fame tempeft, and involved in the like calamity. Hence arose the tradition among the Arabians that the 'Amalekites conquered Egypt. This war had probably been of long continuance: and the Scripture feems to intimate as much; though it gives an account of the finishing part only. There is, I am afraid, too much reafon to think that war commenced, as foon as nations were conftituted. The Scripture speaks of the king of Elam as principal: the Affyrians have taken the chief merit of it to themselves: and the fons of Aram, according to Eupolemus, made the fame claim. So early was the pride of conqueft. It is plain from the history of this war, as it is given us by Mofes, that fome notable occurrences had preceded: which not relating to the grand scheme of Providence, that was carrying on, are omitted by the divine historian. We find, that great animofities had fubfifted among particular nations; that fome had been put under contributions that they had been tributaries feveral years: which could not have been effected without armies taking the field, and some struggles for liberty, before fuch service could have been impofed. Jofephus2 and the later historians fpeak of this as a pentapolitan war; and confider it as carried on chiefly, if not folely, with the five princes of the Asphaltic vale. But they were but an inconfiderable part of it; and were taken in towards the close, after a grand fweep of many, and far more powerful, nations.

This feems to have been the war, and these the conquefts of the Affyrians, so often alluded to, and so greatly magnified by the antients: which, without doubt, were very confiderable. The whole of these transactions is in general attribut ed to Ninus, who took Babylon: but the chief part may with more propriety be ascribed to Arioch; of whofe fame there are many, though obfcure, traces. He probably finished,

*Al Soyuti. See Universal Hift. Book. I. Cap. 3. Sect. VI. 2 Ant. Jud. Lib. 1. Cap. 9.

what

what was begun by Ninus. He was called Bel Arioch, or Belus the lion, from a word of that fignification: and by the Greeks he is mentioned under the title of Bλ05 Agelos, or Belus Martius; for Agns, Mars is from, a lion. We are informed by Cedrenus, that one of the early fucceffors to 3 Ninus was called Thouros: that he was the son of Zames, the fame as Ninyas; that his father gave him the name of Ares ; but that the people called him Baal, and payed him divine honours. All which relates to Arius; for he was the fon of Zames. 4 METα NAVOD Θερος των Ασσυρίων βασιλεύει. Τετον ο πατηρ αυτός Ζαμις Αρεα εκάλεσεν.-Τετῳ τῳ Αρει πρωτην 5ηλην ανέςησαν οι Ασσύριοι, και ὡς θεον προσκυνεσι, Βααλ ονομαζοντες. This is a very curious piece of history, that Cedrenus has preferved in memory of this antient hero, the son of Zames, and grandfon of Ninus: who is supposed by 5 Marsham to have been the Zeus Evvadios of 'Heftiaus. We learn from it, besides the hiftorical account, that Belus, Bel, and Baal were pro→ perly the name of a deity, but affumed by men as a title. It explains the meaning of Jugos agns, and μvnoate de μνησαθε Jugidos aλuns, which occur so often in Homer: and we may learn from it, that the meaning of the word Arioch is Ouc Ares, "the mighty lion;" or, according to the later acceptation. of it, "the great god of war.'

"

There is a paffage in Diodorus Siculus, which relates to this war; but is mentioned in a very confused manner. He makes Ninus very truly the invader of the Babylonians, but joins him with the Arabians, whose king he calls Ariaus: by

3 Ninus, Semiramis, Zames or Ninyas, Arius. Eufeb. and Syncellus. • Cedren. Compend. Hiftoriar. pag. 16. Edit. Paris. 1647.

5 Canon Chronic. ad Sec. I. pag. 32.

See Jofeph. Ant. Jud. Lib. 1. Cap. 4.

7. Μετα δε Νινον εβασίλευσεν Ασσυρίων Θέρας ονόματι, όντινα μετωνόμασεν τοτε πατηρ Ζαμης-Αρεα. Ουτος εγενετο πικρος πολεμισης. Chron. Pafch. pag. 37. Αλκης μεν και ρωμης συμβολον αυτοῖς ὁ λεων. Clem. Alex. Strom, Lib. 5. pag. 567. Hence all the Perfian names in Arez.

