ers; but in his Persian history there are evident proofs that he had a disposition to tell the truth, where he might have motives to the contrary. In a word, though he might be mistaken in the grandeur of the first kings, or think their armies more numerous than they really were, and their empires greater, and their buildings more magnificent; yet there is no room to imagine that he could pretend to put off a list of kings, as extracted from the Persian records, whose names were never in them. Or if he had attempted to forge one, he could hardly have happened to fill up so exactly the interval; without making it more or less than it appears to have been from the Hebrew Scriptures, and from what was afterwards observed from the Chaldean astronomy.

I am sensible that the account which Callisthenes is said to give of the celestial, observations at Babylon, is called in question by the same writers who dispute the authority of Ctesias; but with as little reason.

• Id. ibid.

They quote Pliny,' who affirms Berosus to say, that the Babylonians had celestial observations for four hundred and eighty years backward from his time; and Epigenes to assert, that they had such observations for seven hundred and twenty years back. from his time; and they would infer from hence, that the Babylonian observations reached no higher. But it is remarkable, that both Berosus and Epigenes suppose their observations to be no earlier than Nabonassar; for, from Nabonassar to the time in which Berosus flourished, is about four hundred and eighty years, and to the time of Epigenes about seven hundred and twenty.' The Babylonians had not (as I have observed) settled a good measure of a year, until about this time; and therefore could not be exact in their more ancient computations. Syncellus remarks 'upon them to this purport; and for this reason Berosus, Epigenes, and Ptolomy afterwards, took no notice of what

t Plin. lib. 7. c. 56. 'Syncellus, p. 207.

Marsham Can p 474.

they had observed before Nabonassar; not intending to assert, that they had made no observations; but, their astronomy not being at all exact, their observations were not thought worth examining.

There are some other arguments offered to invalidate the accounts of Ctesias.

It is re

marked, that the names of his kings are Persian, or Greek, and not Assyrian; and it is said, that he represents the state of Assyria otherwise than it appears to have been Gen. xiv, when Abraham with his household beat the armies of the king of Shinaar, Elam, and three other kings with them. But the latter of these objections will be answered in its place; and the former, I conceive, can have no weight with the learned, who know what a variety of names are given to the men of the first ages, by writers of different nations.

Upon the whole, Ctesias' catalogue of the first Assyrian kings seems a very consistent and well-grounded correction of Herodotus' hearsay and imperfect relation of their antiquities; and as such it has been received by

Diodorus Siculus, by Cephaleon, and Castor, by Trogus Pompeius, and Velleius Paterculus, and afterwards by Africanus, Eusebius, and Syncellus. Sir John Marsham raised the first doubts about it;" but I must think, that the accounts which he endeavours to give of the original of the Assyrians, will be always reckoned among the peculiarities of that learned gentleman. There are some small differences among the writers, who have copied from Ctesias about the true number of kings from Ninus to Sardanapalus, as well as about the sum of the duration of their reigns; but if what I have offered in defence of Ctesias himself may be admitted, " the mistakes of those who have copied from him will be easily corrected in the proper place.

I hope the digressions in this work will not be thought too many, or too tedious; being occasioned by the circumstances of those times

" Marsh. Can. Chron. p. 485. Speaking of Ctesias catalogue, he says, De cujus veritate, cum nemo adhuc sit qui dubitaverit, &c.

of which I treat. I have not made it my business to write at large upon any of them; but thought a few general hints of what might be offered upon them, would be both acceptable to the reader, and not foreign to the purpose I have in hand; all of them, if duly considered, tending very evidently to illustrate the sacred history. There are two subjects which the reader might expect at the beginning of this work; one of them is the account of the creation of the world, the other the state of Adam and Eve in paradise, their fall, and their loss of it. Of the former of these I would give some account in this place; the latter, I think, may be treated with greater clearness, when I come hereafter to speak of Moses and his writings.*

I. The account which Moses gives of the creation, is to this purport:

In the beginning, GoD created the heavens and the earth.

* See this subject treated at large in the Supplement to this work. EDIT.