prohibitions among the ancient Jews and Romans in all other instances were exactly the same and if it can likewise be proved as it shall beyond all possibility or colour of contradiction that the Marriage of Cousin Germans was absolutely forbidden by the ancient Laws and usages of Rome then certainly all this if it will not serve to demonstrate that the same prohibition obtained among the Jews yet it will add an invincible force and strength to all those arguments which are a great many by which the Unlawfulness of such Marriages shall be proved either out of the Law it self or out of such other Antiquity as I shall undeniably demonstrate to be transcribed from it and then I hope it will be 32 H. 8. c. 38. granted that the Act of Parliament it self which does expressly proceed upon the Levitical measures and does as plainly pronounce all those degrees to be Unlawful which are included within the Mosaical prohibitions does by so doing condemn the Marriage of Cousin Germans as incestuous and Unlawful which besides the Natural and formal Unlawfulness of such Marriages in themselves which shall be abundantly manifested and made out is all the satisfaction as to this point which the Lawyers themselves can desire The Second thing to be observed or rather again to be reflected upon and appli'd to the matter in question from what hath been discoursed above is that the pulling off the Shoe or the standing or sitting barefoot in the Eastern Countries was as it is still a posture of adoration or a posture used in divine Worship and I appeal to any man let him be who he will that will but lay aside prejudice and give an equal Judgment between Mr. Selden and me whether this notion does not perfectly reconcile and explain the pretended disagreement betwixt the two writers of Deuteronomy and Ruth and remove all further occasion or pretence of scruple whether the Marriage of Boaz to Ruth were in consequence and pursuance of that Law of Moses by which the Brother was obliged to raise up Seed to the Brother Thirdly and Lastly it is again to be taken notice that neither of those two places are a perfect and compleat account of the whole ceremony or formality of this matter but that the defects of the one are to be supplyed out of the other and if it be true what the Writer of the Book of Ruth does expressly affirm that this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing for to confirm all things a man plucked off his Shoe and gave it to his neighbour and this was a testimony in Israel then if the Marriage of the Brother to the Brothers Wife were for the redemption of the Inheritance as it is certain it was Hebr. Temourah 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if this were as real a changing that is as real a bargain or contract as any other if it were done as publickly and solemnly in the face of the whole Congregation as in this contract betwixt Ruth and Boaz which it is certain it was from Deut. 25. v. 8 9 then it is plain that it required also the usual way of confirmation which this Author tells us to have been the practice of former times for a testimony in Israel which is an undeniable and unanswerable demonstration of the agreement of this place of Ruth with that of Deuteronomy in the Law of Moses Again when the same Writer tells us that this was the practice in former time in Israel this is a plain intimation that at that time when this Book was written it was disused and that this Book was at least written some time before the Captivity of Babylon appears from the untainted Hebraism of its stile which after that began to degenerate into Chalday as appears by the Books of Daniel and Esther which were written in that period and also from those of Ezrah and Nehemiah immediately after it It is certain that at this day the Jews do not put in practice that their ancient custom of the Brothers raising up Seed to the deceased Brother nay they expresly forbid it under pain of Excommunication as P. Fagius tells us upon Deut. 25. 9. Anathemate quoque hodiâ— illorum Rabbini caverunt ne quis ducat uxorem defuncti fratris sui imo ipsa pecuniam dare cogitur fratri defuncti mariti ut eam liberam dimittat and Mr. Selden tells us out of R. Leo Mutinensis Judaeis recentioribus mos c. 14. De successionibus ad Fin. cap. inolevit ut cùm filiam quis sposponderit viro cui plures fratres ab ipsis cunctis plerumque exigatur obligatio se juri huic si sponsus uxore superstite obierit solenni more renuntiaturos id quod ex lege sacrâ fas est nè scilicet libera secundò nubendi facultas fratriae deesset interdum maritus moribundus divortii libello Matrimonium solvit nè frater inhians fratriae doti ex hoc jure familiae damno siet And the same Fagius tells us in his Notes upon the 6th verse v. etiam Bux torf synag Judaic c. 30. of the same Chapter of Deuteronomy that this usage hath ceased among the Jews ever since the Babylonish Captivity Erant saith he distinctae possessiones ante Babylonicam Captivitatem quae sic discretae per hanc legem servabantur post Babylonicam Captivitatem haec lex abolita fuit Causa enim illius nempe possessionum distinctio non superfuit And I allow his reason to v. plura â—c be excellently good but yet by his favour and with the good leave of the Rabbins whom he follows I affirm that this Law was antiquated and out of date long before this time The general reason of my Judgment in this particular I have given already because that Book which appears