8 Diodorus Sic. Lib. 2. pag. 64.

by which means he has perplexed both the time and order of hiftory. Ariaus, or, as he is otherwife called, Arius was certainly an Affyrian; and a fucceffor of Ninus: and the Arabians were the very people, that the Affyrians attacked. The king of Babylonia was of the posterity of Nimbrod and Cush, the great heads of the people called afterwards Arabians: for as yet there was hardly any nation of that name: and if there were, yet it is scarce credible, that they should be engaged against their own people, and in alliance with their enemy the Allyrian. When therefore it is mentioned by Diodorus, that Ninus marched to Babylonia, τον δυναςευοντα των Αράβων παραλαCwv, "taking with him the king of the Arabians;" it should be corrected from Eupolemus before quoted, and the true reading will be found Twv Agaμwv, "being joined by the king of Aram,” his neighbour and natural ally. In like manner, instead of Agabias 9in another place, the word Agapias fhould be fubftituted; which was doubtless the reading that occurred in the original history, from whence that of Diodorus was copied. The Greeks knew nothing of Aram or Aramia; and therefore altered to Arabian and Arabia, what came under that article. But the true reading, I think, may be proved, both from the tenour of the Scripture hiftory, and from the evidence of Eupolemus. Tidal is by the Greek Scholiaft called Barλeus ПaμQuias, and in the Samaritan, the king of the Chammin : but in the original, "Tidal king of nations." This seems to be a Hebrew expreffion, analogous to that of Isaiah, 1 where the country above Jordan is called "Galilee of the nations." It is quoted by St. Matthew : 2 Γη Ζαβυλων και γη Νεφθαλειμ, ὁδον θα λάσσης, πέραν της Ιορδανε, Γαλιλαία των εθνών, by fome interpreted, Galilæa populofa. It was indeed populous; but that is not the circumstance intimated here: and it is more pro

Αραβίας

9 Diodorus Sic. Lib. 2. pag. 64.

1 Chap. 9. v. I.

2 Chap. 4. v. 15.

perly

perly rendered in the English verfion, "Galilee of the Gentiles. It was more mixed with foreigners and aliens, than the other parts of the Jewish territories: and seems on that account to have been abhorred by thofe of Jerufalem, who would not allow any good thing to proceed from it. 3" Search and "look: for out of Galilee arifeth no prophet." Jofephus fpeaking of upper and lower Galilee fays, that they were furrounded with frange tribes and nations; 4 εθνεσιν αλλοφύλοις κεκυκλωμένα.. But this was not all: they were certainly mixed with them; as was likewife Cafarea, though not in Galilee. The firft occafion of the war with the Romans arose from a quarrel 5 between the Syrians and Jews of that place. It was upon the fame account that Galilee was called by the like title in Maccabees; 6 Επισυνήχθαι ἐπ ̓ αυτες εκ Πτολεμαΐδος και Τυρε και Σιδωνος και πασης Γαλιλαίας αλλοφύλων: in our translation-" They of Ptolemaïs, and of Tyrus, and Sidon, " and all Galilee of the Gentiles." In confequence of this mixture the people of these parts were to be diftinguished by their manner of speaking, either the tone or dialect. The man in the Gospel fays to St. Peter, 7 xai yag гadıλαios ɛi, xai ý λαλια σε όμοιάζει. I have dwelt upon these circumstances ; because some perfons, among whom is the learned Grotius, have imagined that Tidal was king of Galilee, meerly from his being termed "king of nations.” He must at this rate have been a Canaanite, and at the fame time warred upon the Canaanites, in confederacy with princes of another race: which is not probable. But there is not the least ground for the suppofition. He was king of Aram: and his kingdom, or at least his army, did not confist of one people or family, like that of Elam or Afhur; but was made up of different tribes. Some of them

poffibly were of the fons of Japhet, of the race of Tubal and Mefbech, called afterwards the Mofchi and Tibareni; who bordered upon the fons of Aram, and might be confederate with them. The mixture of nafions in Galilee was in confequence of the captivity of the ten tribes; and the captivity of Judah afterwards. It began then to admit foreigners: but in the days of Tidal it was occupied by the Canaanite, and uniformly peopled.

Of the DEPARTURE of the

FIRST SHEPHERDS FROM EGYPT:

AND OF THE

AMALEKITES.

WE

E are informed by Manetho, that after a long feries of tyranny and oppreffion the Cuseans were at last opposed by the joint forces of Egypt, and were forced to retreat before them. They were first discomfited by king Mifphragmuthofis, and driven to their city Avaris: where they were beleaguered by Amofis or Thummofis, the fon of the former prince; who ftreightened them very much. This place, where they were shut up, is faid to have been 10000 arouras

in