le, or indeed possible, for these cities to
have been named from terms so vague, casual, and indeterminate; which seem
to have so little relation to the places to which they are appropriated, or
to any places at all? The history of the Chaldeans is of great consequence;
and one would be glad to know their original. They are properly called
Chasdim; and are, very justly, thought to have been the first constituted
nation upon earth. It is said of the patriarch Abraham, that he came from
the city Ur of the Chasdim. Whence had they their name? The learned Hyde
will [473]answer, that it was from Chesed, their ancestor. Who was Chesed?
He was the fourth son of Nahor, who lived in Aram, the upper region of
Mesopotamia. Is it said in history that he was the father of this people?
There is no mention made of it. Is it said that he was ever in Chaldea? No.
Is there the least reason to think that he had any acquaintance with that
country? We have no grounds to suppose it. Is there any reason to think
that this people, mentioned repeatedly as prior to him by ages, were in
reality constituted after him? None. What, then, has induced writers to
suppose that he was the father of this people? Because Chesed and Chasdim
have a remote similitude in sound. And is this the whole? Absolutely all
that is or can be alleged for this notion. And as the Chasdim are mentioned
some ages before the birth of Chesed, some would have the passage to be
introduced proleptically; others suppose it an interpolation, and would
strike it out of the sacred text: so far does whim get the better of
judgment, that even the written word is not safe. The whole history of
Chesed is this: About fifty years after the patriarch Abraham had left his
brother Nahor at Haran in Aramea, he received intelligence that Nahor had
in that interval been blessed with children. [474]_It was told Abraham,
behold Milcah, she also hath borne children to thy brother Nahor; Huz, Buz,
Kemuel, and Chesed:_ of these Chesed was the fourth. There occurs not a
word more concerning him.

It is moreover to be observed, that these etymologists differ greatly from
one another in their conceptions; so that an unexperienced reader knows not
whom to follow. Some deduce all from the Hebrew; others call in to their
assistance the Arabic and the Coptic, or whatever tongue or dialect makes
most for their purpose. The author of the Universal History, speaking of
the Moabitish Idol Chemosh, tells us, [475