sar none other than Baladan, king of Babel, and not Salmanassar, king of Assyria.

What can be plainer? As for the cadence of these two names, Nabonassar and Salmanassar, which in Greek or Latin writing hath no difference, we are taught by Scaliger, that in the Hebrew letters there is found no affinity therein. So concerning the places of Babylonia, whereinto Salmanassar carried captive some part of the ten tribes, it may well be granted, that in the province of Babylon Salmanassar had gotten somewhat, yet will it not follow that he was king of Babylon itself. To conclude, Merodach began his reign over Babylon in the sixth year of Hezekiah, at which time Salmanassar took Samaria; therefore, if Salmanassar were king of Babylon, then must we say that he and Merodach, yea and Nabonassar, were all one man. These are the arguments of that noble and learned writer Joseph Scaliger, who not contented to follow the common opinion, founded upon likelihood of conjectures, hath drawn his proofs from matter of more necessary inference.

Touching all that was said before of Phul Belosus, for the proving that Phul and Belosus were not sundry kings, Joseph Scaliger pities their ignorance, that have spent their labour to so little purpose. Honest and painful men he confesseth that they were, who by their diligence might have won the good liking of their readers, had they not, by mentioning Annius's authors, given such offence, that men refused thereupon to read their books and chronologies. A short answer.

For mine own part, howsoever I believe nothing that Annius's Berosus, Metasthenes, and others of that stamp affirm, in respect of their bare authority; yet am I not so squeamish, but that I can well enough digest a good book, though I find the names of one or two of these good fellows alleged in it: I have somewhat, peradventure too often, already spoken my mind of Annius's authors; nevertheless, I

may say here again, that where other histories are silent, or speak not enough, there may we without shame, borrow of these as much as agrees with that little which elsewhere we find, and serveth to explain or enlarge it without improbabilities.

Neither indeed are those honest and painful men, (as Scaliger terms them, meaning, if I mistake him not, good silly fellows,) who set down the Assyrian kings from Phul forwards, as lords also of Babylon, taking Phul for Belosus, and Salmanassar for Nabonassar, such writers as a man should be ashamed or unwil ling to read. For, (to omit a multitude of others, that herein follow Annius, though disliking him in general,) Gerard Mercator is not so slight a chrono loger, that he should be laughed out of doors, with the name of an honest-meaning fellow.

But I will not make comparisons between Scaliger and Mercator; they were both of them men notably learned; let us examine the arguments of Scaliger, and see whether they be of such force, as cannot ei, ther be resisted or avoided. It will easily be grant ed, that Nabonassar was king of Babylon; that he was not king of Assyria, some men doubt whether Scaliger's reasons be enough to prove. For though Nabonassar be a Chaldean name, and Salmanassar an Assyrian; yet what hinders us from believing, that one man in two languages might be called by two several names? That astronomy flourished among the Chaldees, is not enough to prove Nabonassar either an astrologer or a Chaldæan. So it is, that Scaliger himself calls them,- Prophetas nescio quos, qui Nabonassarum astronomum fuisse in somnis viderunt;' prophets I know not who, that in their sleep have dreamt of Nabonassar, that he was an astrologer.

Whether Nabonassar were an astrologer or no, I cannot tell; it is hard to maintain the negative. But as his being lord over the Chaldæans, doth not prove 2 Scalig. Canon. 1. iii.

