; were it not proper to remark, how very contrary was the course be intended to steer, when he took ship at Joppa, Jaffa, on the Mediterranean, and what a terrible long way the whale travelled with him in his belly, if he did, as the Jewish Rabbins say, discharge him ashore on the banks of the Tigris at Nineveh, Mosul. To say nothing of the passage round Africa, trace only the natural impediments, too strong for sailing boats, from the Persian Gulf to Bagdad, and so up to Nineveh, many hundreds of miles!

The extent of the kingdom of the Hebrews was, from the river of Egypt, south, to the river Euphrates, northeast. This " river of Egypt" would occupy us too much, should we attempt to investigate it: I can hardly think it was the Nile; but rather some stream nearer to Judea ; in which country, the most southern town, I suppose, was la Rish, or el Arissa, though Solomon probably included Catieh, or Catzieh, in his dominions, Cant. iv. 2. Northward, the Hebrew provinces extended not only along the western banks of the river Euphrates, but, occasionally, over towns on the other side, as Kerkisia, or Carchemish, 2 Chron. xxxv. 20. and on the north they included Hamath, for we are expressly told, 2 Kings, xiv. 28. that Jeroboam recovered Damascus and Hamath: from whence it appears, demonstrably, that the promise made to Abraham, Gen. xv. 18. was fulfilled to his posterity; who actually did govern this country, at times, not constantly, from "the entering

in of Hamath," and from the river Euphrates to Egypt itself.

As a reverse to this extent of the Hebrew kingdom, observe the distance from Jerusalem west, to Babylon east, to which the chief of the Jewish nation were carried captive by Nebuchadnezzar, 2 Kings, xxv. Observe also, on this article, the precision of the prophecy, Amos v. 27. "I will carry you captive beyond Damascus ;" which some commentators have misunderstood, supposing, that the Hebrews were to be carried into a more distant captivity than the citizens of Damascus were; whereas, we read, 2 Kings, xxv. 21. that Riblah, the Hems of our Map, to which city Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, carried the people of the land, to meet king Nebuchadnezzar, and where that king "smote them, and slew them," was, "in the land of Hamath;" and Hamath, we see by our Map, was double the distance of Damascus from Jerusalem; and being in the same customary road of passage, was therefore far beyond it: this, at least, may be taken as one sense of the prophecy.

Moreover, it should appear, by their going so far north, that the army of Nebuchadnezzar, with the Jews their captives, returned to Nineveh, by the very same route as that by which Abraham, the father of this nation, had entered this country: so that the Israelites had this additional mortification of beholding in the character of prisoners, the land of their fathers, and of their relatives, as the descendants of Laban, &c. We see too, that Nineveh, the Mosul of our Plate, was a probable station for part of these captives to be left at, as Tobit, &c. was, while others were taken, either along Mesopotamia, or down the Tigris, to Babylon: which is a long distance south.

It is likely, moreover, that some considerable division of captives was sent north, from Mosul; for we find Ezekiel, chap. i. among the captives by the river of Chebar, in the land of the Chaldeans and his immense distance from Judea, with which probably he had no intercourse whatever, and from Babylon, amply accounts for the interval of time, six months, which passed between the arrival at Babylon of the news of the destruction of Jerusalem, and its reaching the residence of this prophet, Ezek. xxxiii. 21. It is seen in FRAGMENT, No. 106, that we hinted at some circumstances which place this prophet in a country answering to the character of Arzeroum; but, though that might be, yet being unable to prove it, we shall rather place Ezekiel between Arzeroum and the Caspian, or on the Caspian, if it be insisted on; say Derbend, or any where else; it must be, 1st, where wood was extremely scarce; 2dly, at a great distance from Babylon. This northern situation of the prophet Ezekiel accounts too, for his prophecies against Gog and Magog, which were people, as appears by our " Map of the settlement of nations," north, but not very far north, from this station of the prophet. This is a proper place to illustrate some particulars

of the carrying into captivity the people of the Jews. That history must be divided into distinct periods; and considered as comprising distinct events. The first is, the captivity of the two tribes and half, who were settled east of the Jordan; and this seems a very natural order of occurrences, when we consider that the captivating power was the king of Nineveh, Tiglathpileser, who, coming from the north, and entering in at Hamath, the regular course, would first overrun Damascus, then Howran, then the east of the Jordan, down to Moab, or el Raba; this being, probably, a more easy progress than over mount Lebanon, and along the seacoast, westward. We place this 740 before A.D. The second captivity included the remainder of the ten tribes, i.e. those west of the Jordan, who were carried away by Shalmaneser, about twenty years after the former. These people would naturally be placed in cities, and districts, subject to the king of Nineveh: i.e. the northern part of our Map: for Ezekiel was certainly in these parts; and was by no means a solitary resident there. Perhaps even in this sense part of the Jews might be carried captive further from their native land than the citizens of Damascus

were.

