call it according to their own way of termination the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this gave occasion to all that fable that Ogyges was an Ancient Athenian King and that the Floud in his time happened in the Province or Territory of Attica where he Reigned Fifthly If we lay both these Graecian Traditions together that Ogyges lived in the time of Moses and that he Reigned over Attica in that Age the latter of which mistakes I have now discovered upon what reason it depended and the first as I have said that is that which I have mentioned first for it is the latter in order of time is owing to this that there is such a person as Agag or Ogyges mentioned in the Mosaick writings I say if we compare these things together they will sufficiently betray and expose one another for it is ridiculous to think that Balaam referred to any such King of Attica a place with which neither Balack nor the Israelites had at that time any Correspondence much less was he so â—amous and well known among them that the King of Israel who was to come many Ages after should be Proverbially compared to him and that it should be said of him that he should be higher then Agag and that his Kingdom should be exalted as if Attica a small and inconsiderable spot of Ground had been some vast and Formidable Empire nay I dare vouch for most if not all the Jews now living or that have lived ever since this Story was first broached that they are and have been ignorant of any such Athenian King and so at this rate this Prophecy would not have been only obscure and unintelligible when it was first uttered but would remain to this day among the number of those difficulties that are to be explained at the coming of Elias If it be urged that Balaam in this Prophecy referred to Agag the King of the Amalekites who was afterwards Conquered by Saul I answer that I do believe Balaam in part to have referred to this for Agag was a Successor though at a great distance of Balack and Ruled over the same Country that the other did and it was in requital of the injuries done by Balak that this overthrow fell upon the Amalekites in the days of Saul 1. Sam. 15. 2 3 Thus saith the Lord of Hosts I remember that which Amalek did to Israel how he laid wait for him in the way when he came up from Aegypt now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have and spare them not but slay both Man and Woman Infant and Suckling Ox and Sheep Camel and Ass But yet I say that this though it was a partial fulfilling of this Proyhecy yet it is not all that prosperity and increase of honour and power which is shadowed out under it First because Agag in comparison was but an inconsiderable Prince and the Israelites when they came out of Aegypt though nothing so strong as in the time of Saul were more then a match for the Moabites and Amalekites at that time wherefore it is said Num. 22. v. 3 4 5. that Moab was sore afraid of the People and Moab was distressed because of the Children of Israel and Moab said unto the Elders of Midian now shall this company lick up all that are round about us as the Ox licketh up the Grass of the Field and v. 5 6. the words of Balak in his Message to Balaam are Behold there is a People come out from Aegypt behold they cover the face of the Earth and they abide over against me come now therefore I pray thee curse me this People for they are too mighty for me peradventure I shall prevail that we may smite them and that I may drive them out of the Land for I wot that he whom thou blessest is blessed and he whom thou cursest is cursed So that despairing of any success against them by a fair Battel he was forced to make use of Sorceries and Enchantments but it proved in the event as Balaam himself expresses it that there was no Enchantment against Jacob neither any divination against Israel And if they were so little able to resist them then what shall we think after so many several succeeding generations when the Children of Israel were for number more Formidable for strength more United and when the Government was settled upon a certain and as it then appeared an Hereditary foundation the Kingdom being established in the line and person of Saul Or how could that be thought so great an accession to the Israelitish power and Kingdom as that it should deserve so lofty and magnificent a Prediction as this seems to be being uttered with all the rapture and extasie of a Prophetick spirit to be wholly taken up and utterly exhausted in the narrow and trivial Contemplation of it Secondly When it is said of Saul that he should be higher then Agag there is no question as I have said a manifest allusion here made to the Tallness and Comeliness of the person of Saul and therefore if this Agag who lived in his time were only pointed at it would have required such another description of his person also that so the completion of this Prophecy might the more clearly and manifestly appear for to say that Saul should be higher then a Dwarf or then a person of ordinary Stature was certainly no such magnificent representation of his person as to deserve a Prophecy at so great a distance of time to be bestowed upon it but now Agag is no where described after this manner though I deny not but being King if the Kingdom of Moab were Elective he might probably be Taller then the usual sort of People for the reason already mentioned and perhaps for this reason for the Comeliness of his Person and the Majesty of his Character he was spared by Saul when the rest of the Amalekites were destroyed and this is another indication that some other besides him is in this place likewise to be understood Thirdly In the Book of Esther the Story is Famous concerning Haman the Son of Hammedatha who is frequently called the Agagite c. 3. 1 8. c. 8. 3 5. c. 9. 24. in the firstof which places for they have omitted the mention of it looking upon the repetition to be needless in the rest the present Copies of the Seventy have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but if we consider how Religiously carefull the Jews have always been in the preservation of their Copies from all kind of corruption beyond the Greeks or any other nation how often it is repeated in the Hebrew whereas it is but once mentioned in the Greek how much more likely it is that a corruption should steal into one place then into four and again how unlikely it is that a corruption should be so constant and every where the same in four several places all this will be sufficient to persuade us that we are not in this place and consequently in
