the notion that these kings were antediluvian, have been plunged into insuperable difficulties, and deservedly. For how could they be so weak as to imagine that there was a city in Babylon, and a country named from it, ten generations before the flood; also a province styled Chaldea? These names were circumstantial, and imposed in aftertimes for particular reasons, which could not before have subsisted. Babylon was the Babel of the Scriptures, so named from the confusion of tongues. What is extraordinary, Abydenus mentions this fact, and says, that Babylon was so called from confusion, because the language of men was there confounded. In like manner, Chaldea was denominated from people styled Chasdim and Chusdim, who were the posterity of Chus. But if the name were of an etymology ever so different, yet to suppose a people of this name before the flood, also a city and province of Babylon, would be an unwarrantable presumption. It would be repugnant

41

42

43

48 Βαβυλων καλειται δια την συγχυσιν, κ.τ.λ. Eusebii Chronic. p. 13. from Abydenus.

42 The true name of the country, called by the Greeks and Romans Chaldea, was Chasdia and Chusdia; named so from the inhabitants, styled Chusdim, or the children of Chus. This is the general name which uniformly occurs in Scripture. 43 Syncellus says,

VOL. IV.

that before the food, ετε Βαβυλων ην επι της

L

to the history of Moses, and to every good history upon the subject.

At the close of the first book it is said, by Eusebius, that Berosus had promised in the second to give an account of the ten kings, who reached in a series to the deluge. I wish that Eusebius, instead of telling us himself the author's intention, had given us his words. The passage is very suspicious, and seems not to have existed, even in the Greek translation, as it is totally omitted by Syncellus. Berosus might, at the conclusion of his first treatise, say, that he would now proceed to the history of the ten kings; but that they were to reach down to the deluge I believe was never intimated; nor does there seem in the nature of things any reason for him to have mentioned such a circumstance. It is highly probable, as Oannes stood foremost in the allegorical history of the Chaldeans, that Sisuthrus held the same place in the real history of that country, for they were both the same

γης, ετε Χαλδαίων βασιλεια, there was no such city as Babylon, nor any kingdom of Chaldea. p. 15. Again, Turwv T capesEpor ARBEI εθελοιμι περι Βαβυλωνος, ότι προ τε κατακλυσμό εδέπω ώφθη, εδε μετα τον κατακλυσμον, ἕως τε κινήσαι τες ανθρωπες πληθυνθεντας απο ανατολων, και κατοικήσαι αυτές εν γη Σενααρ, και οικοδόμησαν την πολικ και τον πύργον, προηγόμενα αυτών το θεομαχο Νεβρώδη και βασιλεύοντος. Ibid. p. 37.

person; and whatever series there might be of persons recorded, they were in descent from him. But the Greeks, not attending to the mode of writing in the original, have ruined the whole disposition, and made these persons precede. And here is a question to be asked of these historians, as well as of Eusebius in particular, allowing these kings to be antediluvian; What is become of those who succeeded afterwards? Were there no postdiluvian kings of Babylon? Did nobody reign after the flood? If there did, what is become of this dynasty? Where is it to be found? The history of Babylon, and of its princes, taken from the later æra, would be of vast consequence : it is of so early a date, as to be almost coeval with the annals of the new world; and must be looked upon as the basis of historical knowledge. The supposed antediluvian accounts are trifling in comparison of the latter: the former world is far separated from us. It is like a vast peninsula joined to the continent by a slip of land, which hardly admits of any communication. But a detail of these after kings would be of consequence in chronology; and would prove the foundation for all subsequent history. Where then are these kings? In what quarter do they lurk? They are no where to be found. And the reason is this their dynasty has been inverted. Hence they have been misplaced through anticipation;

and adjudged to a prior æra. On this account the later dynasty is not given to us, though so necessary to be made known: and much I fear that we are deprived of the second book of Polyhistor from Berosus; because this dynasty of kings was to be found there, probably differently exhibited; and under a contrary arrangement: which would have spoiled the system espoused. For, that the original has been misconstrued, and misquoted, is apparent from the want of uniformity in those who have copied Berosus, or any ways taken from him. In short, the tenor of this history, even as we have it in Alexander Polyhistor, is very plain; and the scheme of it easy to be traced. The purpose of Berosus was to write an account of his own country: and he accordingly begins with the natural history; wherein he describes the situation of the region, the nature of the soil, and the various products, with which it abounded. All this is said of Babylonia, not of any antediluvian country. He must have been wise indeed, after an interval of so many thousand years, to have known that it originally 'bore sesamum and dates. He is speaking of Babylon, the place of his nativity, and the country denominated from it; of which when he has given a just description, he proceeds to relate the principal occurrences of former ages. And the first great event in the history of time is the appear

44

45

ance of Oannes, the man of the sea, who shewed himself to mankind in the very first 5 year: so that Berosus makes his annals commence from him. This person is represented as a preacher of justice; and a general instructor and benefactor, who had appeared in two different states. He informed mankind of what had happened in preceding times and went higher, even to the chaotic state of things, before the era of creation. He

per

τινα ενο

44 Helladius speaks of this person, and calls him nv, which the Dorians would express nav. I have sometimes thought that this term was Noe, and Noa, reversed and confounded. This author supposes, that Oan is the same as Nov; and that the son was born of the mundane egg. Ότι μυθολογεί ανδρα μασμενον Ωης της Ερυθράς θαλασσης ανελθειν, τ' αλλα μεν των μελών ιχθυος έχοντα, κεφαλην δε και ποδας και χειρας ανδρος· και καταδείξαι την τε αςρονομίαν, και τα γραμματα. Οι δε αυτον εκ τ8 πρωτόγονε πέφηνεναι λεγεσιν Ωδ' και μαρτυρειν τ ̓ ἄνομα ανθρωπον δε οντα τα παντα, ιχθυν δόξαι· διόπερ ημφιεςο κητώδη δοραν. Helladius apud Phot. Hist. cclxxix. p. 1594.

I have before shewn, that by or proYovov was signified the

ark.

Their his They were

45 It is said that there were three persons like him, who made their appearance from the sea in the same manner. tory is postponed by Berosus to his second book. certainly the three sons of Noah, who had, like their father, been witnesses to the antediluvian world: but as the greater part of their life was after the flood, their history is by this writer deferred till he comes to treat of the kings of Babylon: which was in his latter book.