and if we make allowance for the fables, which the heathen theology had introduced into all parts of their early history, the substance of what they offer agrees very remarkably with the accounts of Moses. Berosus wrote the history of the Chaldeans; Sanchoniatho of the Phoenicians; and the antiquities of Egypt were collected by Manetho, the Egyptian. It may not be amiss to examine the remains of these writers, in order to see what their accounts are of the first ages of the world.

I. As to the history of Berosus, the substance of it as it is given us from Abidenus Appollodorus, and Alexander Polyhister, is to this purpose, that there were ten kings of Chaldea before the Flood, Alorus, Alasparus, Amelon, Amenon, Metalarus, Daorus, Aedorachus, Amphis, Oliartes, Xisuthrus. That Xisuthrus was warned in a dream that mankind was to be destroyed by a Flood on the 15th day of the month Dasius, and that he should build a sort of ship, and go into it with his friends and kindred, and that he should make a provision of meat and drink, and take into his vessel fowls and four-footed beasts; that Xisuthrus acted according to the admonition; built a ship, and put into it all that he was commanded, and went into it with his wife and children, and dearest friends. When the flood was come, and began to abate, Xisuthrus let out some birds, which finding no food nor place to rest on, returned to the ship again; after some days, he let out the birds again, but they came back with their legs daubed with mud. Some

4 Vid. Euseb. Chron.

days after, he let them go the third time, but then they came to the ship no more. Xisuthrus understood hereby, that the earth appeared again above the waters, and taking down some of the boards of the ship, he saw that it rested upon a mountain; some time after, he, and his wife and his pilot went out of the ship, to offer sacrifice to the gods, and they were never seen by those in the ship more. But the persons in the ship, after seeking him in vain, went to Babylon. The Xisuthrus here mentioned was evidently Noah. And Berosus supposes from Alorus to Xisuthrus ten generations, and so many Moses computes from Adam to Noah.

II. The history of Sanchoniatho is to this effect." That the first mortals were Protogonus and on; that by these were begotten Genus and Genea; the children of these were Phos, Pur, and Phlox; and of these were begot Cassius, Libanus, Antilibanus, and Brathys. Memrumus and Hypsuranius were descended from these, and their children were Agreus and Halieus; and of these were begotten two brothers, one of them named Chrysor and Hæphæstus; the name of the other is lost. From this generation came two brothers, Technites and Autochthon, and of them were begotten Agrus and Agrotes; Amynus and Magus were their children, and Misor and Sydec were descended of Amynus and Magus. The son of Misor was Taautus or Tyoth. This is the Phoenician genealogy of the first ages of the world, and it requires no great pains to show how far it agrees with the accounts

In Euseb. Præp. Evang.

of Moses. The first mortals mentioned by Sanchoniatho, and called Protogonus and on, were undoubtedly Adam and Eve; and his Misor, the father of Taautus, is evidently the Mizraim of Moses. From Protogonus to Misor, Sanchoniatho computes eleven generations, and from Adam to Mizraim, Moses makes twelve; so that Sanchoniatho falls short of Moses only one generation, and this, I conceive, happened by his not having recorded the Flood.

But thirdly, let us, in the next place, consider the Egyptian Antiquities, as collected by Manetho; and here, I must confess, we meet with great difficulties. The records of most nations fall short of the Flood; neither Chaldea nor Phoenicia have offered any thing that can seem to be before Moses's time of the Creation; but Manetho pretends to produce antiquities of Egypt, that reach higher than the Creation by thousands of years. '

The accounts of Manetho seem at first sight so extravagant, that many good writers look upon them as mere fictions, and omit attempting to say any thing about them; but other learned men" are not so well satisfied with this proceeding, but think that by a due examination the Egyptian dynasties may be made

Scaliger supposes his Julian period to begin above seven hundred years before the world, but imagined the Egyptian dynasties to reach higher than the beginning of that period by above seven thousand years. See Can. Isag. lib. ii. p. 123.

tolerably clear, and reduced at least to a degree of probability. The misfortune is, we have none of the original works, from whence they were collected, or which gave account of them. The historians, Dio dorus Siculus, and Herodotus, did not examine these matters to the bottom, and we have no remains of the old Egyptian Chronicon, or of the works of Manetho, except only some quotations in the works of other writers. The Chronographia of Syncellus, written by one George, an abbot of the monastery of St. Simeon, and called Syncellus, as being Suffragan to Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, is the only work we have to go to for these antiquities. Syncellus collected the quotations of the old Chronicon, and of Manetho, and of Eratosthenes, as he found them in the works of Africanus and Eusebius; and the works of Africanus and Eusebius being now lost, (for it is well known that the work which goes under the name of Eusebius's Chronicon is a composition of Scaliger's,) we have nothing to be depended upon, but what we find in Syncellus above-mentioned.

Our learned countryman, Sir John Marsham, has collected from Syncellus the opinions of these writers; and it must appear to any one who considers what he has offered from them, that they every one in their turn took great liberties in correcting and altering, what they pretended to copy from one another; and though every one of them took a different scheme, yet not one of them could give a clear and consistent account of the Egyptian dynasties. Sir John Mar

VOL. I.

* Marsham Can. Пgoxaraσxv.

sham comes the nearest to it of any; the account he gives from Menes downward, is exceedingly probable, being consistent with the histories of other nations; and he has given some hints which may, I think, lead to a very good explication of those dynasties which preceded Menes.

The Egyptian dynasties are by all that have treated of them, allowed to give an account, first of their gods; secondly, of their demi-gods and heroes; thirdly, of their kings; and in this order the historians agree to treat of the Egyptian antiquities." From Menes downward the account is clear, if we take it as Sir John Marsham has explained it. The number of kings are too many, if supposed to succeed one another, as Manetho imagined; but if we suppose them to be contemporaries, as Sir John Marsham has represented them, the accounts of Egypt from Menes or Mizraim, will be easy, and will agree very well with the accounts we have of other nations. Africanus, with good reason, imagined all that is prior to or be fore Menes to be antideluvian; some broken reports of what was the state of Egypt before the Flood. Let us, therefore, consider the antiquities of Egypt in this view, and trace them backwards. The kings, the first of whom was Menes, reigned after the Flood. Who were the demi-gods and heroes that preceded them? how many were they? and how long did they reign? In the next place we must enquire who were the gods of Egypt, and what are their reigns? and perhaps such a thread of enquiry as this may help

See Diodorus, 1. 1.

Syncellus, p. 54.