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the latter of these words is rendred by the Seventy Job 2. 8. by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Dunghill a signification coming much nigher to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the former is translated by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 13. 16. and 28. 14. and by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Num. 19. 17. so that it is plain these words are synonymous and expressive of each other to all which it is to be added that Ophir which is by an Aleph and which as I have observed is the name of Africa in Scripture was so called because of the drowth and dustiness of the place by reason of the heat of the climate which is the confessed signification of haphar by an haiin So that it being now clear that Og and Agag are possibly and may be very probably the same name the one being only a repetition reduplication or ingemination of the other I proceed from hence to observe that from the first of these names by which the King of Bashan conquered by Joshua is called the name Ochus which belonged to one of the Persian Kings is derived of whom mention is made by Diodorus l. 17. Aelian var. Hist l. 6. c. 8. v. Lloyd lex Geog. Poet. in Ogyges and Justim l. 10. and from the other Ogyges an Ancient King of Thebes and if we may believe others the first King of Athens as also of Aegypt Boeotia and Lycia had their names and indeed any ancient thing or person was of Old exprest and represented by this name as Hesychius interprets the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 derived from it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and with him Suidas the Etymologer and Eustathius agree and so Nicander uses it in Theriacis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where the Scholiast interprets it after the same manner or rather more Emphatically for he makes the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it self to be as much as others mean by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 derived from it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all which may be excellently parallel'd and explained out of Num. 24. 7. in the benedictory Parable of Balaam He Jacob shall poure out the water out of his buckets and his seed shall be in many waters and his King shall be higher then Agag and his Kingdom shall be exalted Now there is no mention of any Agag before this and yet if I am not very much deceived this is a prophetick comparison of Saul who was to be the first King of Israel and was a tall and comely person with another Ancient King of great renown and fame in those times and who probably lived before the Floud being a Person of a Gigantick stature for the Scripture tells us Gen. 6. 4. that there were Gyants in those days and he probability as being the tallest biggest and most Gigantick was their King according to that known saying which was Anciently the great rule of Elective Kingdoms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And God complying with this humour of mankind that prevailed then so much in the World was pleased to appoint Saul to be their first King of whom it is said 1 Sam. 9. 2. that from his shoulders upward he was higher then any of the People which conjecture if it be admitted as true as it must be acknowledged not to be improbable then it will follow that the Ogygian Floud and the Floud of Noah are the same notwithstanding that the generality of Chronologers have placed them at so great a distance from one another but the History of those times being so very confused and imperfect we are not obliged by their Authority so much as to neglect other reasons that offer themselves but it is in this as in many other things that are perplext uncertain and obscure that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And still further to confirm this it is to be observed that notwithstanding some have made the deluge of Oggges to have been only a small and inconsiderable inundation of Attica or some one single Country yet Nonnus in his Dionysiaca makes it to have been universal where speaking of the Ogygian Floud he saith l. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly Justin Martyr expresly puts Inachus and Ogyges as cotemporary together in orat ad Gentiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now this Inachus is without question the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Noah and though they are both made by the same Iustin Martyr and others to have been contemporary with Moses yet this proceeded only from this that there is such a person as Agag whom they thought and not without reason to have been the same with Ogyges mentioned in the Mosaic writings as I have shewn but does it follow from thence that they were cotemporary together or will it not follow by the same way of arguing that Moses was cotemporary with Adam and with the Creation it self or is it not more likely that Balaam in his benedictory Prophecy referred to some person well known of Ancient times by which both Balak and the Israelites might take an estimate of that happiness which was afterwards to attend the latter of these Thirdly When it is Prophecyed of Saul by Balaam that he should be higher then Agag this as I have said referrs to the great bulk and and stature of the Autidiluvian mortals and is another argument that Agag and Ogyges are the same and thence i◠was that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek did not only signifie that which was Antient but also that which was monstrous for its bulk and greatness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the latter of which words Suidas hath interpreted it and Heliodorus uses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a man of an extraordinary size and stature and Hesiod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking concerning Styx in his Theogonie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the same that Homer calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Il. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in another place where Achilles swears by his Scepter that is by Justice and by God the Fountain of it he concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fourthly as it is now plain why so many writers after one another being led away by the mistake of the First whom they followed have placed Ogyges in the time of Moses so it is no less plain why they made him King of Attica and why the Floud of Ogyges was by them supposed only to have overflown that province For Attica as I have shown p. 354. of this Treatise was so called from the Hebrew hathik signifying Ancient and the Inhabitants that came thither from the East were called by an Hebrew name hathikin or the Ancient people by which it came to pass that the Greeks having a Tradition that the Floud of Ogyges happened among the hattikim or as they would