Moreover we remark, that Tiglath-pileser carried the eastern tribes captive into, 1st, Halah, and 2dly, Habor, and 3dly, Hara, and to the district around the river, 4thly, Gozan: 1 Chron. v. 26; 2 Kings, xvii. 6. Where are these cities? We conceive the river, 4thly, Gozan, which is expressly said to be in Media, may be the Ozan, or Kisil-ozan, red-Ozan, which runs into the Caspian sea on the southwest, on a branch of which we have the town of, 2dly, Abhar, marked Abar, in Hanway's map, and placed in lat. 36. this is probably the Habor of the sacred text. Hara may be the town marked, 3dly, ChoARA, near Rages, in major Rennell's map, though the major himself guesses it may be the district Tarom; and Halah, or Chalah, may be Kalar, on the south of the Caspian. This agrees with the residence of Tobit's friend Gabael, at Rages in Media, the modern Rey: and we learn from the history that many Jews were settled hereabout, by the number of husbands offered to Sarah; and by the numerous friends who wished the family joy, on occasion of her nuptials with Tobias.

This second captivity of Israel was by Shalmaneser, 721 ante A.D. and I incline to think, that some of these captives were placed north of the others, on the western shore of the Caspian: where the sons of Cush were settled, which is so marked in our "Map of the settlements of mankind." It is likely, in fact, these are the very Cushites that occupied the land of Israel, instead of the Israelites, and I would not be sure that they are not the "Caspians” of major Rennell's map. So that the king of Nineveh placed not only a great tract of country between the return of these people to their native lands, but

his capital Nineveh, also, whereby he was enabled to counteract their motions, had they attempted any. This agrees also with the prophecy, Amos i. 5. "Syria shall go into captivity to Kir," which no doubt is the province adjoining to the river Kir, or Kyrus, Cyrus; further, that this was a northern province appears from Isai. xxii. 6. "Elam, Persia, i.e. the south, bare the quiver; Kir, i.e. the north, uncovered the shield;" they were, therefore, under the orders of the same monarch, and each extreme, perhaps, of his dominions. This placing of these people as neighbours, in their new situations, is extremely characteristic of Eastern management. We have accounts that these Cushites when placed in Samaria, claimed kindred with the Hebrews; to the great mortification of the Jews, who repelled the very idea, with inexpressible contempt. But, as we are not fettered by Jewish prejudices, we may inquire on what could this relation be founded? To be sure, not on their immediate removal from the Cush near the Caspian; but, there certainly was another Cush, hitherto unknown, and unsuspected, by commentators; that which according to Moses, was encompassed by the second river of Paradise, the Jihoon: now, as we have fixed the Jihoon to be that river on which the city of Balk stands, which river, till A.D. 1640, made a great bend, from north running westward, so as to encompass the province of Bactriana, before its discharge into the Caspian, it follows, that this was the Cush of Moses, in this place of Genesis. Moreover, the Cushites of the west of the Caspian, having come originally from this situation, as Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation, also had done, the consequence is, that they were at least countrymen by origin, and might claim a kindred and relation to the Jews, which, had they not been considered as invaders, and surreptitious possessors of Israelitish property, might possibly have been admitted; notwithstanding they brought with them idols, perhaps not very unlike those which Terah, if not Abraham, had served in Ober-e-nahr, on "the other side the river," Jihoon. But this eastern district is beyond our present Map.

