having been born, agreeable to the Septuagint, till the year 2794, the Migration, according to the date the learned gentleman has followed, must have taken place 122 years before his existence.

e

BUT, however inconfiftent he might have been with all the chronologies of the Sacred Writings; a conformity with himself might perhaps have been expected. But even this we do not find. I have neither time, inclination, nor room, to dwell upon many points. I fhall only mention one. In his inveftigation of the Egyptian Dynafties, he places the Exodus of the children of Ifrael, in the year before Christ 1494; (which is within about two years of our Bible chronology): their refidence in Egypt he computes at 215 years: the Shepherd kings, whom he supposes to be Cuthites, ruled over Egypt 259 years; and were expelled 37 years before the settlement of Jacob and his fons. Now if these fums are added together, the Cuthite Invasion must have been 2005 years before Chrift; or (as he here goes by the Hebrew chronology) in the year of the world 1999; which is no fewer than 673 years before he, in another place, makes them, or any of the fons of Noah, to have moved from the spot where the ark refted after the flood. So that the

;

three great objects of this elaborate work the Deluge, the Migration, and the expeditions of the fons of Chus, are left, in a point of fuch importance as time, fo wholly unfettled, as to vary in every circumstance and to differ,

in fome, near 800 years.'

To borrow a favourite word from the learned gentleman, there is fomething chaotic in all this. Will he allow me to suppose any writer of general hiftory to have dated one fact by the Olympiads; another by the the era of Nabonaffar; and a third by the epoch of the Seleucida? fhould we in another place find, according to the authors from whom he had tranfcribed, the Chriftian, the Dioclefian, and the Mohammedan eras, promiscuously followed, without fpecification or arrangement: what opinion would the learned gentleman entertain of that writer's accuracy? What judgment would he form of his authenticity, even in facts he could not difprove? He might indeed give him credit as a very ingenious compiler: he might poffibly admire his fancy for the marvellous:but whilst his eras were thus a-dancing the hays, I am much afraid he would think rather irreverently of his authority; and look upon him as a merry man, fhould he gravely

tell us, that his Book was to be the bafis of Hifiory, the ftandard of criticism, and the guide to the ftudies of youth.

g

SECT. HI.

Of Mr. Bryant's Theory of the Difperfion; and of the expeditions of the Sons of Chus,

N the former part of this Differtation, (p.

IN

110) I have obferved, that the Sacred Writings afford no light to trace the wanderings of the Cuthites: and Mr. Bryant, in his Apology, expreffes much furprize at this opinion +. But as he has produced no arguments to shake it, I fhall endeavour not only

+ The basis of his hypothefis he pretends to find in the following words: "It is faid by Mofes, that Chus begat "several children, and among them Nimrod, who built "Babel. And it is farther faid, that thofe, who built "Babel, the friends and affociates of Nimrod, were disper"fed." Apology, P. 79. In respect to this, I shall only beg leave to know in what part of the Sacred Writings the words in Italics are to be found. The reft will not in the least support his System.

:

to defend what I have already faid; but to show, that his doctrine of the Dispersion has no foundation in history or reason that it is in oppofition to Scripture and destructive even of the system he proposes to support.* PREPARATORY to the great part which he makes the Cuthites play upon the theatre of the world, there are a chain of leading circumstances, taken for facts, which are precisely the very points that require most of all to be demonftrated. For the leaft failure in the truth of one link deftroys the reasoning; confounds the subsequent events; and leaves the whole a complete fable.

1. THE General Division of the earth, he fays, was distinct from and prior to the Babel Dispersion (Mythol. Vol. III. p. 18. et feq.). 2. That, at the general Migration, Shem and Japhet departed immediately from Ararat, for the regions allotted to them: but the line of Ham, and particularly the fons of Chus, rebelling against the divine appointment, remained for fome time behind: and, then marching off under Nimrod, took a circuit towards Chaldea; from whence they forcibly ejected Afhur (ib. p. 17. 22. et feq.) 3. That this body, under Nimrod, were those who (Gen. ch. xi.) are faid to have journeyed from the Eaft to the Plain of Shinar: that they

were the builders of the Tower: and that they were the only objects of the Dispersion (ib. p. 23. 26. &c.) ¢

As it is immaterial to the prefent difquifition, to enquire how far the first position may be just or not, I fhall, for the fake of argument, allow it, however uncertain, to be still poffible and proceed to confider, whether the other heads, fuppofing this first principle admitted, will stand the touchftone of truth or probability.

Now let us fuppofe, with the learned gentleman, all mankind to be still in the vicinity of Mount Ararat; and the Divifion of the earth to have been just made by the divine appointment, agreeable to his own allotment. (Vol. III. p. 17.) "The children of Shem "in general had Afia for their lot; and Ja

66

phet had Europe, and Ham the large con"tinent of Africa." With this diftribution, we are told the Cuthites were diffatisfied. They would not migrate with the other branches of Noah's family. They wandered about, for fome time, not in the route to their appointed country: and made at length a violent trespass upon the fons of Shem. But where is the least evidence of this disobe-` dience, upon which fo much is made to depend? Does Scripture, either directly, or by