begun B. C. 2234, and, if astronomy then, letters, we may suppose, were known to the ancient Chaldeans. After Belus, we hear no more of the kingdom of Nimrod; the empire is styled the Assyrian, and, under that title, we must consider it till the end of this period of its history, viz. till the æra of Nabonassar.

ASSYRIA.

The country undoubtedly took its name from Asshur, the second son of Shem, the first settler in it, and who was expelled by Nimrod; but it cannot be said that he founded the empire; that is attributed to Ninus, the son of Belus, B. C. 2059.

Ninus is represented as a great conqueror; he is said to have united the Babylonian territory to his own, and to have subjected all the kingdoms of Asia. Of the real extent, or importance of these conquests, we can form but a very imperfect idea; for, it is scarcely to be imagined, that in those early times (not much more than 200 years after

Zodiac might, perhaps, have been originally framed by Noah's posterity, to record the leading events in the history of mankind, from the Creation to the Deluge. It is truly remarkable, that four of the constellations, the fishes, ram, bull, and human pair, exactly express the progress of animal creation, in the first chapter of Genesis, ascending from the lowest species, fish, to the last and noblest, Adam and Eve; while the two last, the sea monster and ewer, bear an obvious analogy to the Deluge, in the seventh chapter. The six remaining signs, may possibly apply to the intermediate events which brought on the Deluge." Hales's Anal. vol. i. p. 300. From the foregoing remark, we have an insight into the nature of the Chaldean astronomy, in the early ages to which we are now referring. The Greeks were the first practical astronomers, see p. 35 for the discoveries of Thales and Anaximander.

*The conquest of Babylon, by Ninus, is alleged by some, as a proof that Nineveh was not built by Nimrod, for, then Babylon and Assyria would have formed but one empire; these are disputes, which it is impossible to settle, where there is little besides conjecture to argue from.

the flood) there could have existed any kingdoms worth conquering. After a reign of 52 years, Ninus left his kingdom to his wife Semiramis B. C. 2007, who even exceeded him in all his conquering exploits; she is said to have consummated the designs of Ninus, and to have built, (or rather embellished) Babylon. She reigned 43 years, and left the throne to her son Ninyas, B. C. 1964,*

A

By the conquests of Ninus and Semiramis, the empire is said to have been extended over Chaldea, Persia, Syria, and, in short, all the settlements from Bactria westward, to the Mediterranean sea; and, northward, as far as the Euxine and Caspian seas. Ninyas having no disposition either for martial exploits, or the fatigues of government, appointed prefects over the different provinces, many of whom revolted and became petty kings of their respective governments; such were Chedorlaomer,+ king of Elam, and his dependants and allies, mentioned Gen. xiv. (See Table II., B. C. 1925, and Table III., B. C. 1912. Of the successors of Ninyas, the names only are recorded: and, in these, authors are not agreed. A chasm of more than 700 years intervenes between the times of Ninyas, and the second Ninus, mentioned by Herodotus, as the founder of the empire.

TABLE IV, V, VI.

NINUS II. was the son of Belus, whose father, Neptune,

The time in which Semiramis lived, is much disputed, and, it can hardly be decided whether she was the wife of Ninus I., Ninus II., or of Tiglath Pileser; some authors even suppose her to have been the same as Nitocris, the wife of Nebuchadnezzar.

+ Chedorlaomer is supposed, by some authors, to have been the same as Ninyas. See Shuckford's Connection, vol. ii. p. 4.

As a principal branch of the early Hamite settlements, we must notice Egypt, founded B. C. 2188, by Misraim, (called in Profane History, Menes) the second son of Ham: its history will run nearly parallel with that of Babylon and Assyria. (See Appendix, Egypt.)

Y Y

an Egyptian astronomer, left his country in consequence of some persecutions carrying on there, and fled to Babylon, where his talents raised him to honour and power. Belus was, afterwards, deified by the Babylonians. The acces sion of Ninus II. is placed B. C. 1230 by Dr. Hales. Of him, or his immediate successors, nothing is certainly known; but it was, probably, this Ninus who enlarged Nineveh, and established it upon the scale alluded to more than 400 years afterwards in the book of the prophet Jonah, ch. i, ii, iii. 3; iv. 11. We must pass over the successors of Ninus II. for a period of more than 400 years, which will bring us down to Sardanapalus, who is said to be the last monarch of the first Assyrian empire, and to have burnt himself in his palace, in consequence of the taking of Nineveh by Arbaces and Belesis, Prefects of Media and Babylon, under whom, those provinces revolted from Assyria. Various dates are assigned to this event. Blair gives the year B. C. 900 after Justin, and, 820 after Eusebius; others, following Ctesius, place it much lower down; but none seem to have distinctly marked the termination of the first, and beginning of the second empire. Blair, leaving a vacancy of 43 years from the death of Sardanapalus, B. C. 820, next mentions Pul, as the succeeding king of Assyria, B. C. 777; but Prideaux gives the year B. C. 747, as that in which the second empire began. To fill up the vacancy above mentioned, we are reduced to the following conjectures. Supposing Sardanapalus to have been the last nominal sovereign of the whole Assyrian empire, and to have perished at the time of the revolt of Arbaces and Belesis, the Prefects of Media and Babylon, B. C. 820, it would not be incongruous to conclude, that his son, or successor, might retain Nineveh, "that great city of three days journey, against which, Jonah prophesied soon after the death of Sardanapalus, whose fate, and the loss of his dominions, might have paved the way for the repentance