to have been written before that Captivity though we know not how long speaks of some part at least of the Ceremony belonging to this Law or custom of the Jews as already antiquated and out of use This was the manner in former time saith he in Israel which is as much as to say that then when this Book was written that custom had expired But if you will needs have a particular time assigned when this practice began to be disused tho I am not obliged to give any more than a general proof that it was de facto so that this usage did really expire some time before the Captivity yet that I may not seem to balk any difficulty and that I may the more effectually demonstrate the Ignorance of the Rabbins and their adherents which it is my design to expose that no man may be deceived hereafter with hard names and Hebrew Roots and that no mans pride or vanity or laborious folly may hereafter be miscalled by the deservedly venerable and sacred name of Learning I will therefore instance in a particular time when I believe this custom to have ceased and when
equal and similar Periods of time as the Nostrils are similar and fellows to one another which making up together Six hundred it is manifest that each Period considered by it self must on both sides be an equal Period of Three hundred Days or a Year of Ten Months according to the time of life which was the thing I undertook to prove and to make the Analogy yet more clearly out we have the same in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is from the Hebrew Nachal or as the Aegyptians perhaps might call it Nachil by the Elision of the same Cheth which as I have said cannot be properly and truly answered by any Greek Letter whatsoever and so what the Hebrew calls the Land of Chavilah Gen. 2. 11. which is incompassed by the River Phison that the Seventy call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and other Authors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both by the Elision of the Guttural and both meaning Africa by it of which this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a promontory towards the Sea side from whence the whole Coast might very well derive its name and I hope this may pass for as handsome a conjecture as the ab Illaa of some other Learned men upon no better grounds then only because Festus who did not understand the punick Language hath been pleased to tell us that Abyle in that Language does signifie montem excelsum But let that be as it will yet that by Havilah Africa is understood is plain to me from what is added concerning the place Gen. 2. 11 12. There is Gold and the Gold of that Land is good For the Gold of Ophir was famous all over the East and Ophir and Africa are the same and so were Ophir and Havilah in a manner the same that is they were both the Sons of Joktan Gen. 10. 29. and both of them probably co-planters and co-inhabitants of the same Country whence it was called by some Havilah and by others Ophir whence the Latin After and Africa are derived And now there is only the Sosos to be considered which was a Period of Sixty Days or Two solar Months from the Hebrew Shish which perhaps by the Chaldeans was called Shoush signifying Sixty as the Plural Shishim in Hebrew stands for Sixty So that it is now clear which was the First thing to be proved that there was anciently in the East a Period of time consisting of Ten Months allowing to each Month Thirty Days which in the Sacred story is called the time of Life and which being doubled did constitute the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Babylonians against which if it be objected that even so long ago as in the History of the Floud the Year is represented as consisting of Twelve Months to this there are two things to be answered First That Moses in his account of the Floud does without question reduce the Years of that age which to me seem to have been only Lunar to the Calculation of his own time but because Mr. Burnet in a late Book of his Theory of the Earth the design of which I do by no means approve though otherwise I acknowledg him to be an excellent person hath made it his business Elaborately to defend the Years of the Patriarcks to have been solar Years which I do no more believe then I do that they were so many several revolutions of the Circle of Saturn therefore I will take time to consider further of it But a Second answer to this objection which is taken from the pretended length of the Antidiluvian Years is this that these two Periods the solar and that of Ten Months are not inconsistent together since nothing hinders but that they might both be used at the same time not only with relation to different things but also to the same though by a different way and measure of computation as it is certain before Elisha's time that the Year of Twelve Months obtained amongst the Jews as is manifest by Davids Calculation of the Years of human life arising no higher then Threescore and ten or Fourscore which is the usual Period of it now a days in such as live temperately and are strongly made but yet Elisha long after Davids time makes mention of the time of life which was a Period of Ten Months as hath already been proved and so the Chaldeans at the same time they had their Neiros had their Saros also one of which was a Period measured by the time of life and the other by the solar Year I am far from denying that the solar Year was in the East a very ancient measure