him to have been learned in their sciences; so doth it not prove him, not to have been also king of Assyria. The emperor Charles V., who was born in Ghent, and Philip his son, king of Spain, and lords of the Netherlands, had men far more learned in all sciences, and particularly in the mathematics, among their subjects of the Low Countries, than were any that I read of then living in Spain, if Spain at that time had any; yet I think, posterity will not use this as an argument to prove, that Spain was none of theirs. It may well be, that Salmanassar or Nabonassar did use the Assyrian soldiers, and Babylonian scholars; but it seems, that he and his posterity, by giving themselves wholly to the more warlike nation, lost the richer, out of which they first issued; as likewise king Philip lost partly, and partly did put to a dangerous hazard, the Netherlands, by such a course. As for the two unanswerable arguments, (as Scaliger terms them, being, methinks, none other than answers to somewhat that is or might be alleged on the contrary side,) one of them which is drawn from the unlike sound and writing of those names, Salmanassar and Nabonassar in the Hebrew, I hold a point about which no man will dispute; for it is not likeness of sound, but agreement of time, and many circumstances else, that must take away the distinction of persons: the other likewise may be granted; which is, that Salmanassar might be lord of some places in the province of Babylon, yet not king of Babylon itself; this, indeed, might be so, and it might be otherwise. Hitherto there is nothing save conjecture against conjecture. But in that which is alleged out of the prophet Isaiah, concerning Merodach, the son of Baladan; and in that which is said of this Merodach, or Mardokenpadus, his being the successor of Nabonassar, and his beginning to reign in the sixth year of Hezekiah,-I find matter of more difficulty than can be answered in haste. I will therefore defer the handling of these objections, until I meet with

their subject in its proper place; which will be when we come to the time of Hezekiah, wherein Merodach lived, and was king. Yet that I may not leave too great a scruple in the mind of the reader, thus far will I here satisfy him; that how strong soever this argument may seem, Scaliger himself did live to retract it, ingenuously confessing that in thinking Merodach to be the son of Nabonassar, he had been deceived.

be

Now, therefore, let us consider in what sort they have fashioned their story, who taking Phul to be a distinct person from Belosus or Belestis, have in like sort, as was necessary, distinguished their offspring, making that of Phul to fail in Esarhaddon, which left all to Merodach the Babylonian. And here I must first confess my want of books, if perhaps there many, that have gone about to reduce this narration into some such order, as might present unto us the body of this history in one view. Divers indeed there are, whom I have seen, that since Joseph Scaliger delivered his opinion, have written in favour of some one or other point thereof; but Sethus Calvisius himself, who hath abridged Scaliger's learned work, De emendatione temporum, hath not been careful to give us notice how long Belosus, Baladan, Phul, or Tiglat Pulassar did reign, (perhaps because he found it not expressed in Scaliger,) but is con-tent to set down Baladan for the same person with Nabonassar, which Scaliger himself revoked. In this case, therefore, I must lay down the plot of these divided kingdoms, in such sort as I find it contrived by Augustinus Torniellus, who only, of all that I have seen, sets down the succession, continuance, and acts of those that reigned in Assyria after Sardanapalus, distinguishing them from Belosus and his posterity, of whom he hath the like remembrance. This Torniellus is a regular clerk of the congregation of St. Paul, whose annals were printed the last year; he appears to me a man of curious industry,

sound judgment, and free spirit; yet many times, (and I take it wilfully,) forgetful of thanking or mentioning those protestant writers, by whose books he hath received good information, and enriched his works by inserting somewhat of theirs. But in this business he hath openly professed to follow Scaliger, whose help, without wrong or dishonour to himself, he hath both used and acknowledged. For mine own part, I will not spare to do right unto Torniellus ; but confess myself to have received benefit by his writing; and wish that his annals had sooner come to light for that as he hath much confirmed me in some things, so would he have instructed and emboldened me to write more fully and less timorously in other things, which now I have not leisure to revise particularly, in that conjecture, (which I had faintly delivered, and feared lest it had over-hastily passed out of my hand, and been exposed to other mens constructions,) of the four kings that invaded the valley of Siddim, and were slain by Abraham, I find him adventuring, as I have done, to say, that they may probably be thought to have been some petty lords; the contrary opinion of all writers notwithstanding. But now let us consider how he hath ordered these last Assyrian and Babylonian kings.

After the destruction of Sardanapalus, Arbaces being the most mighty, sought to get all to himself; but was opposed by Belosus; in which contention, one Phul, a powerful man in Assyria, sided with Belosus; and they two prevailed so far, that finally Arbaces was content to share the empire with them, making such a division thereof as was long after made of the Roman empire, between Octavius, Anthony, and Lepidus.

Another conjecture is, (for Torniellus offers not this, or the rest, as matter of certainty,) that Arbaces made himself sovereign lord of all, and placed the seat of his empire in Media, appointing Belosus his

3 Chap. i. Section 13.