rum, hath not been careful to give us notice how long Belosus, Baladan, Pul, or Tiglat Pulassar did reign, (perhaps because he found it not expressed in Scaliger,) but is content to set down Baladan for the same person with Nabonassar, which Scaliger himself revoked. In this case therefore I must lay down the plot of these divided kingdoms, in such sort as I find it contrived by Augustinus Torniellus; who only of all that I have seen sets down the succession, continuance, and acts of those that reigned in Assyria after Sardanapalus, distinguishing them from Belosus and his posterity, of whom he hath the like remembrance. This Torniellus is a regular clerk of the congregation of St. Paul, whose annals were printed the last year; he appears to me a man of curious industry, sound judgment, and free spirit; yet many times, and, I take it, wilfully, forgetful of thanking or mentioning those protestant writers, by whose books he hath received good information, and enriched his works by inserting somewhat of theirs. But in this business he hath openly professed to follow Scaliger, whose help, without wrong or dishonour to himself, he hath both used and acknowledged. For mine own part, I will not spare to do right unto Torniellus, but confess myself to have received benefit by his writing, and wish that his annals had sooner come to light; for that as he hath much confirmed me in some things, so would he have instructed and emboldened me to write more fully and less timorously in other things, which now I have not leisure to revise. Particularly in that conjecture (which I had faintly delivered, and yet feared lest it had over-hastily passed out of my hand, and been exposed to other men's constructions) of the four kings that invaded the valley of Siddim, and were slain by Abraham, I find him adventuring, as I have done, to say, P that they may probably be thought to have been some petty lords; the contrary opinion of all writers notwithstanding. But now let us consider how he hath ordered these last Assyrian and Babylonian kings.

After the destruction of Sardanapalus, Arbaces being

P Chap. 1. section 13.

the most mighty, sought to get all to himself, but was opposed by Belosus; in which contention one Phul, a powerful man in Assyria, sided with Belosus, and they two prevailed so far, that finally Arbaces was content to share the empire with them, making such a division thereof, as was long after made of the Roman empire between Octavian, Anthony, and Lepidus.

Another conjecture is, (for Torniellus offers not this, or the rest, as matter of certainty,) that Arbaces made himself sovereign lord of all, and placed the seat of his empire in Media, appointing Belosus his lieutenant in Babylonia, and Phul in Assyria. But in short space, that is in four years, it came to pass, by the just judgment of God, that Phul and Belosus rebelled against Arbaces, like as Arbaces had done against Sardanapalus, and, instead of being his viceroys, made themselves absolute kings. And to this latter opinion Torniellus himself leans, holding it much the more probable, as being more agreeable to that which is found in profane histories. Why he did make and publish the former supposition, resolving to hold the latter, I shall anon, without any wrong to him, make bold to guess. Having thus devised how Phul and Belosus might, at the first, attain to be kings, he orders their time and their successors in this manner.

Four years after Arbaces, Phul begins to reign, and continues eight and forty years. Theglat-phalasar (whose name, and the names of other princes, I write diversely, according as the authors whom I have in hand are pleased to diversify them) succeeding unto Phul, reigned three and twenty. Salmanassar followed him, and reigned ten. After him Sennacherib reigned seven: and when he was slain, Asarhaddon his son ten years; in whom that line failed.

The same time that Phul took upon him as king of Assyria, or not long after, (why not rather afore? for so it had been more likely,) Belosus usurped the kingdom of Babylon, and held it threescore and eight years; at the least threescore and eight years did pass before Nabonassar followed him in the possession.

To Nabonassar, whom, with Scaliger, he thinks to be Baladan, are assigned six and twenty years; then two and fifty to Merodach,or Mardocempadus; four and twenty to Ben Merodach; and lastly, one and twenty to Nabolassar, the father of Nabuchodonosor, who is like to offer matter of further disputation.

