fore he had completed the capital of his own kingdom? It cannot, I think, be imagined.

As to the supposed impropriety of introducing an account of Assur, where the text is taken up with the genealogy of another family, it is an objection of little weight. It arises from our not seeing things in their true light. We should observe, that it is not properly the history of Assur, which is here given; but the history of Nimrod. He trespassed upon Assur, and forced him out of his original property and the accounts of each are so connected, that one must be mentioned with the other, or the history would be incomplete. Many things recorded in Scripture are not introduced according to precise method: and the like is to be found in all writings. We have in the same book of Moses an account given of 42 Canaan, the son of Ham, antecedent to the genealogy of his family, which comes afterwards in another chapter.

43

Bochart thinks, that the mentioning of Assur's going forth out of Shinar is unnecessary: as it was a circumstance common to all mankind: but I have endeavoured to prove, that all mankind were not concerned in the dispersion from Shinar. Be

42 Gen. c. 9.

43 C. 10.

sides, Bochart does not quote the whole of the passage, but omits, what is immediately subjoined, and of no small moment. The sacred writer does not merely say, that Assur went forth out of the land; but that he went out and builded cities; a circumstance not common to all. These cities were afterwards of great renown; and it was of consequence to be told their founder, and the reason of their being built.

This learned writer tries farther to prove, that the Hebrew term, which is translated by the words went forth, always denotes a martial expedition and he adds, Nimrod poiro dicitur egressus esse in Ass r, nempe ad bellum inferendum. By this we find, that, according to Bochart, Nimrod made war upon the Assyrians, and 44 seized upon their country. I should be glad to know when this happened. Was it antecedent to the general dispersion? If so, colonies had gone forth, and kingdoms were founded, before that event: and the dispersion was not, as he maintains, general; a circumstance, which I have urged before. If it were afterwards; then Nimrod and his associates were left to follow their wicked purposes, when all other families were

44 Quod jure non poterat sibi arrogare, id per yim usurpavit. Bochart. 1. 4. p. 230.

scattered abroad. When the rest of the world was dissipated, the founders of Babel were exempted from the calamity. This, I think, cannot be allowed.

Bochart farther adds, that Nimrod must have been in possession of Assyria: for it was called the land of Nimrod. The converse perhaps might have been true, that the land of Nimrod was called Assyria: for the region of Babylonia and Chaldea was the original country of Assur, and

possessed by Nimrod. But that the region. about Nineve, to which Bochart alludes, was ever referred to Nimrod, I am certain is a groundless surmise and Bochart is mistaken in the passage, which he quotes. His evidence is taken from 45 Micah, where these words are found. Et depascent terram Assyria gladio, et terram Nimrod lanceis ejus: 4 vel si mavis, ostiis ejus. He supposes, that the land of Assur, and the land of Nimrod, of which the prophet here makes mention, were one and the same region. But he is surely guilty of a strange presumption. If this were the purport of the passage, there would be, I think, an unnecessary repetition; and a redundancy not common in the sacred writings. By

45 C. 5. v. 6.

46 Bochart supra.

the land of Assur is plainly meant the region of Assyria; but by the land of Nimrod is signified the country of Babylonia, which was the true and only land of Nimrod. In order to understand the purport of the prophecy, we should consider the time when it was 47 uttered. Micah is foretelling the ruin of the Assyrian empire, of which Babylonia, by conquest, had been made a part. But the Babylonians were at this time disengaging themselves from their dependence, and setting up for themselves. However, as they made a part of the Assyrian empire, they were to share in its calamities. To these events the prophecy alludes; in which two nations, and two different regions, are described. We may therefore be assured, that the land of Assyria, and the land of Nimrod, were two distinct countries.

In consequence of this, it may not be improper to recapitulate what I have before said about the peopling of the regions, of which we have been treating. At the time of the migration from Ararat, in Armenia, the sons of Shem came down through the principal passage in Mount Taurus to the countries which they were to occupy. Elani possessed the region called afterwards Ely

47 Micah prophesied about the times of Salmanassar, and Assarhadon; and of Merodach Baladan of Babylonia.

maïs, upon the lower and eastern part of the Tigris; 48 and opposite to him was Assur. Above Elam was Arphaxad, whose region was afterwards called Arpacitis; and his opposite to the west was Aram. Lud took possession of the country called Audia, Ludia, and bordered upon Tobal, Meshech, Gomer, Ashkenaz, and other sons of Japhet. For they seem at first to have settled in the regions of Asia Minor. The sons of Chus came at last by a different rout from the east, and invaded the territories of Assur, who was obliged to retreat. He accordingly passed northward into the region of Aram, a part of which he occupied ; and to secure himself from his enemy to the south, he built four cities, which are specified by the sacred writer. To shew the disposition of these families in a clearer light, I must refer the reader to the map, which is subjoined.

45 Elam, regio Persidis trans Babylonem. Hieron. Expa uwęα-ons Evoidos eyyus. Stephanus. Byzant.