d blishment of Nebuchadnezzar's empire; but the sacred history does not pursue a narration of these matters; for as the writers of it called the kings of the ancient Assyrian empire kings of Elam when they resided there, kings of Nineveh, or of Assyria, when they lived in that city or country; so they call the several kings, which arose after the fall of Sardanapulus' empire, kings of the countries where they held their residence; and all that can fairly be deduced from the words of Nehemiah is, that the troubles of the Jews began, whilst there were kings reigning in Assyria, that is, before the empire of these countries was removed to Babylon. 4. "Sesac and Memnon (says our learned author) were great conquerors, and reigned over Chaldea, Assyria, and Persia; but in their histories there is not a word of any opposition made to them by an Assyrian empire then standing. On the contrary, Gen. xiv. 1. 1 Chron. v. 26. d Jonah iii. 6. Susiana, Media, Persia, Bactria, Armenia, Cappadocia, &c. were conquered by them, and continued subject to the kings of Egypt, till after the long reign of Ramesses, the son of Memnon." This objection, in its full strength, is, that the Egyptians conquered and possessed the very countries which were in the heart of the supposed Assyrian empire, in the times when that empire is supposed to have flourished; and therefore certainly there was in those days no such empire. I answer, 1. The Egyptians made no great conquests until the times of Sesac, in the reign of Rehoboam, about A. M. 3033, about two hundred years before Sardanapalus. This Sesac was their famous Sesostris. I am sensible, that there have been many very learned writers who have thought otherwise. Agathias supposed Sesostris to be long before Ninus and Semiramis; and the Scholiast" upon Apollonius sets f f Marsham. Can. Chron. p. 358. L. 2. p. 55. See Prideaux not. Histor. in Chron. Marm. Ep. 9. Id. ibida him two thousand nine hundred years before the first Olympiad; but the current opinion of the learned has not gone into this fabulous antiquity. Aristotle thought him long before the times of Minos;' Strabo, Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus all represent him as having lived before the Trojan war; and Eusebius and Theophilus, from a hint of Manetho in Josephus, supposed him to be brother of Armais or Danaus, quam vere nescio, says the most learned Dean Prideaux.' Indeed, there are no prevalent reasons to admit of this relation; however, the sentiments of all these writers may not differ from one another, but Sesostris may consistently with all of them be supposed to have lived about the time when Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, which I think has been the common opinion. But if we look into the Egyptian antiquities, and examine the particulars as collected by Diodo Politic. 1. 7. c. 10. rus; we shall find great reason not to think him thus early. Diodorus Siculus informs us, that there were fifty-two successive kings after Menes or Mizraim, before Busiris came to the crown." Busiris had eight successors, the last of whom was Busiris the second." Twelve generations or descents after him reigned Myris, and seven after Myris, Sesostris; so that according to this computation, Sesostris was about eighty successions after Menes or Mizraim. Diodorus must indeed have made a mistake in this computation; for from the death of Menes, A. M. 1943, to Sesac about A. M. 3033, are but 1090 years; and fifty-five successions may very well carry us down thus far, as may appear from Sir John Marsham's Tables of the kings of Egypt. The ancient Egyptian writers are known to have lengthened their antiquities, by supposing all their kings to have reigned successively, when many of Diodor. lib. 1. p. 29. • Id. p. 33. See vol. i. b. 4. p. 184. . Id. ibid. ▾ Id. p. 34. them were contemporaries, and reigned over different parts of the country, in the same age. Undoubtedly Diodorus Siculus was imposed upon by some accounts of this sort, for there were not really so many successions, as he imagined, between Mizraim and Sesostris. But then there is a particular suggested by him, which must fully convince us, that his computation cannot be so reduced as to place Sesostris about the time of Moses. He observes, that after the time of Menes, one thousand four hundred years passed before the Egyptians performed any considerable actions worth recording. The number one thousand four hundred is indeed thought to be a mistake. Rhodomanus corrects it in the margin, and writes one thousand and forty. We will take this number: from the death of Mizraim one thousand and forty years will carry us down very near to the time of Sesac; for fifty years after it, Sesac came against Jerusalem. Thus ac cording to this account they had no famous |