modities, with the city of Diridotis, which is the same with Teredon, the ruins of which are still to be seen on the confines of Havilah." But though it could not be shewn, that these precious spices were the native products of that part of Arabia, yet, as the caravans from the interior passed through it on their way to Diridotis, in its immediate neighbourhood, to dispose of their merchandise, the language of Moses is justified, and the true situation of Havilah ascertained.

The last distinguishing mark of Havilah mentioned by the sacred historian, is the oynx-stone. To what particular stone the Hebrew term Schoham refers, cannot be ascertained with any degree of certainty; but that Arabia did abound in precious stones of different kinds, is expressly stated by both sacred and profane writers. The prophet Ezekiel mentions precious stones among the articles of commerce which the inhabitants of Sheba and Raamah, places on the eastern coast of Arabia, not far from Havilah, brought to the markets of Tyre.s Both Strabo and Diodorus" assert, that the riches of Arabia consisted in precious stones and excellent perfumes; and Pliny assures us, that the most precious gems came from that country. But if we confine the Hebrew word Schoham to denote the oynx-stone, tne distinctive character is still equally applicable to Arabia; for Pliny says, the ancients are persuaded that the oynx-stone was nowhere else to be found but in the mountains of that country."

From this statement it appears, that in the eastern extremity of Arabia, was situated a country called Havilah, abounding in fine gold, in pearls, in aromatic gums, and in precious stones, among which the oynx held a conspicuous place. Now this country, Moses informs us, was encompassed by the river Pison; and on inspecting the maps both of ancient and modern geographers, we discover a stream washing, in its course, one side of that celebrated region; and also communicating with three other rivers by one common channel. We have thus obtained all the marks by which the inspired historian distinguished the Pison, and have therefore some reason to conclude, that the western channel of the Euphrates, is the Pison of the sacred Scriptures.

The name of the second river is Gihon, concerning which Moses says, "The same is it which compasseth the whole land of Cush." As the Gihon cannot be at any great distance from the river Pison, a kindred stream, we must look for the land of Cush, not on the borders of Ethiopia and Egypt, but near the country of Havilah. And here we do find a country, watered by the eastern branch of the Euphrates, which has borne the name of Cush, from the remotest antiquity down to the present times. All travellers inform us, that Suziana is now called Chuzestan; in which it is easy to discern the original term Cush, or as it is written by some, Chus or Chuz. Benjamin of Navarre says, that the great province of Elam, of which Susa is the metropolis, and which the Tigris waters, bears this name. This province, the same with Elymais, extends as far as the Persian gulf, east from the mouth of the Euphrates. It is the Cuthah of the sacred Scriptures, which is only the Chaldee form of Cusha or Cush, from which Sal

W

manasser transported a colony to re-people the desolated country of the ten tribes. The colony long retained their ancient name, and were called Cutheans. As the Chaldeans often change sh into t or th, the words Cuthah and Cuth, are only the Chaldee form of Cusha and Cush. The word Shushan, the name which the prophet gives to the capital of Elam, is evidently derived from the same root. We have thus sufficient evidence, that a province of the Babylonish empire, extending to the Persian gulf, east from the mouth of the Euphrates, was formerly called Cush; and therefore, the river which washes it, must be the Gihon of Moses.

X

The name of the third river is Hiddekel. That this river is the same with the Tigris, is generally believed. The Seventy Interpreters render the Hebrew word Hiddekel, the Tigris; which is only the original word in a different form.y

Of this river, Moses says, "That is it which goes before Assyria." The term Assyria in the days of Moses, and long after his time, was the designation, not of the Assyrian empire, which consisted of many extensive provinces, but of that single province of which Nineveh was the capital. Moses, therefore, must have used the term in this limited application; and in this view, the course of the Tigris exactly corresponds with the description which the sacred historian gives of the Hidde kel. A traveller from Egypt or Midian, where Moses wrote, could not enter Assyria without first crossing the Tigris, which, running before or on that side of Assyria, separated that province from the regions which lay next to those countries. This view may be thought inconsis

w See Well's Geog. vol. i, p. 15.

y Ibid. p. 17.

* Dan. viii, 2.

tent with the description of the inspired writer, which, in our translation, is rendered, "That is it which goes toward the east of Assyria;" or, as it is in the margin, eastward to Assyria. But the original term which our translators render eastward, comes from a root which refers equally to time and place, signifying literally to go before; the noun itself signifies priority of place or situation, and therefore cannot with propriety be restrained to the eastern side. It is accordingly rendered in the Septuagint, in the Vulgate, and in the Syriac version, over against, or along the side of Assyria; in which they have been followed by some of the most celebrated Hebrew scholars in modern times.

The last of the four rivers is the Euphrates. This noble stream, rolling his majestic and ample waters through the neighbouring countries, was familiarly known to the nations for whom the inspired historian wrote, without any mark of distinction. Moses calls this river Perath, which the Greeks, adjusting it in their usual manner to their own language, turned into Euphrates.

The sacred text speaks of only one river which watered the land of Eden; which, after leaving its boundary, was parted into four streams. This account perfectly corresponds with the course of these rivers which we have now been tracing. For the Euphrates and the Tigris unite their waters, and after flowing together in one channel for a considerable way, separate again into two channels, the one which is probably the Pison taking a westerly, and the other which is the Gihon, an easterly direction. The land of Eden then lay on the single channel which was common to all the four rivers. For, says the historian, "A river went out of Eden to water

the garden; and from thence, it was parted and became into four heads." Within the limits of Eden, the river flowed in only one channel; but from thence, or beyond Eden, it was parted and became four heads, or principal channels."

It has been contended by some writers, that the four heads cannot with any propriety be understood of four streams into which the river of Eden was divided, but of the four sources from which it issued; and, that these four streams united their waters immediately before they entered the country of Eden, and pursued their course in one majestic flood to the Persian gulf: for the word which is translated head, naturally refers to the beginning, not to any changes in the progress of a river. But admitting, that the term head properly means the source or commencement of a river, it is not inconsistent with the view which has been now taken. To a person ascending the river, the point where the Euphrates and Tigris united their streams, is in reality the beginning or entry of each of these rivers; and on the contrary, the point of separation is the head or beginning of the Pison and the Gihon. The Seventy interpreters certainly admit this solution, for they render the original term 'agxa, beginnings. But another solution still more natural and satisfactory may be offered. The original term often signifies chief, principal, or most excellent; and by consequence, the words of Moses may be rendered, From thence it was divided into four principal channels, four noble rivers, excluding as unworthy of particular notice, other inferior streams which might branch off in their progress to the ocean.

These statements render it probable that the garden 2 See Dr. Well's Hist. Geog. p. 19, 20, 21.