The history of the world

†. VII. [unspec 30] Of HAMATHI.

THe last of Canaans sonnes was Hamatheus, or (according to the Hebrew) Hama∣thi, of Hamath: (saith Beroaldus) of which (the aspiration taken away) the same is pronounced Emath, whereof Hamatheus was parent. Iosephus and S. Hierome confound Emath with Antioch, not that Antioch which standeth on the Riuer Oron∣tes, on the frontier of Comagena, betweene the Mountayne Cassius and the Pro∣uince of Pieria, and Seleucis, of which S. Peter was Bishop, and in which S. Luke and Ignatius were borne: but Antioch, surnamed Epiphania, as Beroaldus supposeth, [unspec 40] which standeth betweene Apamea and Emesa in Cassiotis. Yet, indeede, Emath can∣not be taken for either: for both that Antioch vpon Orontes, and that which neigh∣boureth Emesa, are farther off seated from Canaan, then euer any of those Nations straggled. And whereas S. Hierome setteth Emath, which he confoundeth with E∣piphania, in the Tribe of Nephtali; it is manifest, that Epiphania, which standeth to the North of Emesa, hath all the Prouince of Laodicea, betweene it and any part of the Land diuided. And if Libanon it selfe were not shared among the Tribes, then could not Epiphania belong vnto them: for both the Prouinces Laodicea and Libani∣ca, are betweene Epiphania and any part of the holy Land: and therefore Emath so taken could not be a part of Nephtali, as in the thirteenth of Iosua is directly proued. [unspec 50] For Iosua counting the lands that remayned vnpossest, reckoneth all Mount Libanon towards the Sunne-rising, from Baalgad vnder mount Hermon, vntill we come to Ha∣math. And this reason (among others) is vsed, that Emath was not in Nephtalim, or any way belonging to the children of Israel: because Dauid accepted the presents of* 1.1

Tohu King of Emath, and (therewithall) conditions of peace: which he would not haue done, if that Territorie had euer belonged to the children of Israel, but would haue recouered it without composition, and by strong hand, as he did the rest. But this Argument (as I take it) hath no great waight. For if the promise which God made, be considered, as it is written in Deuteronomie, then might Emath be compre∣hended,* 1.2 though seated altogether without the bounds of the Land promised, ac∣cording to the description of Moses and Iosua: for Emath is indeede situate on the o∣ther side of the Mountayne of Hermon, which ioyneth to Libanus: and is otherwise called Iturea. But whereas Hamath is named in Iosua the 19. v. 35. and written in the Latine conuersion Emath, therein (saith Beroaldus) was S. Hierome mistaken. Emath [unspec 10] or Iturea is that ouer the Mountaynes, and the Citie in Nephtalim should be written Hamath: and so the Septuagint (vnderstanding the difference) write it Ammath and not Emath, the same which indeede belonged to the Nephtalims, seated on the South side of Libanus, to the East of Assedim: which Citie S. Hierome writes Emath; Iose∣phus, Hamath; others, Emathin, or Amatheos, and the people Amathein; of which (as I take it) Rabsakeh vaunteth in the second of KINGS: Where is the god of Hamath?* 1.3

Notes

• * 1.1

  2. Sam 8. 9.
• * 1.2

  Cap. 11. v. 24.
• * 1.3

  Cap. 18. & 19.