Let us now turn to the, eastern, southern extent of our Map, where we find the prophet Daniel residing at Shushan-Royal, at or near to Jundi Sapor, in our Map, and receiving visions by the side of the river Ulai: one of the rivers on the side of Jundi Sapor. It is likely, that he was in attendance at Shushan, by virtue of his public office; and, perhaps, no great number of Jews were settled in company with him: as the kings of Persia resided part of the year at Ecbatana, Hamedan, and other part at Shushan. Taking this then for the southern limits of the settlements of the Jewish captives, see to what extent from Arzeroum, or Derbend north, to Shushan south, were dispersed, the families of that nation which had occupied the little tract of Judea, in the west. [The third captivity.] This has its aspect too, on the

difficulties made among the Jews about receiving the prophecies of Ezekiel and Daniel into the canon of Scripture as 1st, they were delivered out of the holy land; 2dly, the distance of those who delivered them, from where they could be authentically acknowledged and authoritatively admitted, as must have been, at this time, in Babylon, where, no doubt, the main body of the Hebrew people continued. We advert now to the return of the captives from Babylon under Ezra ; wherein we remark, that probably the major part, by far, of the Israelites who returned into their own land, was from Babylon, Ezra ii. 2; viii. 1. but possibly this caravan did not take the northern route, but crossed the desert, south of Tadmor.

After this specimen of the utility of our Map, quitting the journies recorded in the Old Testament, let us consider some of those recorded in the New Testament. We say nothing of those of our Lord; because the size of our Map does not allow sufficient detail; but as the most distant traveller among the apostles, whose route is described to us, was St. Paul, we shall particularly, so far our Map includes, accompany his progresses. The first is, that memorable journey of the Jewish Saul, from Jerusalem to Damascus, Acts ix. this, we presume, was performed along the ordinary road from Jerusalem; and tradition has marked by the name Kocab, Star, the place where the supercelestial light was manifested to him: for we do not reckon his being sent to Tarsus, chap. ix. 30. from whence he was fetched by Barnabas, xi. 25. The second is, Acts xiii. from Antakia, Antioch, to Seleucia, [meaning, no doubt, Seleucia on the coast near Antioch: our Map shows more than one Seleucia] to Cyprus, from whence they went to Salamis; and through the isle, to Baffo, Paphos, thence to Perga in Pamphylia; to Antioch in Pisidia; to Konia, Iconium, to Lystra, to Derbe. These cities being situated in the province of Lycaonia, the inhabitants spake in the Lycaonian dialect, or" speech of Lycaonia." From Derbe they returned to Lystra, to Konia, Iconium, to Antioch, to Perga, Attalia, Antalie, and ended at Antioch, from whence they had set out.

The reader will observe in this history two Antiochs, one in Syria, the other in Pisidia, which, in verse 21. is not distinguished by any addition.

The next chapter contains the mission of Paul and Barnabas from Antioch in Syria, to Jerusalem. They passed through Phenicia and Samaria; no doubt, pretty much along the coast, and as direct as they well could; which the reader will recollect is expressed by the words "passed through."

At the close of this chapter Barnabas sails to Cyprus: Paul goes by land, north, from Antakia through Syria and Cilicia; he is said to go through Syria; though part of Syria was south of Antioch: he came to Lystra; passed throughout Phrygia, not

meaning into every town of the province, but generally. The same, I suppose, of the limits, confines, or boundaries of Galatia; for, that he did not go through the province of Galatia, as he did the province of Phrygia, appears, by the insertion of the word rendered "region;" had he gone over both countries equally, and fully, it would have been said "he went throughout Phrygia and Galatia."

:

This is the first idea that strikes the mind, on considering this phraseology: another is, whether the word choran Galatiken may not have somewhat of a diminutive sense here, and signify "lesser Galatia?" not the whole province; in which case, the word rendered region, will signify the champaign parts, field, literally, of the province. In short, as we have in ancient geography, two Cilicias, Cilicia Trachea, and Cilicia CAMPESTRIS, "the field," so I suppose we have Galatia Campestris, xwpov. These remarks are introductory to the notice of a difficulty in the following words: "They were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in ASIA :" where was this ASIA? We know that the word Asia signifies, 1st, the continent: 2dly, the peninsula, in our Map marked Anatolia generally, 3dly, Proconsular Asia, the western coast of the peninsula: 4thly, a small part on the river Cayster, is so called by Homer; to which, I think, we must add, 5thly, a district east of Phrygia: perhaps the eastern part of that usually marked Galatia. For, observe 1st, Paul had held an eastern course from Phrygia to Galatia Campestris, but had his design now been to have visited western Asia, this was absolutely contradictory. 2dly, He visited western Asia, Ephesus, Miletus, &c. repeatedly; we can, therefore, assign no reason, why the Spirit forbad him so to do at this time. 3dly, After he had held a northern course toward Mysia, "he assayed to go, eastward, again, to Bithynia;" but this eastern direction the Spirit suffered him not to take. It should seem, therefore, that his first intention was, to go eastward, into Asia, which he resumed when in the latitude of Bithynia: but was prevented in both instances.

