fold," Gen. iv, 23, 24. This speech, which is introduced without any connection with the preceding history, has given interpreters not a little trouble. The Jewish rabbies attempt to explain it by the help of a story, perhaps of their own invention; that Lamech, as he was hunting, being informed by a certain youth, that a wild beast lay lurking in a secret place, went thither and unawares killed Cain, who lay hid there, with a dart; and then upon finding his mistake, in a fit of rage for what he had done, beat the youth to death; so that Cain was the man he had slain by wounding him; and the youth, the young man he had killed by hurting, or beating him. But as this story is without any foundation in scripture, we have no reason to look upon it in any other light than as a mere fable; though St. Jerome says it was received as true by several Christians. Jacobus Capellus, in his Historia Saera et Exotica, fancies that Lamech, being in a vapoury humour, was boasting of his courage, and what he would do if there was occasion: "I would, or will, kill a man, if he wounds me; and a young man if he hurts me." But this version offers too much violence to the Hebrew text: Onkelos, who wrote the first Chaldee paraphrase on the Pentateuch, has given us an easier sense, reading the following words with an interrogation: "Have I slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt?" and accordingly he paraphrases it thus: "I have not killed a man, that I should bear the sin of it; nor have I destroyed a young man, that my offspring should be cut off for it." Dr. Shuckford has improved this interpretation, by supposing that Lamech was endeavouring to reason his wives and family out of their fear of having the death of Abel revenged upon them, who were of the posterity of Cain. As if he had said, What have we done, that we should be afraid? We have not killed a man, nor offered any injury to our brethren of any other family; and if God would not allow Cain to be killed, who had murdered his brother, but threatened to take seven-fold vengeance on any that should kill him; doubtless they must expect much greater punishment, who should presume to kill any of us. Therefore we may surely look upon ourselves as safe under the protection of the law, and of the providence of God."

Having thus considered those parts of sacred history, which are produced as evidences of a civil government in the early ages of the world; we now proceed to examine the particular instances alleged of that despotic power of the patriarchs, which our author ascribes to them.

The first is of Noah, who pronounced a curse upon Canaan, "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren," Gen. ix, 25.

It may reasonably be believed, that Noah, being the second father of mankind, had, for a considerable time, the honour and authority of universal monarch; as Adam had before him. Some insist upon it, that Nimrod was the first that drew off a party from their allegiance to Noah; and setting up for a king proved an oppressive tyrant. Accordingly his being called gibbor baarets, which the Septuagint renders Diyas ETI TYS Yns, Gen. x, 8, may refer, not to his stature, but to his power; for Hesychius makes yiyas to signify the same as duva575, 1σxvpos, potens, robustus. Nimrod is expressly said to have set up "a kingdom," ver. 10; and, just before, ver. 9, " to have been a mighty hunter before the Lord." Which the Jerusalem paraphrast interprets of a sinful hunting after the sons of men, to turn them off from the true religion. But it may as well be taken in a more literal sense, for hunting of wild beasts; inasmuch as the circumstance, of his being a mighty hunter, is mentioned with great propriety, to introduce the account of his setting up his kingdom; the exercise of hunting being looked upon in ancient times as a means of acquiring the rudiments of war*. For which reason, the principal heroes of heathen antiquity, as Theseus, Nestor, &c., were, as Xenophon tells us, bred up to hunting. Besides, it may be supposed, that by this practice Nimrod drew together a great company of robust young men to attend him in his sport; and by that means increased his power. And by destroying the wild beasts, which in the comparatively defenceless state of

Vid. Xenophon. Cyrop. lib. i, p. 10, edit. Hutch.; Philon. lud. de Joseph. ab initio, apud opera, p. 411, edit. Colon. Allobrog. et eundem de vita Mosis, p. 475. See these and other authors cited by Bochart in his Geographia Sacra, lib. iv, cap. 12.

society in those early ages were no doubt very dangerous enemies, he might perhaps render himself farther popular; thereby engaging numbers to join with him, and to promote his chief design of subduing men, and making himself master of nations.

But to return to Noah, and to the instance which our author assigns of his patriarchal authority, in denouncing a curse upon Canaan.

Unless it could be proved, that all the patriarchs were endowed with a prophetic spirit, as it was evident Noah was, when he foretold the fate of his three sons and their posterity, it will by no means follow from the instance before us, that the authority of the patriarchs generally reached so far as to pronounce effectual blessings and curses on their children and subjects. In short, in this affair Noah seems to have acted rather as a prophet than as a patriarch: no argument therefore can be drawn from his conduct on this occasion, to prove the extent of the patriarchal power.