of time it was as ancient as Numa among the Romans who to the Ten of Romulus added Two more and those both of them as to their very names taken from the East but what was the exact form of Numa's Year is not so easie at this distance of time to tell only thus much we know from what Livy hath enformed us concerning it that to speak properly it was neither Lunar nor Solar only it consisted of Twelve Months and that the intercalations of each beyond the Lunar Year were so ordered as that in Twenty Years time the account was made even and the New Moon answered exactly to the same place from whence the Sun set out Twenty Years ago The words of Livy concerning Numa are these in his First Book Omnium inter Romanos primum ad cursum lunae in duodecim menses describit annum quem quia Tricenos dies singulis mensibus Luna non expleâ— desuntque dies solido anno qui solstitâ—ali circumagitur orbe intercalares mensibus interponendo ità dispensavit ut vigesimo anno ad metam eandem solis unde orsi essent plenis annorum omnium spatiis dies congruerent Which place of Livy never yet explained or understood by any I will now clearly vindicate from obscurity any longer Numa's Year as I have said was neither perfectly Solar nor Lunar not perfectly Solar because it did not consist of perfectly Solar Months by reason of the different intercalations in different Months so that the Sun in each Month did not describe an equal segment of the Solar Circle and yet in this sense it might then as it may now be said to have been Solar because the Months were so ordered that at the end of Twelve of them the Sun returned to the same point of the Heavens from whence he set out Twelve Months before nor perfectly Lunar neither because of the same Intercalations which were sometimes one and sometimes two Days longer then the description of the Lunar Circle But now supposing the Solar Year to be as it is about Thirty Days longer then Twelve compleat Revolutions of the Lunar and supposing first one and then two Days every other Month to be added by way of Intercalation to the course of the Moon it must of necessity so happen that the Intercalations must fall every Month lower into the age and course of the Moon
too especially where they grow Customary and habitual in us because these are so many willful tendencies to a dissolution and they are so much the more inexcusable because they are usually more deliberate then most of the instances of self-homicide are and are committed when we have or might have had a free use and exercise of our reason Eighteenthly If self-homicide be so Unlawful as it hath been represented how much more impious and guilty must it needs be to imbrue our Hands in the Blood of our Neighbour whose person is certainly less at our disposal then our own and with whom unless it be in our own just and necessary defence we have nothing more to do then only to help and assist him what we can I shall conclude this business with saying what I am sure is true that no affection of Novelty or love of Paradox drew me into a discourse of this Subject in the following Treatise but that I insensibly light upon it before I was aware and that I should be very sorry if any thing that I have said upon that occasion should give offence to any wise or good Man though I hope in this review of that whole matter which I have endeavoured carefully to consider I have made some amends for what is amiss in the body of the Book if any man shall happen to be displeased at it The other thing which I have in my mind and which I find my self obliged to Recant is concerning the Year of Numa which I was very confident I had discovered but I have made a new discovery since that and that is that I know nothing of it and I conceive at this distance of time it is impossible to be explained however upon the whole matter I hope you will not repent the perusal of this Book nor I that I have written it Farewell THE PRINCIPAL HEADS OF THE Ensuing Treatise OF the great Antiquity of the usage in the Text and of the cause wherein it was warrantably dispensed with From Page 1. to Page 60. Of the reasons upon which it was Originally founded From p. 60. to 79. Two mistakes of Mr. Selden and the Rabbins whom he follows From p. 79. to 83. That the Marriage of Boaz and Ruth was in consequence and pursuance of that Law of Moses whereby the Brother was obliged to raise up Seed to the deceased Brother against Mr. Selden and the Rabbins From p. 83. to 119. Two other mistakes of Mr. Selden and his Rabbins discovered From p. 120. to 124. Of the signification of the word First-born in this controversie From p. 124. to 138. Two objections against what was asserted under the last head concerning the signification of the word First-born proposed and answered From p. 138. to 147. Another Argument to prove that by the First-born the Daughter or Female was not understood in the Law of Moses and in what case a Woman was to inherit From p. 147. to 149 The Heiress obliged to Marry to some of the kindred and to the next of kin if he pleased p. 150 151. The Law of the Leviratus to be understood only of Brethren by the Fathers side and in this Mr. Selden and his Rabbins are in the right From p. 151. to 158. An Answer to an objection against the last position that this Law concerned only the Paternal consanguinity From p. 158. to 161. Two objections remaining against what hath been said the first an Argument of Mr. Seldens to prove that the