દ

"Days: They were to be raised up against Ifrael "after he prophefied. The true Import of the "Hebrew Word, which we tranflate raise up, ex"preffes, that God would raise up the Affyrians "from a Condition lower than the Ifraelites, to "a ftate of Power fuperior to them; but fince the Affyrians were not in this fuperior State "when Amos prophefied, it must be allowed,

that the Affyrian Empire began and grew up "after the Days of Amos." This is the Argument in its full Strength: My answer to it is; the Nation intended in the Prophefy of Amos was not the then Affyrian, I mean, not the Affyrian, which flourished and was powerful in the Days of Amos. Sir Ifaac Newton fays, that Amos prophefied ten Years before the Reign of Pul. Pul was the Father of Sardanapalus (r), and therefore the Affyrian King in whofe Reign Amos prophefied was probably Sardanapalus's Grandfather; but it was not any of the Defcendents of these Kings, nor any of the Poffeffors of their Empire, which were to afflict the Jews. Their Empire was to be diffolved; and we find it was fo on the Death of Sardanapalus, and a new Empire was to be raifed on the Ruins of it, which was to grow from fmall Beginnings to great Power. Tiglath-Pilefer, who had been Sardanapalus's Deputy-Governour of Media, was raised first to be King of part of the Dominions which had belonged to the Affyrian Empire, and fome time after this his Rife, he conquer'd Syria, took Damafcus, and reduced all that Kingdom under his Dominion, and fo began to fulfil the Prophefy of Amos, and to afflict the Jews from the entring in of Hamath (s) ; for Hamath was a Country near to Damafcus, and here he began his Invafions of their Land (t);

(r) Ufher's Chronol. (s) Amos vi. ver. 14. deaux Conne. Vol. I. B. I.

(t) See Pri

fome

fome time after this he feized all that belonged to Ifrael beyond Jordan, and went forwards towards Jerufalem, and brought Ahaz under Tribute. After the Death of Tiglath-Pilefer, his Son Salmanezer conquered Samaria, and after him Sennacherib took feveral of the fenced Cities of Judah, laid Siege to Lachish, threatned ferufalem, and reduced Hezekiah to pay him Tribute, and marched thro' the Land against Egypt, and under him the Prophesy of Amos may be faid to have been compleated, and the Affliction of the Ifraelites carried on to the River of the Wilderness (u), i. e. to the River Sihor at the Entrance of Egypt on the Wilderness of Etham: Thus the Ifraelites were indeed greatly afflicted by the Kings of the Affyrian Empire; but not by the Kings of that Affyrian Empire which flourished in the Days of Amos, but of another Empire of Affyria, which was raifed up after his Days, upon the Ruins and Diffolution of the former. The whole Strength of our great Author's Argument lies in this Fallacy He supposes what is the Point to be proved; namely, that there was but one Affyrian Empire, and fo concludes from Amos's having intimated that an Affyrian Empire fhould be raised after his Times, that there was no Affyrian Empire in and before his Times; whereas the Truth is, there were two Affyrian Empires, different from each other, not only in the Times of their Rife and Continuance, but in the Extent of their Dominions, and the Countries that were fubject to them. The former began at Ninus, and ended at the Death of Sardanapalus; the latter began at TiglathPilefer, and ended about 135 Years after, at the Deftruction of Nineveh by Nabopolaffar (w): The former Empire commanded Affyria, Babylonia, Perfia, Media, and the Eaftern Nations toward

(u) Amos ub. fup. (w) Prideaux Connect. Vel. I. B. 1. D4

India;

India; the latter Empire began at Nineveh, reduced Affyria, and extended it felf into Media and Perfia, then conquered Samaria, Syria, and Paleftine, and afterwards fubdued Babylon alfo, and the Kingdoms belonging to it (x).