excited by the prophet's prediction. His successor, Pul,* began to reign, B. C. 777, and is the first king of Assyria mentioned in Scripture, as being" stirred up against Israel,” which kingdom he invaded and reduced to tribute, B. C. 770. It was in his reign that Isaiah began to predict the instrumentality of Assyria in chastising Israel, and the surrounding nationis,‡ and, also its own punishment after that object should be accomplished; which prophecies, though now promulged, were not to be accomplished till many years afterwards; from this time, however, the Assyrian kings were employed as instruments of chastisement to the Jews, to execute the threatenings denounced by Moses in the event of their apostasy, Deut. xxvïïï. 36, &c.

TABLE VII.

Upon the death of Pul, B. C. 747, his dominions were divided between his two sons: Tiglath Pileser had Assyria, whose capital was Nineveh, and, Nabonassar Babylonia, whose capital was Babylon. Prideaux considers Tiglath Pileser as the same with Arbaces, governor of Medid, and Nabonassar, as Belesis, priest of Babylon, said to have révolted in the time of Sardanapalus, as already mentioned: but to this, the times and circumstances of the event cannot be made to agree. Nineveh was not destroyed at that time, which was about twenty years before Jonah predicted its destruction, and which was not accomplished till nearly 200 years afterwards, B. C. 606, and happened under Sarac, or Sardanapalus II., as will be shewn in its place. The similarity of names, and the imperfect Chronology of the ancient writers, were two grand causes of the confused accounts that are given by different authors of this event.

* Some authors have supposed Pul to be the father of Sardanapalus. See Shuckford's Connection, Preface to vol. ii. p. 48. Prideaux's Connection, vol. i. B. I.

+2 Kings xv. 19. 1 Chron: v. 26. Isaiah vii. 17; viii. 5-10. || Isaiah x. 5., &c.

The laborious researches of the learned Dr. Hales, have now thrown a light upon these subjects, that enables us in some measure, to steer a clear course through the mazes of misconception and inaccuracy, which formerly obstructed our progress through this period of history. To proceed : we consider then, that upon the death of Pul, B. C. 747, his dominions were divided between his two sons, Tiglath Pileser and Nabonassar, whose histories, for the sake of perspicuity, will be here divided into two columns, the better to correspond with the divisions of the Chronological Tables.

ASSYRIA.

*

TIGLATH PILESER then was the founder of the second empire of Assyria. (1) The scene of his exploits lies in Judea, and the adjacent countries. Being called in to the assistance of king Ahaz against the Syrians, he defeated those invaders, took Damascus, and carried the inhabitants captive into Assyria (as predicted by Amos, i. 3-5) at the same time he carried away the tribes of Gad, Reuben, and the half tribe of Manasseh; thus relieving! Ahaz from his most pressing enemies," but strengthened him not," for he laid Judah under tribute.† (2)

B. C.

(') 747

BABYLON.

NABONASSAR became Prefect of Bablyon the same year that Tiglath Pileser began his reign in Assyria; and, from this year, viz. B. C. 747, is dated the Era of Nabonassar, beginning February 26th. In order that the reigns of the Chaldean kings might be computed from himself, he destroyed all the records of the acts of his predecessors. This circumstance alone would suffice, to check our curiosity respecting the early history of the Babylonian and Assyrian empires, by shewing the impossibility of its being substantially gratified. (2) Nabonassar held the Prefecture 740 of Babylon in subordination to his brother Tiglath Pileser, king of Assyria. He is supposed to have performed the exploits attributed to Ninus I., and his wife might be the Semiramis whose actions are so much exItolled, and, perhaps, exagger

* With the death of Pul, will end the first Division of Babylonian and Assyrian History, described p. 342.

+ Tiglath Pileser is spoken of by Isaiah, ch. vii. 20, as “a rasor that is kired.'