If we turn now to the apostle Peter's address of his first epistle, we find it inscribed to the residents "in "Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia:" by consulting the Map, we see that these provinces were east of the course of Paul: they are all marked in the Map, except Asia; and it seems, on reflection, incredible, that Peter can mean to associate with provinces whose limits touched each other, and which, in fact, may be considered as forming but one district, a distant province on the western coast of the peninsula; wherein was Ephesus, and, the seven churches, &c. in no part of which is any interference of Peter mentioned: moreover, he must have crossed Phrygia, &c. to visit this Asia; yet he inserts no saluting address to that province: whereas,

if we take the Asia of this verse in the Acts, and the Asia of Peter, to mean a country adjoining to Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Bithynia, we see the intention of Paul very clearly; and the reason why "the Spirit suffered him not" to execute it: i.e. the apostle Peter was engaged in the same important work, in those provinces, at this very time; so that, as St. Paul made it his principle to break up fresh ground, 2 Cor. x. 16. and as St. Peter was competent to the service, the labours of Paul were better employed elsewhere. This answers the long controverted question, what became of Peter after the council at Jerusalem? We answer; he first went to Antioch, where Paul withstood him, for his preponderation in favour of Jewish observances; and leaving that city, before Paul, I suppose, he preached in the provinces above recited. This gives an entirely new tone to the epistle of Paul to the Galatian churches. We are sure, that Peter held the same opinion as Paul, that the Gentiles should not come under the Mosaic yoke, Acts xv. 10. but, Paul carried his ideas much further, even that the Jews also might dispense with the observances of their nation, Acts xxi. 21. that is, that those observances were indifferent; accordingly, he sometimes observed them, sometimes not. On this question, James seems to have been against him, Acts xxi. 24, &c. Gal. ii. and no doubt Peter too; in fact, this opinion of the ad libitum state of Jewish converts, seems to have been what he communicated in confidence to the pillars of the church, Gal. ii. 2. and to which Paul adhered; for he circumcised Timothy who was of Jewish descent, Acts xvi. 3. but did not circumcise Titus, who was of Grecian descent; in this adapting his practice relating to things in his own judgment indifferent, to existing circumstances, "or becoming all things to all men." Peter seems not to have been quite so free in his notions as Paul; and this, at least, may be said on his behalf, that the observance of Jewish national commemoration services did no more prevent a Jew's believing in Christ for personal salvation, than an Englishman's commemorating gunpowder treason, or the fire of London: and that, in respect to circumcision, it was long practised by the national church of the Jews, the Nazarene Christians; who yet were believers in Christ; and it may be still, for aught I know, by some of the sects of Christians in the East. Possibly Paul's free sentiments are hinted at by Peter, 2 Pet. iii. 16. where he speaks of things "hard to be understood" in the writings of Paul. But it often happens that secondaries, in their zeal for opinions, exceed the intentions of their principal; and, if we retain this idea, we may perceive the true meaning of certain expressions in the epistle to the Galatians. This is not the place to enlarge on the subject; yet a thought or two may explain our meaning, "I marvel ye are so soon removed to another Gospel," as under the appearances

you give it, it seems to be, "yet which is not another" in reality, for Peter and I agree in Gospel principles: but, if Peter himself, or an angel from heaven, preached another Gospel, let him be accursed: for do I seek to please men, (apostles? Peter?) or God? &c. I went to see Peter, and abode with him a fortnight... during my residence false brethren were brought in, to whom on that occasion we gave no place, but James, PETER, and John, who were pillars; seeing that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to me, in which Gospel I instructed you, as the Gospel of the circumcision was to Peter, which is not "another Gospel" but the same, they approved my principles. Yet when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him, for inducing Gentiles to live as do the Jews; and Peter so far acquiesced in my reasonings as to leave the Gentiles at liberty; now, if I build again the things which I then destroyed, as Peter would do, supposing he re-established those distinctions which he formerly gave up, I make myself a transgressor; for, I was either wrong in giving them up, or am now wrong in re-establishing them. Such seem to be the sentiments of the apostle.