Marriage of Boaz and Ruth was not in consequence and by vertue of the Leviratical Law which is largly answered From p. 161. to 183. Of the true time when this Custom came to be Antiquâ—ted viz. at the division of the two Kingdoms of Israel and Judah of the nature of Jeroboams Priesthood and of the frequent revolutions that happened in the Kingdom of Israel after its division from that of Judah by reason of its Military Government and for want of a regular and subordinate Clergy From p. 183. to 237. That the Jews did not abstain from any thing meerly because the Zabii or any other nation round about them practised it and that this was no reason of any of their negative Precepts Proved largely against Dr. Cudworth and the Jewish Rabbins whom he follows From p. 237. to 292. Of the practice of Usury among the Jews and other nations and that the Romans borrowed most if not all their usages concerning it out of the East together with an explanation of many things in the Roman and Assyrian or Eastern Antiquities hitherto unknown which is concluded with two observations the First concerning the reason of Tithes being paid to the Priesthood the other concerning the Lawfulness of a moderate Usury in all but such polities as the Jewish was From p. 292. to 27. The whole is concluded with an answer to a second objection against the Paternal consanguity being only concerned in the matter of the Leviratus which is taken from the Account of our Saviours Genealogy as it is or seems to be differently Related by the two Evangelists St. Mathew and St. Luke BOAZ and RVTH Deuteronomy 25. ver 5. If Brethren dwell together and one of them dye and have no Child the Wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger her Husbands Brother shall go in unto her and take her to him to Wife and perform the duty of an Husbands Brother unto her c. THE reason of which is expressed in the next verse viz. That the name of the Brother might not perish For which cause it was that the first Child begotten in such Wedlock was not accounted the offspring of his or her natural Parent but of him whose person he did in this case sustain that is of his Brother or near Kinsman V. 6. And it shall be that the first born which she beareth shall succeed in-the name of his Brother which is dead that his name be not put out of Israel Which in the instance of a near Kinsman tho not of an immediate Brother was afterwards the case of Ruth and Boaz from whose Loins in a few generations K. David and in the fullness of time the Messias himself the Son of David was descended Which Custom tho it was afterwards as we see confirmed by an express Law of God yet it was in it self much ancienter than the delivery of the Law by Moses as is evident from the story of Er Onan and Shelah the Sons of Judah all of them successively married to Tamar for the reason already mentioned as is very plainly intimated I may say expresly asserted Gen. 38. v. 9. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his and it came to pass when he went in unto his Brothers Wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For which fact of his it is said in the next verse And the thing which he did displeased the Lord wherefore he slew him also as he had done his Brother Er for some other wickedness which
clear from the instance of Ruth who first demanded a nearer Kinsman and then upon his refusal Boaz in Marriage the latter of which challenges was accepted And though it seems clear in the Law of Moses at least as to an immediate Brother that the Woman was bound to put in her Claim to him yet it was still at his liberty whether he would comply with it or no only it seems by the instance of the nearest of Kin in the family of Elimelech in the story of Boaz and Ruth that he was to give some tolerable reason of such his refusal But then again there be two reasons why such challenges as these were made The first was this That the Younger was considered in the Nature of a Servant to the Elder of which I shall speak more largely by and by but this did not hold in the collateral Relations who were not under the same subjection to the party deceased nor to the despotical Authority of the Pater-familias who was in the Nature of a common Soveraign to all the Sons but had no such power over the descending Relations in the transverse or oblique Line Secondly It was done for the better preserving the Inheritance in the Line of the First-born for which reason the First-born of this imputative Wedlock was to rise up in and inherit the name of the deceased that is not that he was to be called by the same name with his imputative Father for the Son of Ruth by Boaz was not called Mahlon which was the name of her deceased Husband but Obed only all the business was he was to inherit the estate of the deceased which it was not in the power of his real Father to alienate from him or divide among the Children of another Venter neither had he any right to such Inheritance but what was devolved upon him by his Elder Brother for the use of his Eldest Son by his said Brothers Wife begotten by him in his Brothers stead It is apparent therefore if there were no inheritance in danger of being alienated from the House of Judah or of his Eldest Son Er that she had no manner of reason why she should challenge the next of Kin upon the decease of the three Brothers and therefore clear that she did not do it much less would any of them be under any the least