Concerning the original of these Assyrian and Babylonian kingdoms, I may truly say, that the conjectures of other men, who give all to Belosus, and confound him with Phul, appear to me more nearly resembling the truth. Neither do I think that Torniellus would have conceived two different ways, by which Phul might have gotten Assyria, (for how Belosus came to get Babylon, it is plain enough,) if either of them alone could have contented him. He adheres to the latter of the two, as better agreeing with Diodore and other historians. But he perceived that to make Phul on the sudden king of Assyria, or to give him so noble a province, as would of itself invite him to accept the name and power of a king, was a thing most unlikely to have happened, unless his deserts (whereof we find no mention) had been proportionable to so high a reward. And for this cause (as I take it) hath he devised the means, whereby Phul might be made capable of so great a share in the empire. If this were a true or probable supposition, then would a new doubt arise, Why this Phul, being one of the three that divided all between them, was utterly forgotten by all historians? yea, why this division, itself, and the civil wars that caused it, were never heard of. Questionless the interverting of some treasures by Belosus, with his judgment, condemnation, and pardon following, were matters of far less note. Therefore I do not see how one of the two inconveniences can this way be avoided; but that either we must confess the dominion given to Phul to have been exceeding his merits, or else his merits, and name withal, to have been strangely forgotten; either of which is enough to make us think, that rather the conjecture inferring such a sequel is wide of the truth. As for the rebellion of Phul and Belosus against Arbaces, it was almost im

possible for the Assyrians to recover such strength in four years, as might serve to hold out in rebellion: for Belosus it was needless to rebel, considering that Arbaces did not seek to molest him, but rather permitted (as being an overgreat favourer of liberty) even the Medes, that were under his own government, to do what they listed.

But it is now fit that we peruse the catalogue of these kings; not passing through them all, (for some will require a large discourse in their own times,) but speaking of their order and time in general. If it be so unlawful to think that some of Annius's tales (let them all be counted his tales which are not found in other authors as well as in his) may be true, especially such as contradict no acknowledged truth, or apparent likelihood, why then is it said that Phul did reign in Assyria eight and forty years? For this hath no other ground than Annius. It is true, that painful and judicious writers have found this number of years to agree fitly with the course of things in history; yet all of them took it from Annius. Let it therefore be the punishment of Annius's forgery, (as questionless he is often guilty of this crime,) that when he tells truth or probability, he be not believed for his own sake; though for our own sakes we make use of his boldness, taking his words for good, whereas (nothing else being offered) we are unwilling ourselves to be authors of new, though not unprobable conjectures. Herein we shall have this commodity, that we may without blushing alter a little to help our own opinions, and lay the blame upon Annius, against whom we shall be sure to find friends that will take our part.

The reigns of Theglathphalassar and Salmanassar did reach, by Annius's measure, to the length of five and twenty years the one, and seventeen the other; Torniellus hath cut off two from the former, and seven from the latter of them, to fit (as I think) his own computation; using the liberty whereof I spake last: for that any author, save our good Metasthenes, or those that borrowed of him, hath gone about to tell how long each of these did reign, it is more than I have yet found. To Sennacherib and Asarhad

don, Torniellus gives the same length of reign which is found in Metasthenes. I think there are not many that will arrogate so much unto themselves, as may well be allowed unto a man so judicious as is Torniellus: yet could I wish that he had forborne to condemn the followers of Annius in this business, wherein he himself hath chosen, in part, rather to become one of them, than to say, as else he must have done, almost nothing.

The like liberty we find that he hath used in measuring the reigns of the Chaldeans; filling up all the space between the end of Sardanapalus and the beginning of Nabonassar, with the threescore and eight years of Belosus. In this respect it was, perhaps, that he thought Belosus might have begun his reign somewhat later than Phul; for sixty-eight years would seem a long time for him to hold a kingdom, that was no young man when he took possession of it. But how is any whit of his age abated by shortening his reign, seeing his life reacheth to the end of such a time, as were alone, without adding the time wherein he was a private man, enough for a long liver. Indeed forty-eight years had been somewhat of the most, considering that he seems by the story to have been little less at such time as he joined with Arbaces; and therefore the addition of twenty years did well deserve that note, (which Torniellus advisedly gives,) that if his reign extended not so far, then the reign of such as came after him occupied the middle time unto Nabonassar.

I neither do reprehend the boldness of Torniellus in conjecturing, nor the modesty of Scaliger and Sethus Calvisius in forbearing to set down as warrantable, such things as depend only upon likelihood. For things, whereof the perfect knowledge is taken away from us by antiquity, must be described in history, as geographers in their maps describe those countries, whereof as yet there is made no true discovery; that is, either by leaving some part blank, or by inserting the land of pigmies, rocks of loadstone, with headlands, bays, great rivers, and other particularities, agreeable to common report, though many times controlled by fol