channel became dry; and the region was now bounded to the west by the desert of Arabia, as Strabo and other writers observe. In this 14

pro

vince was the Ur of the Scriptures, called Ur of the Chaldeans; which was so styled in order to distinguish it from every other place of the same name. It was also expressed Our, Ourhoë, Ourchoë; and the people were called Ourchani. It was sometimes compounded Camour, and rendered Camurine; and it is thus mentioned by Eupolemus. The description of Chaldea given by Strabo is very precise. He speaks much in favour of the natives; and says, that they inhabited a portion of " Babylonia, which bordered upon Arabia and the Persic Sea. He describes them as being devoted to philosophy; especially the Borsippeni and the Orcheni. These last we may suppose to have been particularly the inhabitants of the city, concerning which we are treating. For here, in the true land of Chaldea, we must look for Ur of the Chaldees. We accordingly find, that there was such a place, called Ougxon, Urchaë, by Ptolemy; by Josephus, Ura, or Ure:

16

Ουρη των Χαλδαίων. By Eusebius it is rendered

14

€. 20.

Παράκειται τη ερήμῳ Αραβία ή Χαλδαία χώρα. Ptolemy. 1. 5.

15 L. 16. p. 1074.

16 Josephus says of Haran, the son of Terah, u Xandan

17

Ur; and it was undoubtedly the capital city of the province. " Ουρ πόλις της βασιλείας των Χαλδαίων. Add to this the account given by Eupolemus, who points out plainly the place of the Patriarch's birth and abode. 18 He was born, says this his-> torian, in the city Camarina of Babylonia, which some call Uria. By this is denoted a city of the Chaldeans.

As the history is so plain, why do we go so wide of the mark as to suppose this city to have been upon the confines of Syria? or, what is more extraordinary, to make it, as some do, an Assyrian city and to place it high in the north, at the foot of Mount Taurus, upon the borders of Media and Armenia; where the name of Chaldeans is not to be found? Yet to these parts does Grotius, as well as Bochart, refer it; and mentioning Ur of the Chaldees, he adds, 19 the name remained to the time of Marcellinus. this learned man is surely wrong in determining

But

απέθανεν, εν πολεν Θυρῃ λεγόμενη των Χαλδαίων. He died among the Chaldeans, in the city called Ur of the Chaldeans. Ant. l. 1. c. 7. 17 Eusebius in locis Hebraicis, sive sacris.

18 Εν πολει της Βαβυλωνίας Καμαρίνη, ἣν τινας λεγειν Ουριήν είναι δε μεθερμηνευομένην Χαλδαίων πολιν-γενεσθαι Αβρααμ. Euseb. Præp. 1. 9. c. 17. p. 418.

19 Grotius in Genesin. c. 11. v. 31. Ur Chaldæorum: mansit loco nomen, &c.

so hastily, and with such a latitude; for there was no Ur of the Chaldees, nor any Chaldea in these parts. Lucian was born at Samosata; and Marcellinus was thoroughly acquainted with this country. Yet neither from them, nor from Pliny, Ptolemy, Mela, Solinus, nor from any writer, is there the least hint of any Chaldeans being here. The place mentioned above was an obscure castle, of little 20 consequence, as we may infer, from its never having been taken notice of by any other writer. Grotius says, mansit loco nomen: from whence one might be led to imagine, that it had existed in the days of Abraham. But there is not the least reason to suppose any such thing. It is indeed idle to form any conjecture about the antiquity of a place which occurs but once in history, and which is never mentioned before the fourth century.

Why then have men of such extensive learning so industriously deviated from the truth; and gone contrary to the common interpretation? The reason given is this. We are told by these writers, that "Abraham was ordered to leave his father's house, and to betake himself to the land of Canaan.

20 The whole history of the place is comprised in four words: Ur nomine Persicum castellum. Marcellinus. 1. 25. p. 336. 21 Genesis. c. 12. v. l.

22

Now to go from Babylonia to Canaan by Haran, ás it is said that Abraham did, is not the direct road: for Haran lies out of the way. But from the Ur of Marcellinus, or from the city Edessa, Haran lies in the very rout; and the course is very direct. But why must all historical certainty be set aside for the sake of a more plausible and compendious way of proceeding? We frame to ourselves, at this distance of time, notions about expediency and convenience; which arise merely from our inexperience, and from those unnecessary doubts, which are formed through ignorance. Where is it mentioned in the Scriptures, that the Patriarch was restrained to the direct road? After he had left Ur of the Chaldees, he went with his father to Haran, and dwelt there. Some make the term of his residence to have been a year: others imagine it to have been a great deal more. If he did not proceed directly in regard to time, why must he be supposed to have been limited in respect to place? What matters it, by which rout he went to Canaan, if the call was not so cogent, but that he had permission to stay by the way?

There is another question to be asked. As the rout supposed to be taken from Babylonia and

22 In Judæam via recta est par Carrhas. Bochart supra. p. 78.

the south towards Haran is objected to, I should be glad to know which way the Patriarch should have directed his steps. It is answered, that he ought to have gone to Canaan directly "westward, through Arabia: which would have been nearly in a straight line, if he had gone from the lower regions of Babylonia: but as he proceeded in a circuit, that could not be the place of his departure. Now from the best accounts, we may may be assured, that the rout, which we suppose him to have taken, was the true, and only way : there was no other, by which people could proceed. And we take off greatly from the purport and precision of the holy Scriptures, by thus arbitrarily changing the scene of action, because it does not accord with our prejudices. And these prejudices arise from our being accustomed to scanty maps; and not looking into the natural histories of the countries, about which we are concerned. The very best accounts prove, that this was the rout ever taken by people, who went from Babylonia and its provinces, to Palæstina and Egypt: for the direct way, as Grotius terms it, and which Bochart recommends, could not be

23 Via esset (e Babyloniâ) multo compendiosior per Arabiæ deserta. Ibid.