all the rest to correct the Hebrew from the Seventy but the Seventy from the Hebrew Wherefore instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Og and Gog and Agag are the same and so Num. 24. 7. where it is in the Hebrew vejarim meagag malco His King shall be higher then Agag There the Seventy render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Kingdom of Gog shall be exalted where though they appear to have followed another reading then the Hebrew Copies do at present and a reading certainly much inferiour to it or rather directly opposite to the sense of the place yet thus much is certain that what the Hebrew calls Agag they have rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taking no notice of the Guttural as in the instances already produced Haman the Agagite is as much as Haman that was descended of Agag not that Agag who together with his whole Family and consequently his posterity too was destroyed and cut off by Saul and Samuel but some other and I chuse to Interpret it of this Antidiluvian Agag or Ogyges and that this is spoken of him to make him appear the more Illustrious that so his fall in the sequel of the Story might be the more remarkable and signal and if you say that he also perished together with all his Family and dependents in the Floud and therefore could leave no posterity behind him I grant upon supposition that he is not the same person with Noah that this is very true but yet the Greeks had a Tradition among them which without question they received from the East that Ogyges escaped in the Deluge that happened in his time for so Africanus in Eusebius speaking of that Ogyges or as he calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whom the first deluge took Euseb praep evang l. 10. its name saith that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saved when others generally perished in the waters so that by this Tradition he is confounded with Noah who did really make his escape but there is a Testimony of Cedrenus which makes him to have perished and this depended upon a Tradition that made Ogyges to be a distinct person from Noah who was saved by all which it appears that the History concerning him is as I have already said and proved very obscure confused and uncertain partly by the corruption of the Tradition it self to which all Antiquity is unavoidably subject and partly by the mistakes and Anachronismes of the Greeks the causes of which I have already partly represented the words of Cedrenus are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in the time of Moses there was a certain great or Gigantick man of the seed of Japheth who being a native of Attica reigned over it for the space of thirty and two Years his name was Ogygus and in his time happened that Floud which was peculiar to Attica in which himself perished and all that province was drowned in which words there is nothing at all true as I think I have already made it appear by discovering the grounds of the mistakes in them but only that there was such a man as Ogygus or Ogyges that he was a great or Gigantick person and that a great Floud happened in his time only when he saith that this Gigantick Ogygus was of the seed of Japheth there seems in this also as well as in what hath been said concerning his being King of Attica and co-temporary with Moses to be a stricture of truth in the corruption it self for in the first place the Scripture speaking of the men that lived before the Floud saith expresly that there were Gyants in those days Gen. 6. 4. and again in the Relation of the lewdness of those times which drew down the Deluge afterwards upon them it saith that the Sons of God saw the Daughters of Men lb. v. 2. that they were fair in the Hebrew it is chi toboth hennab that they were goodly or had a goodly aspect and the sense would have been the same if it had said chi japhoth hennah that they were fair as our Translation renders it wherefore since by the Sons of God are understood the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sons of the Great men or Princes of those times who did what they pleased without Controll as some of the Ancient Interpreters have rendred it Ogyges at this rate will be a Prince descended of one of those Japhoth those fair ones to whom the Sons of God went in and begat Sons and Daughters upon them and this is all that was at the bottom of that mistake of the Greeks that Ogygus was descended of the Family of Japheth to confirm which yet further it is to be observed that Scripture stories delivered down by Tradition in the East from thence yet were not always delivered in Scripture words but only in words of a like signification or words relating to the circumstances of the Story as I have elsewhere observed out Discourse of the Tetragrammaton and also in that of the Messias c. 1. of Bochartus who took his hint from sanchuniathon that Sarah in the Eastern Tradition was called Annobret because she was past the time of Child-bearing and Isaac 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Jachid because he was the only Son and the like so that Japhoth being perfectly synonymous to Toboth and indeed more properly signifying beauty then the other here is all that can be desired to make it at least a tollerable conjecture Again as from Agag is Ogyges so from Gog by the Elision of the Guttural is Gyges both of them the same person as I will now prove and as Cedrenus saith of Ogygus that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a great or Gigantick person so Ovid represents the Ancient Gyges for there were several afterwards of the name in his fourth De Tristibus Eleg. 7. Credam prius ora Medusae Gorgonis anguineis cincta fuisse comis Et canes utero sub virginis esse Chimaeram A truce quae flammis separet angue leam Quadrupedesque◠homines cum pectore pectora junctos Tergeminumque virum tergeminumque canem Sphingaque harpyias serpentipedesque Gigantes Centimanumque Gygen semibovemque virum Haec ego cuncta prius quà m te carissime credam Mutatum curam deposuisse mei Where though he reckons all these as so many impossibilities and figments of Antiquity yet there is no question but in all or most of them there was a ground of v. Pale phat in opusculo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 truth though miserably adulterated and disguised by the vanity or ignorance of the Greeks particularly as to Gyges when he calls him Centimanum hundred handed it may very well be Interpreted of the extent of his power or the fierceness and violence of his Reign and what he adds afterwards in the next words semibovemque virum halfe man half Ox may refer to the brutish and