obligation to accept of any such challenge as that was For that Judah and much less his Eldest Son had yet no Inheritance of their own may seem probable from this that Jacob himself was yet alive besides that they shortly after were to part for Egypt bidding a long Adieu to the Land of Canaan and all their immovable Possessions in it However Judah himself being still as we see by the story in a condition capable of leaving a Posterity descended immediately from his own Loyns it was a preposterous way to have recourse to this artificial remedy in the transverse Line when Nature as yet was so vigorous and warm as to be able to propagate and continue its self so that it remains an undeniable truth that whether Shelah were alive or dead she was free from all manner of Obligation either to him or any other of that Family and therefore could not by this Action be said to have committed Adultery which was the thing to be proved But now after all it is certain that Shelah was yet alive Gen. 46. 12. The Sons of Judah Er Onan and Shelah Pharez and Zerah but Er and Onan dyed in the Land of Canaan Which is as much as to say that Shelah did not but went along with his Father Grand-father and Uncles into Egypt as it is also Num. 26. 19 20. The Sons of Judah after their Families were of Shelah the Family of the Shelanites c. 1 Chron. 4. 21. 22 the Sons of Shelah the Son of Judah were Er the Father of Lecah and Laadah the Father of Mareshah and the Families of them that wrought fine Linen of the House of Ashbea And Jochim and the men of Chozeba and Joash and Saraph who had the dominion of Moab and Jashubi-lehem For this reason it is that Josephus reckoning up the Sons of Judah does not mention the two Eldest Er and Onan because they dyed without Issue but only Shelah the Youngest of the Three by his Lawful Wife Shua and Pharez and Zerah begotten by him upon his Daughter in Law Tamar his words are these Antiq. l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it seems from this place of Josephus very probable that such as dyed without Issue their names were blotted out of the Genealogical Tables of the Jews which is not only reasonable in it self to suppose there being no use of such names in Tables of Genealogy as do not spread themselves farther by a Posterity of their own but it will also if admitted give a marvellous light to several places of Scripture not yet sufficiently understood as that of Exod. 32. 32. Yet now if thou wilt forgive their Sin and if not blot me I pray thee out of thy Book which thou hast written Not that Moses supposed any such thing as that God kept a Scroul of Parchment or a material or literal Book wherein he did enter down the Names of those on whom he was pleased to bestow any mark of his favour but it is manifestly a Metaphorical expression and therefore must allude to some Custom or Usage of those times Now it is certain that Tables of Genealogy were constantly kept I will not say from the Creation when there were no letters but as soon as ever letters began this being the Principal if not the first use of Letters in all Nations To what wherefore can this expression better allude than to those Tables which being probably written over in every Family for themselves when the Family increased and consequently the Tables were to be enlarged and often-times Transcribed for the use of new descendants in every Generation they did not Transcribe any more than what was necessary to carry down the History of Succession so as if a man had Five Sons as Judah had Two of which dyed without Issue and ended in themselves they were omitted as useless out of this Table because the knowledge of their names was of no use to the Herauldry as I may call it of those times which could give a sufficient account of its self without them but could not make use of them in order to the setling any doubt that should arise in the History of a Pedigree in after times Of the same import is that of Psalm 69. 28. Let them be blotted out of the Book of the living and not be written with the righteous The Book of Genealogies is called the Book of the Living because in them their names abide for ever and they live in their Posterity though in their own persons they be dead and buried And not written with the righteous because fruitfulness was always look'd upon among the Jews and
there was no Pascal Lamb at that time Eaten and it is said expressly that they did not stand but sit at Supper which not being observed with the usual rites it is probable that otherwise than in its tendency and design and bateing that the blessed sacrement was given at the end of it as the Mnemoneutical Passover was used to be by the Jews it had nothing extraordinary in it nor any thing which was not common to all other Meals among the Jews so that if the Feet of the company were bare at this it is the more likely that they were so at all other times where-ever they sat down to Table And indeed if we examine the manner and ceremony of our Saviour's last supper and compare it with the Roman Antiquities in like cases we shall find as to many particulars a perfect agreement between them for first as to the place it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a large upper Room spread with carpets as the Roman Fashion was and that the upper Rooms in their Houses were anciently the only places of entertainment and repast appears by the very word caenaculum which from this custom came to sig-Nifie