ed upon two other Hypothefes; to wit, That at the time of the Deluge the Earth remained as yet for the greatest part defolate without any Inhabitants; and that all the Waters of the Univerfe could not have been fufficient to caufe an Univerfal Deluge. This A. braham Mylius pretends to demonftrate, that if all the Waters of the Univerfe had been fent down upon Earth, they could not have covered the tops of the highest Mountains. Ilaacus Voffius Diff. de Atat. Mundi p. 284. approves of both thefe Hypothefes. The fixth and laft are thofe who have chofen the trueft Opinion, and maintain that the Deluge was Univerfal both in respect of the Terreitial Globe and its Inhabitants, becaufe (1.) the Motive which induced God thus to punish the whole Earth was Univerfal, God complains Gen. 6 5. that every Imagination of the Thoughts of Man's Heart was only evil continually. (2.) God's threats were univerfal without Exception: Gen. 6. v.7. I will deftroy Man whom I have created, from the face of the Earth, both Man and Beast, and the creeping thing, and the Fowls of the Air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. (3.) The Execution was univerfal: Gen.7. v 21. A Flesh died that moved upon the Earth, both of Fowl and of Cattle, and of Beaft, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the Earth, and every Man. (4.) The Building of the Ark it felf was a convincing Argument for the Univerfality of the Deluge: For what elfe could have moved Noah to build it, when he might have transferred himself with bis Family to another place? And (5.) It would have favoured much of Folly, if Noah had taken fo much pains to gather all the Creatures in the Ark, if there had been enough left in other places. To all this may be added the general confent of the Gentiles, who though they have mixed their Relations of the Deluge with many of their Fables and Ficti ons; yet all agree in this point, that it was univerfal. It is for this reafon, that I cannot fufficiently admire how the Learned St. Auffin could be to much overfeen as to declare, l. 18. c. 8. de Civ. Dei, that the e were not the leait Footsteps of this Deluge to be met with in the Greek and Latin Authors; the contrary of which has been fufficiently demonftrated by Hugo Grotius lib. 1. de Relig, Chrift. CHAP.

CHA P. IV.

Of the Chaldean Epocha, and the Reigns of the Affyrian Monarchs.

RULES.

1. The principal thing to be taken care of in this Epocha is, not to fix its beginning beyond that of the Deluge.

2. To be very cautious in contradicting the Authority of Ctefis Caidius, Diodorus Siculus, Emilius Sur, Caltor, Eufebius, and fome other Ancient Historians.

3. Cre ought also to be taken, that the time of this Epocha be not contracted into too narrow a Compafs, it being evident out of the Holy Scripture, that the Chaldean and Affyrian Monarchy is very ancient.

4. The beginning of the Chaldean and Babylonian Ara ought to be fixed at fome remarkable time or other mentioned in their Hiftory, either from the firft Foundation of their Capital City, or the Original of that Monarchy.

5. From the Beginning and first Institution of the Chaldean Era, till the time of Alexander the Great, are computed 1903 years, according to Callifthenes; Becaufe, (Jays Simplicius Ariftot. de Cal.) thefe Aftronomical Obfervations which Callifthenes, (purfuant to the Inftructions received from Aristotle ) fent from Babylon, had not then reached Greece; which, as Porphyrius affirms, had been preferved 1993 years; to wit, till the Times of Alexander the Great.

6. The Affyrian Monarchy lafted near 1300 years, according to Cteñas Cnidius, Diodorus Siculus, Æmilius Sura, Velleius Paterculus, Trogus in Justin, Eufebius.

7. The Affyrian Monarchy flourished in the time of Abraham, according to the Teftimony of Jofephus, who fpeaking about the Expedition of Abraham, undertook against the four Kings, Says, 1. 1. Ant. c. 10. that it happened at the time when the Affyrians were Mafters of Afia.

8. It feems very probable that the Affyrian Monarchy began in the days of Phaleg, about which time hapned the Confifion of Tongues Gen. c. 11.

v. 9.

9. All the ancient Hiftories both of the Greeks and Barbarians agree in this point, that the first Monarch of all Afia was Ninus the Son of Belus, the Founder of the Capital City of the Allyrians of the fame Name, called by the Jews, Niniveh.

10. Ninus was not abfolutely the first King over the Chaldæans and Affyrians, for Belus reigned before him, according to Caftor in Eufebius. We have only mentioned Belus, for we begin our History with the Reign of Ninus.