Some difficulties occur in this piece of sacred history, which we cannot pass over without attempting at least to explain them.

1st, It is inquired in what Ham's crime consisted?

The history informs us, that he "saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without," Gen. ix, 22. Now merely seeing might be accidental, unavoidable, and no way criminal. We must therefore suppose, there was something more in the case than is plainly expressed.

Some Jewish doctors make his crime to be castrating his father Noah, to prevent his having any more sons; lest his share in the division of the world should not be as large as he wished; which conceit some very grave authors have seriously refuted, from these words: "Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him," ver. 24. They argue, that if Ham had performed so painful an operation upon his father, the anguish would undoubtedly have awoke kim, and the criminal had been taken in the very fact.

Mr. Vander Hart, professor of the oriental languages in the university of Helmstad, is of opinion, that Ham's crime was committing incest with his father's wife. But if we may suppose the narrations of Moses to be thus disguised, there will

be hardly any depending upon a single fact he relates. The most probable, therefore, as well as the easiest account is this, that Ham told his brethren of what he had seen in a scornful manner. It is said, "he told his brethren without;" perhaps in the street, publicly before the people, proclaiming his father's shame with contempt and derision; the very sin to which such exemplary vengeance was afterwards threatened: "The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it," Prov. xxx, 17.

2dly, It is inquired, why Noah denounced the curse, not on Ham himself but on his son Canaan, Gen. ix, 25.

It might very likely be a reason, why Canaan is here so particularly mentioned by Moses, that hereby the Israelites might be encouraged to war against the Canaanites, who were the posterity of this Canaan; when they knew, that by a curse they were devoted to subjection and slavery; and that, on this account, they might be assured of victory over them.

But as to the reason of the curse being denounced on Canaan:

1st, Some by Canaan understand Canaan's father; which is a very harsh interpretation.

2dly, The opinion of the Hebrew doctors is, that Canaan first saw Noah in an indecent posture, and made a jest of it to his father Ham. For proof of this they allege the words already quoted, "Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him," ver. 24. By top 1 beno hakatan, which we render Noah's younger son (filius parvus), they understand his grandson. But this also is too forced an interpretation. For as 2 gadhol, magnus, is elsewhere applied to Japhet, to signify his being the elder, Gen. x, 21, so op katan, parvus, is most naturally, in this place, to be understood of the younger son.

3dly, The easiest solution of this difficulty, I conceive, is this, that what is commonly called a curse, in this place, is rather a prophecy. So that the words, "cursed be Canaan," Gen. ix, 25, would better be rendered, "cursed shall Canaan be," that is, the posterity of Canaan, who from him were called Canaanites; for the blessings, which Noah emphatically pronounced upon his two other sons, related to their posterity;

as is evident from the following words, "God shall enlarge Japhet, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem," ver. 27. Now though the Canaanites suffered for their own sins, Lev. xviii, 24, 25, and Gen. xv, 16, yet it was a present punishment inflicted upon Ham, to be informed by the spirit of prophecy, that one branch of his posterity would prove so exceeding vile as to fall remarkably under the curse of God, and be made a slave to the posterity of his brethren. Which leads us to inquire,

3dly, What is meant by his being a "servant of servants?" "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."

This may easily be determined from the use of the like phrase on other occasions. Sanctum sanctorum signified the most holy place in the Jewish tabernacle and temple; and canticum canticorum the most excellent song. In like manner servus servorum, a servant of servants, is the basest and vilest of servants, that is, a slave; and very remarkably was the prediction fulfilled eight hundred years after, when the Israelites, who were descended from Shem, took possession of the land of Canaan, subduing thirty kings, killing a vast number of the inhabitants, laying heavy tributes on the remainder, or driving them out of their country, and using the Gibeonites, who saved themselves by a wile, though not properly as slaves, yet as mere drudges for the service of the tabernacle; and when, afterwards, the scattered relics of the Canaanites, at Tyre, at Thebes, and at Carthage, were all conquered and cut off by the Greeks and Romans, who were descended from Japhet*.

The second instance which Godwin produces of the despotic power of the patriarchs is Abraham's turning Hagar and Ishmael out of his family, Gen. xxi, 9, &c.

When Abraham left his father's house, and came into the land of Canaan, being there sui juris, and subject to none, he doubtless exercised a patriarchal jurisdiction in his own family; in which he was succeeded by Isaac and Jacob. But as for his turning his concubine and her sons out of doors,

* See Philippi Olearii disputat. historico-moral. de Cham. maledict. Lips. 1707; and Apud Thesau. nov. theologico-philolog. tom. i, p. 168, Lugd. Bat. et Amstel. 1732.