the upper Room or Garret of an House and the true reason why they did eat their Meals in that part of the House was the same as I believe for which the Apostles and the primitive Christians were used to meet in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or upper part of the House because every Table as I have said was an Altar and every Meal a Sacrifice and the upper Chamber as being farthest from noise and the nighest unto Heaven the supposed peculiar residence of that Numen who is indeed omnipresent and whose divine substance is actually coextended to all the possibilities of extension or place for the First of which reasons he is called by the Hebrew Masters shamajim and for the Second Makom I say the upper Chamber was for this reason accounted more sacred than the rest and set apart for all religious Offices as the Chappel or Oratory of every particular House Secondly that the manner of the Disciples sitting at Table was after the Roman mode of the Triclinium appears by John's leaning on the bosom or breast of Jesus as they sat at supper Joh. 13. 23. 25. Lastly as for what hath been said of the Disciples sitting bare-foot at supper this was also without question the fashion of the Romans for so Plutarch observes of Cato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was used often times after dinner to go abroad without his upper Garment and Shoes which is as much as to say that he went abroad as he rose from Table or from Dinner where he sat according to the fashion of those times with his Coat off as well as his Shoes but there is a passage of Martial L. 12. Epigr still more remarkable to this purpose where Cotta a fellow that was used to spunge about for a supper wherever he could hear of any Belly-timber to be had and having lost his Shoes twice by pulling them off before he sat down as the custom was at last out of a principle of Frugality that he might lose no more he used to go thither bare-foot as well as sit down so at Table excalceatus ire caepit ad caenam Neither was it accounted absurd at all or unseemly in those times to go bare-foot even publickly Paedag. L◠2. c. 11. and in the streets themselves For Clemens Alexandrinus lays it down as a rule to be observed at all times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is always fittest for a man to goe bare-foot unless it be for Souldiers in their march or being engaged in military expeditions And Suetonius observes of Nero that in the progress which he made into Achaia he never appeared in publick but his feet were always bare in imitation of that frugality and simplicity of the first mortals which Nero as bad a man as he was did at that time in his Garb and Habit very much affect who were used so to do the same the words c. 15. Nerone of Suetonius are these Circa cultum habitumque adeo pudendus ut comam semper in gradus formatam peregrinatione Achaicâ etiam ponè verticem summiserit ac plerumque synthesinum indutus ligato circum collum sudario prodierit in publicum sine cinctu discalceatus and the same may be seen in all the statutes of the Roman Emperors and others when they are not represented in a military posture who if my memory do not very much deceive me in most if not all the cuts that ever I have seen are ever represented with their Leggs and Feet bare but whatever they did without doors this is certain that when they came home or went any where else to any House or apartment of another they were used to leave their Shoes or Sandals below stairs or without the Room into which they then entered as the Turks and other Eastern Nations do at this day which being bound over their Feet by a thong of Leather or other band or string it was the business of their attendants that waited upon them whither they went to untie them when they came in which explains that saying of John the Baptist which is not yet perhaps sufficiently understood Mark 1. 7. there cometh one mightier than I after me the latchet of whose Shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as it is Matth. 3. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose Shoes I am not worthy to bear because when the way was clean and smooth the servant was used to carry his Masters Shoes or Cloggs behind him From what hath been said there are several things very fit to be observed and first I desire that this agreement betwixt the Jews and Romans as to the ceremony and formality of their Feasts and indeed of all their Meals may not be passed over without all manner of regard because in some short notes which I intend to add at the end of this discourse I shall give some other instances of a manifest agreement and such as cannot seem to have come by chance betwixt the two Nations and because in that other dissertation which I have promised concerning the Lawfulness or rather Vnlawfulness of the Marriage of Cousin Germans I shall give almost innumerable instances of this agreement and the use I intend to make of it is this If it can be proved that the Romans both by their Language and their customs are manifestly no other than a colony from the East if their first Lawgivers were either Jews or at least Assyrians in that Latitude of the word in which Mr. Selden takes it in the Prolegomena to the best Book that ever he writ if their Priests De Diis Syris and their Sacrifices both name and thing were most of them as I shall prove they were pure Hebrew if after this it can be proved that the matrimonial