the land against Egypt. Under him the prophecy of Amos may be said to have been completed, and the affliction of the Israelites carried on to the river of the Wilderness," i. e. to the river Sihor at the entrance of Egypt on the Wilderness of Etham. Thus the Israelites were indeed greatly afflicted by the kings of the Assyrian empire; but not by kings of that Assyrian empire which flourished in the days of Amos, but of another empire of Assyria, which was raised up after his days, upon the ruins and dissolution 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 Assyrian empire, and so concludes from Amos' having intimated that an Assyrian empire should be raised after his time, that there was no Assyrian empire in and before his time; whereas the truth is, there were two Assyrian empires, different from each other, not only in the times of their rise and continuance, but in the extent of their dominions, and the countries which were subject to them.

* Amos ubi sup.

The former began at Ninus, and ended at the death of Sardanapalus; the latter began at Tiglath-Pileser, and ended about one hundred and thirty-five years after, at the destruction of Nineveh by Nabopolassar. The former empire commanded Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Media, and the eastern nations toward India; the latter empire began at Nineveh, reduced Assyria, and extended itself into Media and Persia, then conquered Samaria, Syria, and Palestine, and afterwards subdued Babylon also, and the kingdoms belonging to it."

Our learned author has observed the conquests obtained over divers nations by the kings of Assyria. He remarks from Sennacherib's boast to the Jews, that these conquests were obtained by Sennacherib and his fathers. He represents Sennacherib's. fathers to have been Pul, Tiglath-Pileser and Shalmanezer; and says, that these kings were great conquerors, who with a current of victories had newly overflowed all na

tions round about Assyria, and hereby set up this monarchy. I answer; Pul was not an ancestor of Sennacherib: he was of another family; king of a different empire from that which the fathers of Sennacherib erected. Pul was the father of Sardanapalus: TiglathPileser, the grandfather of Sennacherib, ruined Sardanapalus the son of Pul, got possession of his royal city, and part of his dominions; and he and his posterity erected upon this foundation, a far greater empire than Pul had ever been in possession of. 2, Pul conquered none of the countries mentioned by Sennacherib, as having been subdued by him and his fathers. Pul is, I think, mentioned but twice by the sacred historians. We are told that GoD stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria; and we are informed what Pul did. He came against the land of Israel, when Menahem the son of Gadi had gotten the kingdom; and Menahem gave him a thousand talents of silver, so Pul turned back and stayed not

Newton, p. 273-277.
1 Chron. v. 26.

Usher's Chron. 2 Kings xv. 19.

in the land. Our great and learned author says, that Pul was a great warrior, and seems to have conquered Haran and Carchemish, and Reseph, and Calneh, and Thelassar, and might found or enlarge the city of Babylon, and build the old palace. I answer; Pul made the expedition above-mentioned, but he was bought off from prosecuting it; and we have no one proof that he conquered any one kingdom upon the face of the earth. He enjoyed those dominions which his ancestors had left him, and transmitted them to his son or successor Sardanapalus; therefore, 3, All the fresh victories obtained by the kings of Assyria, by which they appear after these times to have conquered so many lands, began at Tiglath-Pileser, and were obtained by him and his successors, after the dissolution of the ancient Assyrian empire. The hints we have of them, indeed prove, that a great monarchy was raised in these days, by the kings of Assyria; but they do not prove that there had been no Assyrian empire before. The ancient Assyrian empire was broken down about this time, and

2 Kings xv. 20.

8 Newton, p. 278.

its dominions divided amongst those who had conspired against the kings of it. TiglathPileser got Nineveh, and he and his successors by degrees, and by a current of new victories, subdued kingdom after-kingdom, and in time raised a more extensive Assyrian empire than the former had been.

From a general view of what both Sir Isaac Newton and Sir John Marsham have offered about the Assyrian monarchy, it may be thought, that the sacred and profane history differ irreconcileably about it; but certainly the sacred writers did not design to enter so far into the history of the Assyrian empire, its rise or dominions, as these great and most learned authors are desirous to represent. The books of the Old Testament are chiefly confined 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 considered, capable of being brought to a strict agreement and clear connection with the accounts of the profane historians, except in points wherein these have apparently exceeded or deviated from the truth. A romantic humour of magnifying ancient