in the names, and dates, and actual number of the sovereigns who are described as having reigned during a certain period; and nothing, I admit, is so likely to puzzle the understanding, and shake the belief, of a young chronologer. For indeed we find in different authors the names of the same dynasty of kings written so differently as to defy and baffle all the efforts of etymological skill; as it is impossible to discover, in some of them, the slightest resemblance, either in their orthography or import. But this objection, which seems so insurmountable at first sight, gradually disappears by reading, and in a great measure vanishes with the full knowledge of eastern history. By this reading we discover, that almost every king had more than one name, and therefore it was a mere matter of taste and convenience to an historian by which of them he should call him. Indeed, it seems to have been an ancient custom in Asia and Egypt, for the reigning sovereign to give to his son some important government, with the title of king, which title or name was generally changed as soon as he succeeded to his father. The son of Shapor the Second, for instance, was called Kermanshah by his subjects, and by the European writers Carmasat; but when he mounted the throne of Persia he assumed the name of Baharam. Indeed, there is scarcely a king or a sovereign of Asia, of whom the same thing may not be said from time immemorial. The sacred pages will bear me out in establishing the truth of this assertion.

In the books of Chronicles we find long lists of names, which, when compared with the corresponding series in other parts of the Old Testament, cannot be recognised. Esther, the favourite wife of Ahasuerus, appears under the name of Hadassah, the niece of Mordecai the Jew, while by the Persian historian she is exhibited under the appellation of Satira; a Hebrew compiler therefore, would speak of her as the patriotic Hadassah, a Grecian historian as the prudent Esther, and a Persian poet, or even a Persian chronographer, as the beautiful Satira. The same must be said of Daniel. You all know that he is sometimes designated by the appellation of Belteshazzar; while the three children, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, come forth, upon a change of circumstances, under the familiar denominations of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.

If from the sacred pages we turn our attention to profane history, whether connected or unconnected with the events recorded by the holy Scripture, we find the same alteration of names. In Ezekiel we read that he was brought "to the door of the gate of the Lord's house, and behold there sat women weeping for Thammuz." This Thammuz is probably the Thaumas of the Greek mythology, but undoubtedly the Adonis of the Phoenicians. The Nimrod of Genesis is the Evechoiis of the Chaldeans; the Ramesses of Egypt, the Sesostris of the Greeks; and you remember, no doubt, how these latter distorted the spelling of most of the

Egyptian names, whether belonging to their Pantheon, or to the dynasties of their monarchs, so as to be no longer recognisable.

Upon all these considerations, I have a right to conclude that we are not hastily to pronounce against the credibility of ancient writers, on the simple ground of their occasionally differing among themselves, either in the names, in the number, or in the dates of the different sovereigns. Because, these very differences when once reconciled on the basis of sound learning and criticism, the authority of the history, so far from being shaken or impaired, receives a stronger confirmation, inasmuch as they shew the historians to have derived their accounts from different sources, and different authorities.

I am aware that the opinion of many learned writers will be found in opposition to this statement of mine, because as having assumed, upon the authority of several ancient historians, that Ninus was the son of a chief called Belus, they have laboured to shew that Belus and Nimrod were the same person; and in this way, as they make Ninus to be the son of Nimrod, they deny the existence of the three dynasties which we have proved to have existed between these two celebrated individuals. But with the utmost deference to the labours and talents of these learned writers, I may be permitted to observe, that this appellation of Belus was not the name of a particular individual, but, like the appellation of Pharaoh, a title of honour, a political distinction, which invariably

distinguished the sovereign; though, in progress of time, it was extended even to those who could boast of a royal descent. It signified, in fact, the lord, the chief, the master; and for this reason, many are the kings, both in the Chaldean and Assyrian dynasties, who bear this designation of Belus; and Dr. Russell observes, that this same title was conferred by the Phoenicians, the Persians, the Syrians, the Phrygians, and even by the remote people of India, on all their sovereigns.

The opinion therefore, of those who deny the existence of the three dynasties reigning in Babylon, previous to the conquest of Ninus, on the supposition that this prince was the son of Belus, whom they pretend to have been no other than Nimrod, is perfectly gratuitous and inadmissible; and unable to overturn the position, that a period of 657 years intervened between these two princes, which renders Ninus a contemporary of Abraham, and proves, that, at the time of this Patriarch, not only Egypt, but even Babylon and Assyria, had obtained a great degree of civilization and power.

I have entered into all this discussion, not with the idea of giving you a lecture on Chronology, for this subject would require a whole set of Lectures, to be treated properly; but simply to convince you that the antiquity of the monuments of Egypt, however high it may appear to you, is not incredible, nor contrary to the authority of the holy Scriptures. For amongst the primitive Christians, we find the Fathers of the Church, and most of

the defenders of our religion, to have adopted, on the authority of the Septuagint, a computation which approaches very near, and sometimes goes beyond, the chronology of Manetho; and in many points perfectly coincides with the account of this Egyptian historian.

But here again it may be objected, that the periods of thousand and thousand years which Manetho gives to the Egyptian monarchy, even before the age of the Pharaohs, exceeds so much the computation of the Septuagint, as to appear not less fabulous than the annals recorded by the Chinese and Babylonian Chronicles; and therefore, this circumstance alone is quite sufficient to authorize us to look upon his history as a compound of fables, entitled to no credit whatever.

This objection is certainly strong, but it is not fatal. For the enormous duration of the Egyptian annals, as they are reported by Manetho, as well as those related by other writers of the Chaldean, Babylonian, and Chinese nations, may be so reduced as to agree with the computation of the sacred pages, according to the most approved chronological systems, explained by some of the most celebrated Fathers of the Christian Church, well versed in Oriental languages and antiquities.

What I am going to state is chiefly taken from a letter published at Amsterdam, by Gibert, in the year 1743, a work which I can safely recommend to those who wish to acquire a full knowledge of this interesting subject.