Such

These allusions to Peter, agree well with the notion, that some who derived authority from him had been incautious and busy in Galatia; they boasted that they had received their Gospel from some great, apostolic, man, which Paul had not, chap. i. 11. that Paul was no apostle, chap. i. 1. which indeed he was not, in the sense they meant; i.e. not one of the twelve, as Peter was, &c., Many other hints might be added. But, let us note the date of this epistle; on which our remarks have great influence. After having examined what has been said on this subject, by Lardner, Doddridge, Mill, &c. I incline with Michaelis, to place this as the very first of St. Paul's writings; and suppose that after the council at JerusaJem, Peter visited Antioch, during Paul's residence there, which after a while he quitted, to go into Pontus, &c. Afterward, Paul also quitted Antioch, to go into Phrygia, and Galatia Campestris, and continued his journey over into Macedonia; while on this journey, he hears of the opinion propagated by those who exceeded Peter's instructions; and therefore writes against those excesses to his Galatian converts, and appeals to recent occurrences in proof of the constancy of his own sentiments.

This supposition might be corroborated by many other arguments; but these are sufficient to show that the Asia of this passage, and the Asia of Peter, i. 1. was east of the course of Paul's journey; which is our geographical object.

Verse 3. And they passing by Mysia, rather crossing Mysia, came down to Troas, from whence they passed over to Macedonia, in which passage our Map quits them; but, I cannot help observing on the word passing BY, that it looks as if they went on one side of Mysia; which they did not; for the same word is used chap. xx. 16. of sailing BY Ephesus, which, in

the sense of going BY, i.e. through it, they did not; but kept aloof from that city.

Our Map resumes this journey of the apostle Paul, at his return from Corinth and Cenchrea, to Ephesus, in western Asia; from whence he sailed to Cesarea, Keisarieh, "and went up, and saluted the church;" not the church at Cesarea, but that at Jerusalem, "the church," by eminence; and from thence he went down to Antakia, Antioch, from whence he had begun his journey. "And after he had spent some time there, he departed and went over in an or derly manner the plain, or, champaign Galatia, and Phrygia; taking Galatia first, not endeavouring to visit eastern Asia now, but going along the upper coasts, i.e. along Mysia by Troas, Pergamos, Smyrna, &c. came to Ephesus, and dwelt there two years, verse 10. so that all who dwelt in proconsular, or western Asia, heard the word. From Ephesus he went into Greece, from which he went north, into Macedonia; and from Macedonia he came again into Asia, the peninsula, from Philippi to Troas; from Troas to Assos, part of the company by sea, part by land, from Assos by Chios, Samos, Trogyllium, to Miletus, sailing BY, i.e. not stopping at, Ephesus, at Miletus he sent for the elders of Ephesus. [On the subject of Miletus, I may here observe, that besides this Miletus, there was another in Crete; and a third. in Attica, which commentators have taken no notice of, being ignorant of it: and yet, it deserves consideration, whether this was not the Miletus at which Trophimus was left sick. For that was not Miletus near Ephesus; this is agreed by all who think on the subject; and that it should be Miletus in Crete is attended with great difficulties.] The small distance from Miletus to Ephesus, will be noticed by the reader. From Miletus they sailed by Coos, Rhodes, Patara; leaving Cyprus on the left hand to Sour, Tyre, from Sour to Chau Pelerin, Ptolemais, and Keisarieh, from Keisarieh to Jerusalem, Acts xxi.

17.

The last voyage of St. Paul is to Rome; part of which is shown in our Map, Acts xxvii. From Keisarich to Seide, to Cyprus, the sea of Cilicia, Pamphylia, Myra in Lycia, Cnidus, Crete.

Our Map concludes before we accompany the apostle so far: and here too we conclude our illustrations of the voyages of Scripture. The reader will judge from this specimen, of the accuracy with which St. Luke's journal of his Gospel travels was kept; and since we find the utmost regularity wherever we trace him, we may safely consider him as a writer of unexceptionable correctness, in his history of events, wherein we have no such means of examining his narration. This idea is independent of, but not inconsistent with, the principle of inspiration communicated to our sacred historian.

I shall, however, mark the situations of the seven churches of, western, Asia, of which we read in the Revelations tracing them according to the order of