11. The Affyrian Monarchy began to flourish about the fame time that Babylon was either built or enlarged, and made the Royal Seat of that Empire, where Nimrod kept his Refidence, as is manifeft out of Genefis c. 10. v. io. and Jofephus 1. 1. Ant. c. 5. All the Prophane Hiftorians feem to agree in this, that Babylon was built by Belus; particularly Abydenus in Eufebius Præp. Evang. 1. 9. c. 4. Dorotheus Sidonius in Julius Firmicus. Curtius l. 5. c. 1. makes mention of it as the Royal Refidence of Belus. Ammianus Marcellinus 1. 23. c. 20 as the Caftle of Belus. Pliny 1. 1. c. 26. as the Temple of Belus; and Strabo 1. 6.as the Sepulcher of Belus.

12. The

12. The Obfervations therefore mentioned by Porphyrius, to have been made at Babylon, were begun in the year of the Julian Period 2481, and the Allyrian Monarchy was founded by Nimrod or Belus in the year of the Julian Period 2538.

13. If therefore you fubtract 2480 years from any Any year year of the Julian Period, the Remainder will of the Julibe the year of the Chaldean Epocha; and if in an Period like manner you fubtract 2537 years from the fame given to find the year of the Julian Period, the Surplufage will few year fince the year fince the Beginning of the Affyrian Mo-the Beginnarchy.

ning of this

Epocha.

Cnidius.

§. 1. THere Here are not a few who call in queftion the ConcernAuthority of Crefias Cnid as concerning the ing the AuChronology of the firft Monarchy. I am not, (lays thority of Chriftianus Schotanus in Bibl. de Sec. mund. et. p. 126.) Ctefias] of the fame Opinion with Ctefias, tho' I am not ignorant that most Hftorians have declared for him. Two Objections are made against his Authority; Firft becaufe Plutarch did in his time accufe him of Falfhood in his Writings; and Photius fays, Cod. 72. that his Books are filled up with Fables. Secondly, because Herodotus lived a confiderable time before Crefias, and confequently has a prerogative before him. But neither of thefe two are fufficient to deftroy the Autho rity of Ctefias: For as to the firft, Plutarch and fome others of the ancient Hiftorians have objected as many Errors to Herodotus as to Ctefias: Neither fee I any reafon why a whole Hiftory fhould be rejected by reafon of fome few Errors, especially when we are deftitute of others, from whence we might receive better inftruction. Befides, Plutarch did not call in queftion his whole Hiftory, but only fome particular Paffages. As to the fecond, it is obferved that Ctefias though he lived after Herodotus; yet being converfant in Perfia and Affyria, and having the oppor tunity of infpecting their Records and Annals, he ought to be preferred before him. Befides, there being but forty years difference betwixt the time of Herodotus and that of Crefias, that can occafion no great

N 4

diffe

difference in the knowledge of a 1500 years Chronology. So that it is much more fafe to follow the latter, till Herodotus's Followers can fhew us more Authentick Monuments of Antiquity, which I much queftion whether they will be able to effect.

How to re- §. 2. Diodorus Siculus out of Ctefias gives us two concile two different Computations concerning the time of the feveril Allyrian Monarchy. In the first he fays thusb 2. Pages of Bibl. p. 77. Edit. Rhodom. Under the Reign of SardaClelias. napalus, the Affyrian Monarchy, after it had flourish

The Names

ed 1360 years, (according to Ctefias Cnidius Lib. 2.) was devolved to the Medians. In the fecond he has thefe Words: ibid. p. 81. Thus the Affyrian Empire, which from the time of Ninus bad lafted above 1400 years, was destroyed by the Medians. To refolve this difficulty, it feems that the last paffage of Diodorus Siculus, as well as feveral others of this Author, have heen adulterated, it being manifest that according to Crefias, the Affyrian Monarchy did not flourish much above 1300 years. Thus much is certain, that Clemens Air xandrinus, does not attributt more than 1300 years to the Arian Monarchy out of Diodorus and Crefias, which agrees exactly with the time mentioned in the Eufebian Fragments, collected by Scal ger

§. 3 The following Table reprefents a Catalogue and Order of the Affyrian Monarchs, according to Eufebius and of the Af Africanus, down to the time of Sardanapalus. We fyrian Mo- have added to the Computation of Eufebius, the year narchs, of the Julian Period, in which, according to this Hywith the pothefis, each of thefe Kings began his Reign: And to extent of the Computation of Africanus likewife the year of the Julian Period purfuant to the Opinion of Scaliger and William Lange, out of which every one may choofe fuch as he finds moft fuitable to his own Judge

theirreigns making in

all

1300 years.

ment.