Our learned Author has obferved the Conquefts obtained over divers Nations by the Kings of Affyria. He remarks from Sennacherib's Boaft of the Jews (y), that thefe Conquests were ob tained by Sennacherib and his Fathers: He reprefents Sennacherib's Fathers to have been Pul, Tiglath-Pilejer and Shalmanezer, and fays, that these Kings were great Conquerors, and with a Current of Victories had newly overflowed all Nations round about Affyria, and thereby fet up this Monarchy (z). I anfwer; Pul was not an Anceltor of Sennacherib: Pul was of another Family; King of a different Empire from that which the Fathers of Sennacherib erected: Pul was the Father of Sardanapalus (a): Tiglath-Pilefer the Grandfather of Sennacherib ruined Sardanapalus the Son of Pul, got Poffeffion of his Royal City, and part of his Dominions; and he and his Pofterity erected, upon this Foundation, a far greater Empire than Pul had ever been in Poffeffion of. 2. Pul conquered none of the Countries mentioned by Sennacherib to have been fubdued by him and his Fathers: Pul is, I think, mentioned but twice by the facred Hiftorians. We are told that God firred up the Spirit of Pul King of Affyria (b), and we are informed what Pul did (c). He came against the Land of Ifrael when Menahem the Son of Gadi had gotten the Kingdom, and Menahem gave him a thousand Talents of Silver, fo Pul turned back and stayed not in the Land (cc).

Our

(x) Prideaux ubi fup. ton, p. 273-277. (a) Ufher's Chron. (c) 2 Kings xv. ver. 19. (cc) Ver. 20.

(y) 2 Kings xix.

ver. 11.

(z) New(b) 1 Chron. v. 26.

great

great and learned Author fays, that Pul was a great Warrior, and feems to have conquered Haran, and Carchemish, and Refeph, and Calneb, and Thelafar, and might found or enlarge the City of Babylon, and build the old Palace (d). I answer; Pul made the Expedition above mentioned, but he was bought off from profecuting it, and we have no one Proof that he conquered any one Kingdom upon the Face of the Earth: He enjoyed the Dominions his Ancestors had left him, and tranfmitted them to his Son or Succeffor Sardanapalus; and therefore, 3. All the fresh Victories obtained by the Kings of Affyria, by which they appear after thefe Times to have conquered fo many Lands, began at Tiglath-Pilefer, and were obtained by him and his Succeffors, after the Dif folution of the ancient Empire of the Affyrians; and the Hints we have of them do indeed prove, that a great Monarchy was raifed in thefe Days, by the Kings of Affyria; but they do not prove that there had been no Affyrian Empire before: The ancient Affyrian Empire was broken down about this Time, and its Dominions divided amongft those who had confpired against the Kings of it. Tiglath-Pilefer gat Nineveh, and he and his Succeffors by Steps and Degrees, by a Current of new Victories, fubdued Kingdom after Kingdom, and in Time raifed a more extenfive Affyrian Empire than the former had been.

From a general View of what both Sir Ifaac Newton and Sir John Marsham have offered about the Affyrian Monarchy, it may be thought, that the facred and prophane Hiftory differ irreconcilably about it; but certainly the facred Writers did not defign to enter fo far into the History of the Affyrian Empire, its Rife or Dominions, as thefe great and most learned Authors

(d) Newton, p. 278.

are

The

are willing to reprefent. The Books of the Old Teftament are chiefly confin'd to the Jews and their Affairs, and we have little mention in them of other Nations, any farther than the Jews happened to be concerned with them; but the little we have is, if duly confidered, capable of being brought to a ftrict Agreement and clear Connection with the Accounts of the Prophane Hiftorians, except in Points wherein thefe have apparently exceeded or deviated from the Truth. A Romantic Humour of magnifying ancient Facts, Buildings, Wars, Armies and Kingdoms, is what we must expect in their Accounts, and we must make a due Allowance for it; and if we do fo, we shall find in many Points a greater Coincidence of what they write, with what is hinted in Scripture, than one who has not examined would expect. facred Hiftory fays, that Nimrod began a Kingdom at Babel (a), and the Time of his beginning it must be computed to be about A. M. 1757 (b), and to this agrees in a remarkable Manner the Account which Callisthenes formed of the Aftronomical Obfervations, that had been made at Babylon before Alexander took that City; he fuppofed them to reach 1903 Years backward from Alexander's coming thither; fo that they began at A. M. 1771 (c), about 14 Years after the Rife of Nimrod's Kingdom. I have already remarked, that the Writers who deny the Babylonian Antiquities, endeavour, as their Hypothefis requires they fhould, to fet afide this Account of Calliftbenes: Sir John Marbam would prefer the Accounts of Berofus or Epigenes before it (d), but to them I have already anfwered (e). Our illuftrious Author feems best pleased with what Diodorus Siculus relates (f),

(a) Gen. x. ver. 10. (b) See Vol. I. B. IV. p. 189. (c) Ibid. P. 191. (d) Martham. Cun. Chron. p. 474. (e) See Pref. to Vol. I. p. 32. (f) Lib. 2. p. 83.

that